Case: SHIVKUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

does not create any interest in immovable property. 25. In Manav Dharam Trust (supra), even the provisions of the Act of 2013 have not been taken into consideration, which prohibits such transactions in particular provisions of section 11, including the proviso to section 24(2). Apart from that, it was not legally permissible to a Division Bench to ignore the decisions of the larger Bench comprising of three Judges and of Co-ordinate Bench. They were not per incuriam and were relevant for deciding the issue of taking possession under Act of 1894, at the instance of purchaser. In case it wanted to depart from the view taken earlier, it ought to have referred the matter to a larger bench. It has been ignored that when a purchase is void, then no declaration can be sought on the ground that the land acquisition under the Act of 2013 has lapsed due to illegality/irregularity of proceedings of taking possession under the Act of 1894. No declaration can be sought by a purchaser under Section 24 that acquisition has lapsed, effect of which would be to get back the land. They cannot seek declaration that acquisition made under the Act of 1894 has lapsed by the challenge to the proceedings of taking possession under the Act of 1894. Such right was not available after the purchase in 2000 and no such right has been provided to the purchasers under the Act of 2013 also. Granting a right to question acquisition would be against the public policy and the law which prohibits such transactions; it cannot be given effect to under the guise of subsequent legislation containing similar provisions. Subsequent legislation does not confer any new right to a person based on such void transaction; instead, it includes a provision prohibiting such transactions without permission of the Collector as provided in Section 11(4). 26. Thus, we have to follow the decisions including that of larger Bench mentioned above, laying down the law on the subject, which still holds the field and were wrongly distinguished. The binding value of the decision of larger and coordinate Benches have been ignored while deciding the Manav Dharam Trust case (supra), it was not open to it to take a different view. The decision in Manav Dharam Trust (supra) is per incuriam in light of this decision of this Court in Mamleshwar Prasad v. Kanahaiya Lal, (1975) 2 SCC 232 , A.R. Anutulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602 , State of Uttar Pradesh v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., (1991) 4 SCC 139 , State of B. Shama Rao v. Union Territory of Pondicherry, AIR 1967 SC 1480 , Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur, (1989) 1 SCC 101 , Narmada Bachao Andolan (III) v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2011 SC 1989 , Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. v. State of Odisha, (2015) 2 SCC 189 and Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Coop. Societies Ltd. 2010 13 SCC 336. 27. We hold that Division Bench in Manav Dharam Trust (supra) does not lay down the law correctly. Given the several binding precedents which are available and the provisions of the Act of 2013, we cannot follow the decision in Manav Dharam Trust (supra) and overrule it. Shri S.N. Bhatt, learned counsel submitted that in case this Court does not agree with the Manav Dharam Trust (supra), the case may be referred to Hon?ble the Chief Justice of India under the provisions of Order VI Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. He has relied upon the decision of this court in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2019) 6 SCC 162 in which, in view of the conflict of opinion of two Division Bench judgments of this Court as to the interpretation of section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the matter was referred to the Hon?ble the Chief Justice of India, for constituting an appropriate Bench. However, in the instant case, the issue is different, whether we have to follow the decision in Manav Dharam Trust (supra) or the earlier decisions of this Court mentioned above. It is apparent that the decisions of the Three Judges Bench are binding on us, and in view of other consistent decisions of this Court, we have to follow them. It is not appropriate to refer the case to larger Bench under Order VI Rule 2 of Supreme Court Rules. We find no fault in the Judgments laying down the law that the purchase after section 4 is void as against the State. We are not impressed with the submission raised on behalf of the purchasers to refer the matter for the constitution of a Larger Bench to the Hon?ble Chief Justice. When decisions of Larger Bench and other Division Bench are available, the case cannot be referred to a Larger Bench. 28. Concerning the illegal colony, averments have been made that the colony is an unauthorized and provisional order was passed to regularise it. The plea taken is contradictory and shows the falsity of the claim raised by the purchasers. That, apart predecessors of the purchaser obtained the land-based on Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, and Will on 9.12.1982. As per averments made in the writ application, Bijender Singh, who was owning ½ share, sold the share to Satya Narain by the documents like Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, or Will. It has also been averred that Om Prakash sold the remaining ½ share to Satya Narain on 11.3.1984 by way of Agreement to Sale, Power of Attorney, or Will. The purchase made through Agreement to Sale, Power of Attorney, or Will by Satya Narain did not confer a title upon him to transfer it to the purchasers apart from the fact that it was void in view of purchase after Section 4. Based on purchase made from such owners whose title was not perfect, purchasers had no derivative title in the eye of law. There was no legally recognized title deed in favor of Satya Narain.