SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(SC) 846

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.
Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Matwal Chand (D) Thr. LRs. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3971 OF 2006
Decided On : 04-09-2015

IMPORTANT POINTS
Evacuee property vests in the Custodian for purposes of administration of such property u/s 10 but it does not vest in the Central Government. Till this stage it retains character of evacuee property. Evacuee property vests in the Central Government on issuance of notification u/s 12 and thereafter it loses its character of evacuee property.
Provisional possession handed over to auction purchaser confers possessory rights on the pourchaser, not proprietary rights.

Headnote:(a) Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 – Section 10 r/w Section 12 Section 12, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 – Evacuee property vests in the Custodian for purposes of administration of such property u/s 10 but it does not vest in the Central Government – Till this stage it retains character of evacuee property – Evacuee property vests in the Central Government on issuance of notification u/s 12 – Thereafter it loses its character of evacuee property. (Para 13)

       (2003) 10 SCC 321; AIR 1961 SC 1320 – Relied upon

       (b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4 e/w section 12, DPCR Act – Subject land ceasing to be evacuee property after publication of the notification of acquisition under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 – Exemption of evacuee properties from operation of section 4 of 1894 Act not applicable. (Para 14)

       (c) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 – Section 12 – Provisional possession handed over to auction purchaser – Confers possessory rights, not proprietary rights – Such right creates an encumbrance on the property which can be acquired under LA Act – The land in respect of which all rights vest in the State and on which there are no private rights or encumbrances – Cannot be acquired under LA Act. (Para 15)

       (2013) 3 SCC 571; (2003) 3 SCC 128 – Relied upon

       AIR 1963 Punj 532 – Cited with approval

       Facts of the case:

       The subject land, admittedly, was evacuee property. It was acquired under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. Thereafter the property was transferred to the compensation pool under Section 14 of the said Act. A decision was taken to transfer the subject property out of the compensation pool to displaced persons. In an auction held on 6.8.1958 the predecessors of the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) offered the highest bid which was accepted on 15.10.1958. After adjustment of the verified claims, the respondents were asked to deposit the balance price within 15 days which was so done. On 10.3.1959, the respondents were informed by the appellant that their bid has been accepted and provisional possession of the property is being handed over to them.

       On 13.11.1959 a notification under Section 4 of the LA Act was issued proposing to acquire 34070 acres of land in several villages including the subject land. The notification under Section 4 specifically excluded from the purview of the acquisition Government and evacuee land. After the Section 4 notification was issued and prior to the declaration under Section 6 made on 6.1.1969, the sale certificate was issued in respect of the subject land on 25.1.1962. The same which was registered on 21.2.1962 clearly recites that the respondents are declared as the purchasers of the property with effect from 25.1.1962.

       The award in respect of the subject property was challenged in the writ petitions.

       The High Court held that the proceedings for acquisition, including the award, were null and void.

       

       Finding of the Court:

       Section 4 of the LA Act did not apply to the subject land.

       Result: Appeal allowed.

       

JUDGMENT :

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 15.04.2004 passed by the High Court of Delhi in two writ petitions raising identical questions of law on similar facts. The writ petitions filed by the respondent have been allowed and the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ‘the LA Act’) have been declared null and void. Aggrieved, the Delhi Administration has filed the instant appeal.

2. The core facts lie in a short compass and are as follows: The subject land, admittedly, was evacuee property. It was acquired under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (in short ‘the DPCR Act’). Thereafter the property was transferred to the compensation pool under Section 14 of the said Act. A decision was taken to transfer the subject property out of the compensation pool to displaced persons. In an auction held on 6.8.1958 the predecessors of the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) offered the highest bid which was accepted on 15.10.1958. After adjustment of the verified claims, the respondents were asked to deposit the balance price within 15 days which was so done. On 10.3.1959, the respondents were informed by the appellant that their bid has been accepted and provisional possession of the property is being handed over to them.

3. On 13.11.1959 a notification under Section 4 of the LA Act was issued proposing to acquire 34070 acres of land in several villages including Village Basai Darapur where the subject land was situated. The notification under Section 4 specifically excluded from the purview of the acquisition Government and evacuee land. After the Section 4 notification was issued and prior to the declaration under Section 6 made on 6.1.1969, the sale certificate was issued in respect of the subject land on 25.1.1962. The same which was registered on 21.2.1962 clearly recites that the respondents are declared as the purchasers of the property with effect from 25.1.1962.

4. After publication of the declaration under Section 6 on 6.1.1969, notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the LA Act were issued on 10.1.1979. The respondents filed their claim before the competent authority. Thereafter on 7.1.1981 the award in respect of the subject property was passed which came to be challenged in the writ petitions out of which this appeal has arisen.

5. By the impugned order the High Court on consideration of the rival contentions and the provisions of the DPCR Act and the facts set out above came to the conclusion that the subject land was evacuee property on the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the LA Act and as the said notification had exempted evacuee land from the purview of acquisition, the proceedings for acquisition, including the award, were null and void.

6. Before us, Ms. Rachana Srivasatava learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the subject property, though evacuee property, ceased to be so upon acquisition of the same under Section 12 of the DPCR Act. It is urged that under Section 12(2) of the said Act, upon publication of the notification under sub-section (1), the right, title and interest of any evacuee in the evacuee property stands extinguished and the evacuee property vests absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. Under sub-section (4) of Section 12 all such evacuee property acquired becomes a part of the compensation pool which vests in the Central Government under Section 14(2) of the DPCR Act. Pointing out the provisions of the Section 20 of the DPCR Act, it is urged that property included in the common pool may be sold, leased, allotted or otherwise transferred to a displaced person. It is therefore urged that upon the acquisition of the subject property under Section 12 of the DPCR Act the same had shed its character as evacuee property and by operation of the provisions of the Act the property stood vested in the Central Government. The ex








































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top