Back
High Court Of Delhi
ABDUL WAFFLD - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Suit 603 of 1967
Decided On : 12/14/1981
RESETTLEMENT OF DISPLACED PERSONS (LAND ACQUISITION) ACT, 1948 - NOTICE OF ACQUISITION - SERVICE ON OWNER - VALIDITY - CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY - STATUTORY AGENT - REMEDY - DECREE FOR POSSESSION OR MONEY.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, owners of extensive lands in Delhi, challenged the acquisition of their land by the Government under the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948 (the Act). The Government had taken possession of the land and built quarters for displaced persons without serving a notice of acquisition on the owners as required by section 4 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the notice served on the Custodian of Evacuee Property was not a valid notice on the owners as required by section 4 of the Act. The Custodian was not the statutory agent of the owners and had no power to accept service of notice on their behalf. The court also held that the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for money as compensation for the value of the land as on the date of the suit, rather than a decree for possession, as the Government had built quarters on the land and it was not feasible to order delivery of possession.
Issues: 1. Whether the notice served on the Custodian of Evacuee Property was a valid notice on the owners as required by section 4 of the Act? 2. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for possession or a decree for money as compensation for the value of the land.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the notice served on the Custodian of Evacuee Property was not a valid notice on the owners as required by section 4 of the Act. The Custodian was not the statutory agent of the owners and had no power to accept service of notice on their behalf. The court relied on the plain language of section 4, which required service of notice on the owner or occupier of the land, and on the fact that the Custodian was not given the power to accept service of notice under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. 2. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for money as compensation for the value of the land as on the date of the suit, rather than a decree for possession, as the Government had built quarters on the land and it was not feasible to order delivery of possession. The court relied on the fact that the plaintiffs had asked for a decree for money in the alternative in their plaint and on the principle that a wrongdoer must pay the full value of the land if he refuses to deliver possession.
Final Decision: The court granted the plaintiffs' alternative prayer for a decree for Rs. 20,00,000 with interest from the date of the suit till realization, and dismissed the suit against the other defendants with no order as to costs.
( 1 ) THIS case is a good example of law s delays. We have taken 15 years to decide this suit. So many years in the court of first instant. How many more years it will take in the appellate courts no one knows.
( 2 ) ABDUL Wahid, Mohd. Umar and Mohd. Sadiq sons of Mohd. Hassan are admittedly owners of extensive lands comprised in Khasra Nos. 5361182, 5381189, 185, 188, 177, 176, 180, 183,. 184, 187,6311535 (182, 186, ,179, 178 and 5371189 admeasuring 39 bighas, 4 biswas (=39,514sq. yds. or thereabout) situated in village Rajpur Chawni, Tehsil and District Delhi. The area where the lands were situated is called Gur Ki Mandi. The owners were in possession of the land.
( 3 ) IN the wake of partition the Parliament passed an Act in 1948 called The Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Laid Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Act No. IX of 1948) (the Act ). The- object of this legislation was "to provide for speedy acquisition of land for the resettlement of displaced persons", as the preamamble stated. The Government was empowered to acquire land for providing homes to those who had been rendered homeless. 1947 was the year of the Great Divide. India was split in two dominions Dominion of India and Dominion of Pakistan. There was a great migration of population the greatest in history. Millions moved into India. "they were all children of the midnight. The midnight of August 15, 1947. At the stroke of the midnight hour India awoke to freedom, as Nehru said. Freedom at midnight. But the transfer of populations brought untold suffering. Gandhi had given the clarion call of freedom. Now he said : "we will wipe every tear from every eye. " Millions had left their hearths and homes behind. They had been uprooted from the land of their birth. They all had to be resettled. New abodes had to be found. This was a great and sudden emergency. Everything had to be done on a war footing to give relief. So the Parliament passed the Act for the "speedy acquisition of land. "
( 4 ) THIS was the historical setting. Now these are the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 3 says whenever it appears to the State Government; that it is necessary or expedient to acquire speedily any land for the resettlement of displaced persons, a notification shall be published in the Official Gazette, staling the area and the boundaries of the land proposed to be acquired. After the publication of the notification under section 3, the competent authority under the Act was required to serve by registered post on the owner of the land a notice of acquisition under section 4 of the Act. When a notice of acquisition was served the land vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances. After the land had become so vested, the competent authority was entitled to fake possession thereof. (S. 5 ). Under section 6 any pelson interested in the land which had become vested in the State Government under Section was entitled, within one month from the vesting thereof, to file his objections to the acquisition before the competent authority and such authority was empowered to dismiss the objections or to release the land. If the land was released from acquisition it revested in the owner. If the land was acquired the Act provided for payment of compensation. The method of determining compensation was laid down in section 7.
( 5 ) IN the purported exercise of the statutory powers conferred on the Government by the Act the Delhi Administration took possession of the owners land and built quarters on it for the resettlement of displaced persons.
( 6 ) ON 16th March, 1966 the plaintiffs Abdul Wahid Mohd. Umar and Mohd. Sadiq brought a suit for possession and mesne profit against the Union of India. The Union of India contested the suit. The pleas of contest are reflected in the following issues framed on 11th May, 1970 : 1. Whether the suit is barred by time ? 2. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit because of Evacuee Propert
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
