R. S. A. No. 3994 of 2008 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. S. A. No. 3994 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 8.12.2008 Smt. Kalpana Saxena and others ..... Appellants vs Haryana Urban Development Authority and another .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate, for the appellants. Rajesh Bindal J. The plaintiffs are in appeal before this court against concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below whereby the suit filed by them for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction claiming themselves to be owner in possession of plot measuring 6½ marlas comprising in khasra no. 21//23 situated in Village Jharsa, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the the appellants/plaintiffs claiming that they have purchased the plot in question from Braham Dutt and one Manmohan vide registered sale-deed no. 9911 dated 23.1.1991 and after purchased of the plot raised construction of double storey house. The stand of the defendants was that the land comprising in khasra no. 21//23 situated in revenue estate of Village Jharsa was acquired vide notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) issued on 17.11.1982, which was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act, issued on 10.12.1984. The award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 28.7.1994. Braham Dutt, vendor of the plaintiffs filed a writ petition bearing CWP No. 428 of 1985 which was dismissed by this court on 18.12.1985. Even the Special Leave Petition filed before Hon'ble the Supreme Court was also decided on 13.9.1988. The appellants had also filed CWP No. 812 of 1995 in this court which was dismissed on 9.11.1995 and because of interim stay during the intervening period, the award pertaining to this small plot could not be announced and it was announced on 28.4.1994. It was with this factual matrix that the claim made by the R. S. A. No. 3994 of 2008 (2) appellants/plaintiffs was not found tenable and was dismissed by both the courts below. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that they were bonafide purchaser for a consideration as they did not have the knowledge about the acquisition of land and accordingly title transferred in their favour vide sale-deed dated 23.1.1991 should be protected. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The principle that no one can pass on a better title than what he himself cannot be disputed. It is a case where the land was under acquisition as the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act had already been issued when the sale-deed was registered in favour of the appellants on 23.1.1991. Not only this even civil writ petition filed by the vendor of the appellants challenging the acquisition has also been dismissed. Subsequent thereto even the civil writ petition filed by the appellants in this court had also been dismissed. The notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and the publication thereof in the newspapers is a public notice to all with a presumption that every one concerned is aware of the fact that the land is under acquisition. The plea of bonafide purchaser can be taken in case it is established that the person concerned had taken all the steps, as a prudent man is supposed to take at the time of dealing with the property. In the present case the pleadings and the evidence is totally lacking in that regard. Had the appellants inquired about the ownership of the property or the status as on the date of purchase, they would have certainly come to know that the property was under acquisition regarding which even the writ petition filed by the vendor had already been dismissed. For the reasons recorded above, while concurring with the views expressed by both the courts below, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 8.12.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge