Back
1994 Supreme(SC) 1365
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy, N. Venkatachala, JJ.
Shiv Nath Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondents
C.A. No. 99 of 1992 (With C.A. Nos. 96 and 95 of 1992 and C.A. Nos. 97 and 98 of 1992)
Decided On : 27-01-1994
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 - Registered sale deed – Acquisition of Land – Claim of compensation – Therefore appellant, the purchaser of the property from his father, who died pending appeal in this Court, was entitled to seek direction for considering his claim either as owner or heir to his father for allotment of a suitable plot for residential purpose, subject to the scheme and the apply in vogue even as on date - He also further contended that the authorities having accepted his right to receive the compensation his entitlement to the plot paid him, the compensation as an owner and thereby, he had stepped into the shoes of his father. He further contended that the purpose of the acquisition was only to acquire the land; develop on a systematic basis and give back the plots to the purchasers, the citizens of Delhi - Claimant being one of the owners, though purchased later from his father, was also entitled to be considered for allotment of suitable site in accordance with the scheme - Authorities having accepted the hull Bench decision, when had made allotment to all others, denial of the same benefit to the appellant should not be countenanced. On either grounds, the appellants entitlement for allotment of suitable residential plot had to be considered – Held, policy gets attracted to all the subsequent notifications as envisaged under the scheme itself - Question emerges whether the appellants, admittedly being subsequent purchasers, are entitled to benefit of the scheme. Section 4 of the L.R.T. Act prohibits transfer, without authority of permission in writing of the competent authority, after the date of the declaration under section 6. Under section 5 of L.R.T. Act, such permission could be granted the permission would not defeat any of the objectives enumerated in clauses (i) to (iii) of section 5. By virtue of the grant of permission, the further question that arises is what right or interest the purchaser gets? By virtue of the transfer under section 5, the purchaser gets right, title and interest in the land acquired by the State for public purpose, namely, planned development of Delhi. Thereby, the bundle of rights the owner had in the land stood transferred to and the transferred acquired the interest i.e. to receive compensation determined under section 11. As said earlier, the question is whether the transferee is also entitled to the benefit of the scheme. In this behalf, it is necessary to carefully scan the scope and purpose of the scheme. It would appear that the owner of the land who was displaced, by virtue of acquisition, if he is not possessed of any suitable plot or house already in his possession, is entitled to the allotment of a suitable plot for rehabilitation, subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein. It is personal to the owner. Compensation is payable to the owner as on the date of the publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act in the Gazette towards his bundle of rights in the land. The entitlement to the compensation for the bundle of rights of the owner in the land is distinct from the entitlement to the benefit of a scheme formulated by the Government. If the owner himself continued to remain to be the owner and if he is not already possessed of any land building or plot for his residential or industrial purpose, he alone is entitled to be considered for the benefit - Take an instance that knowing that a land has been proposed for acquisition, the owner, with a view to get some extra consideration towards the proposed entitlement for allotment of the plots, may enter into different sale transactions with the third parties alienating his rights in the land. It is settled law that no owner can create any encumbrance on he land, after the notification under section 4(1) was published in the Gazette as the publication of the notification is a notice to the public that land is proposed to be acquired by the Government for a public purpose and that, therefore, any encumbrance created thereafter does not bind the Government - When such is the law, the subsequent purchaser would not stand in a higher footing, to get an interest in a beneficial policy unrelatable to he payment of compensation for the acquired land. In determining the compensation of the market value under section 11, allotment of a plot is not one of the component – Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. 24 bighas of land in Khasra No. 198 along with other lands situated in Sadhora Kalan, which is now part of developed area of Delhi and forms part of' Delhi Development Scheme, was proposed for acquisition under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'), by a notification published in the Gazette on November 13, 1959. Section 6 declaration was published on October 29, 1966. Award was made on November 8, 1967. The appellant is said to have purchased a portion of the acquired land of 2,400 Sq. yards, from his father under a registered sale deed, dated April 12, 1970, pursuant to an agreement dated February 2, 1969. Having regard to that purchase, he appears to have filed initially an application for allotment for industrial purpose of the entire purchased land and subsequently for a residential plot. Under the scheme dated May 2, 1961 framed by the Delhi Development Authority, it appears that the person whose land had been acquired was entitled to allotment or a plot of land for residential or industrial purpose. However, appellant's application was rejected on December 9, 1981. Consequently, he filed Writ Petition No. 532 of 1983 in the Delhi High Court, which was dismissed by the Division Bench on November 28, 1984 following the earlier decision in Writ Petition No. 255 of 1984. The High Court also held that the appellant purchased the land after the acquisition was completed and that, therefore, he was not entitled to the allotment of alternative site under the scheme formed.
2. Shri Harish Salve, learned senior counsel for the appellant, raises four- fold contentions. It is stated that a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Smt. Shiv Devi Viriley v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors., AIR 1987 Delhi 46 construing the scheme, held that any person, whose land had been acquired, was entitled to make a claim for alternative site upto the date of declaration published under Section 6. The Division Bench decision which had followed its earlier judgment in Writ Petition No. 225 of 1984 that the owner must be the person having ownership of the land as on the date of publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act as no longer, good law. Therefore, the appellant, the purchaser of the property from his father, who died pending appeal in this Court, was entitled to seek direction for considering his claim either as owner or heir to his father for allotment of a suitable plot for residential purpose, subject to the scheme and the apply in vogue even as on date. He also further contended that the authorities having accepted his right to receive the compensation recognised his entitlement to the plot paid him, the compensation as an owner and thereby, he had stepped into the shoes of his father. He further contended that the purpose of the acquisition was only to acquire the land; develop on a systematic basis and give back the plots to the purchasers, the citizens of Delhi. The claimant being one of the owners, though purchased later from his father, was also entitled to be considered for allotment of suitable site in accordance with the scheme. The authorities having accepted the hull Bench decision, when had made allotment to all others, denial of the same benefit to the appellant should not be countenanced. On either grounds, the appellant's entitlement for allotment of suitable residential plot had to be considered.
3. Having given our anxious consideration to the facts of the case, we think that the view of the Division Bench under appeal is correct. The object of the scheme, as envisaged in para 8 thereof, appears to be that while developing the land and disposal thereof, subject to the terms and conditions therein, the dispossessed owner of the land was entitled to allotment of a suitable residential or industrial plot. The size of such plot would be determined according to the policy in vogue at the time of allotment and subject to the terms thereof, only to rehabilitate a dispossesse
