The person entitled to apply for an alternative plot under the Scheme is the owner of the land at the time of acquisition, and not the owner at the time of the issue of the Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

( 1 ) THIS reference to a F. B. was made by one of us (Chadha J.) because of the conflict between the judgments delivered by different Division Benches of this Court. Actually there was no conflict between the various Benches regarding the effect and meaning of the Scheme called the "large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi, 1961", prior to the decision recorded by a Bench consisting of Sachar J. and Wad J. in Krishan Kumar Malik vs Union of India. The view taken by the other Benches was that individuals whose land has been acquired as a result of the Chief Commissioner s notification would be entitled to be considered for allotment of an alternative plot for making a residential building in certain circumstances. The question as to who was the person entitled to the benefit would depend on the question as to whose land had been acquired eventually, i. e. if the land belonged to a when the notification u/s 4 was issued and it belonged to b when the notification u/s 6 was issuer arid it belonged to c when the land was actually acquired, then it was the last person who would be deemed to be the person whose land was acquired. On the other hand, when the matter came before the Bench which decided Krishan Kumar Malik s case it was held that the person who would be entitled to apply for an alternative plot was the person who owned the land at the time the notification u/s 4 was issued and not subsequent transferees.

( 2 ) THE initial judgment in this respect was of Udai Raj Giri vs. Union of India, decided by Parkash Narain, CJ, and B. N. Kirpal J on 22. 4. 83. That was CW. 591/82. In that case it was held that the person who was owning the land at the time the award, concerning the land was acted upon, would be the person entitled to get an alternative plot. This view was followed in a number of other cases, taking the view that the matter had been finally decided by this Court.

( 3 ) WHEN this matter came before the Bench presided by Sachar J. , it took the view that Udai Raj Giri s case was not properly decided because the Delhi Lands (Restriction and Transfer) Act, 1972 was not brought to the notice of the Bench which decided Udai Raj Giri s case. This Act prevented transfers after the land was notified.

( 4 ) BEFORE dealing with this matter, it may be pointed out that the Scheme was framed in 1961 and it would not possibly depend on the Act of 1972. So the reason given by the D. B. differing from the previous view does not seem to be at all relevant However, as the matter has been referred to a F. B. and there is a conflict of view, we have decided to deal with this matter on a totally fundamental basis. For this purpose, it is necessary to ascertain the background and the object of the Scheme framed in 1961.

( 5 ) IT may be recalled that large areas of land were acquired by the State for the plan" ned development of Delhi. These acquisitions began in 1957 or so and they continued over a long period so that large areas of land were available to the D. D. A. and to other Govt. agencies for the eventual development of Delhi or greater Delhi, if one may say so, according to the Master Plan. Some of these acquisitions were made before the Master Plan was framed and some were made afterwards.

( 6 ) BEFORE the concept of planned development through a Govt. agency was thought of, the development of land in Delhi and the construction of houses was mostly, if not wholly, in private hands. This meant that there were a number of persons who had bought plots for utilisation for building purposes. The result of most of the land being acquired by the Govt. or Govt. agencies was that the private building activity came to a standstill. There were certain difficulties that arose out of this which led to the scheme of 1961.

( 7 ) WHEN all the land is with a State agency, the State is placed in the predicament of drawing up a scheme by which the land is to be given to the public. The main method visual