Union of India Vs. Shri Shivkumar Bhargava & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1711 of 1993
Petitioner: Union of India
Respondent: Shri Shivkumar Bhargava & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1711 of 1993
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 17, 1995
Head Note:
LAND ACQUISITION
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
Section 4(1) – Right of ownership to be determined with reference to the date on which Notification under section 4(1) was published and a person who purchases land subsequent to the Notification cannot be said to be owner for allotment of alternative land although he is entitled to claim compensation by virtue of sale made in his favour i.e. of right, title and interest of predecessor – Ownership of date of finalisation of acquisition proceedings is not relevant for allotment of alternative land.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. This appeal by Special Leave arises from the Judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 21.2.1985 made in L.P.A.No. 26 of 1985 dismissing the appeal in limine as barred by limitation.
2. The respondent filed the Writ Petition which came up before the learned Single Judge claiming alternative site on the ground that his land has been acquired for public purpose and that therefore, he is entitled to the benefit under the policy of the Government. The appellant have denied the right. The Single Judge found that though the respondent was not the owner on the date when the Notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published but as on the date when the acquisition was finalised he became the owner by virtue of purchase and that therefore he is entitled to allotment of alternative site. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. This Court has condoned the delay and admitted the appeal.
3. The question for consideration is whether the respondent is entitled to alternative site. The Notification under s. 4(1) of the Act was published on June 29, 1966. In the S.L.P. it was specifically stated that in spite of giving opportunities to the respondent on 1.12.1981 and 8.3.1982 to produce the record to show that he was the owner as on the date of the Notification, he had not produced the record. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent as well as in the grounds it was stated that “it is irrelevant when the respondent purchased the notified land or not. The relevant question is that when the acquisition was finalised, he was the owner of the land and thus he was within the zone of consideration. It is not correct that the answering respondent was not entitled to alternative site.” In view of these averments and contentions raised by the respondent in the counter affidavit vis-a-vis the allegations made by the appellant in the S.L.P., it is clear that as on the date of the Notification published under s. 4(1) of the Act, namely, June 29, 1966 the respondent was not the owner of the land.
4. The policy of the Government indicates that the person whose land was acquired means the owner as on the date, notification was notified for acquisition, and he alone will be entitled to allotment of alternative site. A person who purchases land subsequent to the Notification may be entitled to claim compensation by virtue of sale made in his favour, namely, the right, title and interest the predecessor had but, he cannot be said to be the owner for allotment since the right of ownership would be determined with reference to the date on which Notification under s. 4(1) was published. This was the view of this Court in another case while considering the Full Bench Judgment of the Delhi High Court. Under these circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The respondent cannot be considered to be the owner as on the date of Notification under s. 4(1) published in the Gazette. The direction given by the learned Single Judge is accordingly quashed. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
1. This appeal by Special Leave arises from the Judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 21.2.1985 made in L.P.A.No. 26 of 1985 dismissing the appeal in limine as barred by limitation.
2. The respondent filed the Writ Petition which came up before the learned Single Judge claiming alternative site on the ground that his land has been acquired for public purpose and that therefore, he is entitled to the benefit under the policy of the Government. The appellant have denied the right. The Single Judge found that though the respondent was not the owner on the date when the Notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published but as on the date when the acquisition was finalised he became the owner by virtue of purchase and that therefore he is entitled to allotment of alternative site. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. This Court has condoned the delay and admitted the appeal.
3. The question for consideration is whether the respondent is entitled to alternative site. The Notification under s. 4(1) of the Act was published on June 29, 1966. In the S.L.P. it was specifically stated that in spite of giving opportunities to the respondent on 1.12.1981 and 8.3.1982 to produce the record to show that he was the owner as on the date of the Notification, he had not produced the record. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent as well as in the grounds it was stated that “it is irrelevant when the respondent purchased the notified land or not. The relevant question is that when the acquisition was finalised, he was the owner of the land and thus he was within the zone of consideration. It is not correct that the answering respondent was not entitled to alternative site.” In view of these averments and contentions raised by the respondent in the counter affidavit vis-a-vis the allegations made by the appellant in the S.L.P., it is clear that as on the date of the Notification published under s. 4(1) of the Act, namely, June 29, 1966 the respondent was not the owner of the land.
4. The policy of the Government indicates that the person whose land was acquired means the owner as on the date, notification was notified for acquisition, and he alone will be entitled to allotment of alternative site. A person who purchases land subsequent to the Notification may be entitled to claim compensation by virtue of sale made in his favour, namely, the right, title and interest the predecessor had but, he cannot be said to be the owner for allotment since the right of ownership would be determined with reference to the date on which Notification under s. 4(1) was published. This was the view of this Court in another case while considering the Full Bench Judgment of the Delhi High Court. Under these circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The respondent cannot be considered to be the owner as on the date of Notification under s. 4(1) published in the Gazette. The direction given by the learned Single Judge is accordingly quashed. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