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]5. It is crystal clear that for seeking the relief under section 24, the proceedings for taking possession under Act of 1894 have been put into question as illusory one, and possession continues withis not the case set up that compensation had not been paid to purchasers/owners. The only case set up is that physical possession has not been taken and proceedings of taking over possession have been questioned to take advantage of provisions under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. Whereas, averment in the writ petition itself indicates that possession had been taken over in the year 2000 and that unauthorized colonies have come up in the area. Thus, it is clear that possession, if any, is illegal, and in fact, the actual physical possession had been taken, and re-entering in possession in an unauthorized manner can confer no right. There is nothing to doubt that actual physical possession had been taken in 2000. Thus, Section 24(2) is not attracted in the case.Thus, under the provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 2013, challenge to acquisition proceeding of the taking over of possession under the Act of 1894 cannot be made, based on a void transaction nor declaration can be sought under section 24(2) by such incumbents to obtain the land. The declaration that acquisition has lapsed under the Act of 2013 is to get the property back whereas, the transaction once void, is always a void transaction, as no title can be a +cquired in the land as such no such declaration can be sought. It would not be legal, just and equitable to give the land back to purchaser as land was not capable of being sold which was in process of acquisition under the Act of 1894. The Act of 2013 does not confer any right on purchaser whose sale is ab initio void. Such void transactions are not validated under the Act of 2013. No rights are conferred by the provisions contained in the 2013 Act on such a purchaser as against the State.Thus, we have to follow the decisions including that of larger Bench mentioned above, laying down the law on the subject, which still holds the field and were wrongly distinguished. The binding value of the decision of larger and coordinate Benches have been ignored while deciding the Manav Dharam Trust case (supra), it was not open to it to take a different view. The decision in Manav Dharam Trust (supra) is per incuriam in light of this decision of this Court in Mamleshwar Prasad v. Kanahaiya Lal, (1975) 2 SCC 232  , A.R. Anutulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602  , State of Uttar Pradesh v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., (1991) 4 SCC 139  , State of B. Shama Rao v. Union Territory of Pondicherry, AIR 1967 SC 1480  , Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur, (1989) 1 SCC 101  , Narmada Bachao Andolan (III) v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2011 SC 1989  , Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. v. State of Odisha, (2015) 2 SCC 189     and Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Coop. Societies Ltd. 2010 13 SCC 336.  We hold that Division Bench in Manav Dharam Trust (supra) does not lay down the law correctly. Given the several binding precedents which are available and the provisions of the Act of 2013, we cannot follow the decision in Manav Dharam Trust (supra) and overrulein the instant case, the issue is different, whether we have to follow the decision in Manav Dharam Trust (supra) or the earlier decisions of this Court mentioned above. It is apparent that the decisions of the Three Judges Bench are binding on us, and in view of other consistent decisions of this Court, we have to follow them. It is not appropriate to refer the case to larger Bench under Order VI Rule 2 of Supreme Court Rules. We find no fault in the Judgments laying down the law that the purchase after section 4 is void as against the State. We are not impressed with the submission raised on behalf of the purchasers to refer the matter for the constitution of a Larger Bench to the Hon?ble Chief Justice. When decisions of Larger Bench and other Division Bench are available, the case cannot be referred to a Larger Bench.Concerning the illegal colony, averments have been made that the colony is an unauthorized and provisional order was passed to regularise it. The plea taken is contradictory and shows the falsity of the claim raised by the purchasers. That, apart predecessors of the purchaser obtained the land-based on Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, and Will on 9.12.1982. As per averments made in the writ application, Bijender Singh, who was owning ½ share, sold the share to Satya Narain by the documents like Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, or Will. It has also been averred that Om Prakash sold the remaining ½ share to Satya Narain on 11.3.1984 by way of Agreement to Sale, Power of Attorney, or Will. The purchase made through Agreement to Sale, Power of Attorney, or Will by Satya Narain did not confer a title upon him to transfer it to the purchasers apart from the fact that it was void in view of purchase after Section 4. Based on purchase made from such owners whose title was not perfect, purchasers had no derivative title in the eye of law. There was no legally recognized title deed in favor of Satya Narain.