1995 JTR(SC) 83
1995 AIR(SC) 812 ; 1995 AIR(SCW) 595 ; 1995 26 AllLR 562 ; 1995 3 AWC 1878 ; 1995 1 CurCC(SC) 324 ; 1995 2 CurLJ 41 ; 1995 57 DLT 729 ; 1995 6 JT 274 ; 1995 2 RRR 308 ; 1995 1 Scale 316 ; 1995 2 SCC 427 ; 1995 1 SCR 354 ; 1995 KHC 789 ; 1995 1 KLT(Online) 1012
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. RAMASWAMY AND Mrs. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.
Union of India, Appellant
Versus
Shivkumar Bhargava and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1711 of 1993
Decided on 17-1-1995.
Act Referred :LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.4, S.23
(A) Sections 4(1) and 23 of the Land Acquisition Act are pivotal in defining the scope of entitlement to alternative site allocation post-acquisition. Section 4(1) governs the publication of the acquisition notification, determining the reference date for identifying the rightful owner. Section 23 provides the framework for compensation and alternative site entitlements. The interplay of these provisions dictates that the right to an alternative site is reserved strictly for the owner on the notification date, not a subsequent transferee.
(B) The core legal principles established are that ownership as on the date of the notification under Section 4(1) is determinative for eligibility for an alternative site, and a purchaser after the notification is not considered the owner for this purpose, though they may retain rights to compensation based on the predecessor's title.
Facts of the case:
The respondent filed a Writ Petition seeking an alternative site after land acquisition was finalized. The Notification under Section 4(1) was published on June 29, 1966. The respondent was not the owner on that date but became the owner through a purchase finalized after the acquisition. The appellant denied the right to an alternative site, and the single Judge initially granted relief, but the Division Bench dismissed the appeal due to delay, which this Court later condoned.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that it is irrelevant when the respondent purchased the land; the critical date is the notification under Section 4(1). As the respondent was not the owner on that date, he was not entitled to an alternative site. The policy of the Government limits the benefit of alternative site allotment to the owner as on the notification date.
Issues:
Whether a person who becomes the owner of the notified land after the publication of the acquisition Notification is entitled to an alternative site under the Land Acquisition Act.
Ratio Decidendi:
The right to an alternative site is contingent on being the owner as on the date of the Notification under Section 4(1). Subsequent acquisition of title does not confer eligibility for an alternative site, as the statutory definition of 'owner' for this purpose is tied to the notification date.
Result:
The appeal is allowed. The Writ Petition is dismissed, and the direction of the learned single Judge is quashed.
(A) Sections 4(1) and 23 of the Land Acquisition Act are pivotal in defining the scope of entitlement to alternative site allocation post-acquisition. Section 4(1) governs the publication of the acquisition notification, determining the reference date for identifying the rightful owner. Section 23 provides the framework for compensation and alternative site entitlements. The interplay of these provisions dictates that the right to an alternative site is reserved strictly for the owner on the notification date, not a subsequent transferee.
(B) The core legal principles established are that ownership as on the date of the notification under Section 4(1) is determinative for eligibility for an alternative site, and a purchaser after the notification is not considered the owner for this purpose, though they may retain rights to compensation based on the predecessor's title.
Facts of the case:
The respondent filed a Writ Petition seeking an alternative site after land acquisition was finalized. The Notification under Section 4(1) was published on June 29, 1966. The respondent was not the owner on that date but became the owner through a purchase finalized after the acquisition. The appellant denied the right to an alternative site, and the single Judge initially granted relief, but the Division Bench dismissed the appeal due to delay, which this Court later condoned.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that it is irrelevant when the respondent purchased the land; the critical date is the notification under Section 4(1). As the respondent was not the owner on that date, he was not entitled to an alternative site. The policy of the Government limits the benefit of alternative site allotment to the owner as on the notification date.
Issues:
Whether a person who becomes the owner of the notified land after the publication of the acquisition Notification is entitled to an alternative site under the Land Acquisition Act.
Ratio Decidendi:
The right to an alternative site is contingent on being the owner as on the date of the Notification under Section 4(1). Subsequent acquisition of title does not confer eligibility for an alternative site, as the statutory definition of 'owner' for this purpose is tied to the notification date.
Result:
The appeal is allowed. The Writ Petition is dismissed, and the direction of the learned single Judge is quashed.
C.V.SUBBA RAO, N.N.GOSWAMY, N.S.BISHT, Niranjana Singh, V.B.SAHARYA
JUDGMENT
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 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 Section 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.
Appeal allowed.
For Citation: AIR 1995 SC 812
Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.