1. In view of the fact that the respondents had purchased the property on 21-5-1983, they cannot have any higher right than what the owner had. Admittedly, the owner had not challenged the notification. Awasthi was the subsequent purchaser from Chote Lal. Notice was given to Chote Lal and Awasthi had not challenged the notification. Therefore, it is not open to the respondents to challenge the notification after they had purchased the property in question. Under these circumstances, the High Court was clearly in error in allowing the Writ Petition No. 15781 of 1983. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs

CAs Nos. 3942 and 3943 of 1995 [Arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 2886 of 1986 and 2899 of 1986]

2. Leave granted

3. In view of the order in civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 1143 of 1986, these appeals are allowed. No costs

CAs No. 3941 of 1995 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2885 of 1986]

4. Though notice was served on the respondent, nobody appears for him. Leave granted. In Gauri Shankar Gaur v. State of U. P. this Court, one of us - K. Ramaswamy, J., elaborately considered and held that certain provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 of 1894, were incorporated in the State Act. Therefore, it is not a case of reference. In consequence, the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984, 68 of 1984 was inapplicable. Unless the State Legislature incorporates the amendment, these cannot be applied to the proceeding initiated under the State Act. The notification acquiring the land, therefore, does not get lapsed

5. The writ petition was also allowed by the High Court on the ground that notice under Section 29 was not served on the respondent. It is stated in the counter-affidavit thus

"It is submitted that the notice under Section 29 of the Adhiniyam was issued and served to the petitioner and in response to the notice under Section 29 of the Adhiniyam the petitioner admittedly filed the objection which has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure 4 with the writ petition itself." *

6. In view of this specific averment, we find that High Court was not justified in allowing the writ petition and quashing the notification. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.