9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the entitlement of the appellant to the benefits of the Land Policy under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, specifically regarding the acquisition of land in Ghaziabad for planned development by the Improvement Trust, Ghaziabad. Entitlement to Allotment under Land Policy: The appellant purchased land after the publication of the notification under Section 4 [1] of the Act. The appellant contended that she was entitled to allotment under the Land Policy as she fell within category [2] of landowners. However, the Court held that any person purchasing land after the notification does so at their own peril, and subsequent purchasers are not entitled to the benefits of the Land Policy. The Court cited a previous judgment to support this position. Interpretation of Government Orders: The Court examined Government Orders (G.O.) dated December 8, 1971, and June 2, 1972, which provided guidelines for the implementation of the Land Policy. The G.O. No.342 of 1971 stated that persons purchasing land after the notification may not be given benefits under the Land Policy. The G.O. No.1802 of 1972 clarified that benefits may be given to those who applied within time and had agreements entered into, even if they purchased land after the notification. Discrimination Allegation and Constitutional Aspect: The appellant alleged discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution, arguing that denial of benefits was discriminatory. The Court found that the benefits were given in a specific case to address unique circumstances and that the consistent policy was to disentitle subsequent purchasers from the Land Policy benefits. The Court emphasized that equality does not extend to perpetuating wrongs or benefiting from them. Conclusion: The Court concluded that the appellant was not entitled to the benefits of the Land Policy as she purchased the land after the notification under Section 4 [1]. The High Court's decision to deny benefits was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed without costs. Separate Judgment: Another appeal (C.A. No.4549 of 1984) was also dismissed for the same reasons as discussed in the main appeal.
|
