Giving relief to those selling and buying land during an acquisition process initiated by the State Government, the Rajasthan High Court has ruled that such sale and purchase would no longer be void if the Government subsequently de-acquires the land. The Section 90-B proceedings for transfer of title may also be validly undertaken afterward. Justice Ajay Rastogi of the High Court's Jaipur Bench, hearing a petition moved by a private builder and an individual from Alwar district, held that the Divisional Commissioner cannot as a matter of right hear the appeals of persons opposing the Section 90-B proceedings with regard to a private land. The petition was filed by Omway Build Estate and Ghanshyam, who had bought about 70 acres out of a large chunk of land situated in Belaka village of Alwar district. The land was under acquisition for the Rohini Nagar residential scheme for Below Poverty Line (BPL) families, but a Cabinet sub-committee in the previous BJP regime decided to de-acquire 31 acres of the land. Rajesh Agrawal, a dealer with Omway Build Estate, challenged the Section 90-B proceedings while contending that the sale and purchase of a piece of land under acquisition is hit by the Rajasthan Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1976, which was a “facelift” of a corresponding law in force in Delhi since 1972. He claimed that the sale and purchase did not confer any title on the purchaser company. Mr. Agrawal's counsel, Abhinav Sharma, argued before the Court that the restrictions placed by Sections 3 and 4 of the Act render all such transactions void unless a prior permission of the State Government is obtained before the sale and purchase. “There is even a penal provision for three years' imprisonment for those making such transactions. No land can be de-acquired overlooking the public interest,” he said. The Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Meera Sahni relating to the land acquisition proceedings for Delhi Metro railway in the national Capital was also cited before the Bench. The Supreme Court had held that the sale-purchase transaction for such a land could not be validated even by Government. Brushing aside the contentions, the High Court held that the sale might be void “ qua the State Government”, but after the issue of a notification withdrawing the subject land from acquisition, such transfer of land could certainly be considered valid in general for all practical purposes. “Whatever rights are available to the land owners are available to the land holders in whose favour it stood transferred during the acquisition proceedings.” The Judge held that once a Gazette notification for withdrawal of acquisition proceedings is published, “the restriction effect of Section 4 of the Act ceases to subsist and the slate becomes clean. Such transaction or transfer of lands which took place during the interregnum period is held to be valid even against the State Government.”