Land acquisition de-notification invalidated by Supreme Court due to possession taken, lis pendens doctrine applied. Post-acquisition purchasers limited to vendor's title for compensation. Revenue Minister's authority affirmed.

The Supreme Court held that the de-notification of land acquisition was not valid as possession of the land had already been taken, making the application for release of land from acquisition not maintainable. The Court applied the doctrine of lis pendens, stating that the petitioners could not challenge the acquisition proceedings after purchasing the land during pending litigation. The Court emphasized that a purchaser post-Section 4 notification could only claim compensation based on the vendor's title. The Court also dismissed the argument regarding the Revenue Minister's authority in the acquisition proceedings, affirming the entitlement to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act 1894.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the de-notification of land acquisition, legality of land purchase during pending litigation, application of doctrine of lis pendens, and the authority of the Revenue Minister in land acquisition proceedings.

De-notification of land acquisition:
The petitioners challenged the de-notification of land acquisition by the Government of Karnataka. The High Court dismissed their writ petition, and the subsequent Writ Appeal was also rejected. The Supreme Court held that the de-notification was not valid as possession of the land had already been taken, making the application for release of land from acquisition not maintainable. The Court cited previous cases to support the principle that once possession is taken, the land vests in the State free from encumbrances.

Legality of land purchase during pending litigation:
The petitioners purchased the land during the pendency of the appeal filed by the respondent society. The Court held that the doctrine of lis pendens applied in this case, preventing the petitioners from challenging the acquisition proceedings. The Court emphasized that a purchaser of land after the issuance of a Section 4 notification cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings and can only claim compensation based on the vendor's title.

Application of doctrine of lis pendens:
The Court explained the doctrine of lis pendens, stating that during litigation, no new transactions should affect the subject matter of the dispute. The Court highlighted that a transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree just as if they were a party to the suit. The Court referred to various judgments to support the application of this doctrine in land acquisition cases.

Authority of the Revenue Minister:
The petitioners argued that the Revenue Minister had the competence to deal with the acquisition proceedings. However, the Court found no merit in this argument and dismissed the petitions. The Court clarified that the petitioners would be entitled to compensation as determined under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.

---