Whether a subsequent vendee has any locus standi to assail the acquisition process was the issue before Court.
Whether a subsequent vendee has any locus standi to assail the acquisition process was the issue before Court. In view of the facts of the present matter, it was held that it would be a travesty of justice in case the prayer of the Petitioners is allowed wherein the original land owner had already accepted the compensation qua the land.
The petitioners stating to have purchased the land vide sale deed executed in the year was also a lessee after the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the year 1973 and at the present stage cannot seek the benefit of 2013 Act as the cause to invoke provisions of 2013 Act originates from the Old Act under which the Petitioner had no locus-standi to challenge the acquisition.
It was further held that the argument that in view of the 2013 Act, the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed because the Petitioners continued to be in possession of the demised land is not tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case as the provisions of the beneficial legislation cannot be permitted to be misused to the undue advantage of a person, who managed to hold on to the acquired land without any right whatsoever for all these years. It would amount to giving a premium on a wrong doing, which cannot be permitted.
[National Packing Industries v State of Haryana & Ors.]
(P&H HC, 08.08.2014)