9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Whether the land in question was an evacuee land on the date of issue of Notification u/s 4 of the LA Act on 07.03.1962? 2. Whether the land, if it was an evacuee property, could have been acquired under the law? Summary Issue 1: Whether the land in question was an evacuee land on the date of issue of Notification u/s 4 of the LA Act on 07.03.1962? The Supreme Court examined the facts and legal provisions to determine the status of the land. The land in question was acquired by the central government u/s 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, and became part of the compensation pool u/s 14. The appellant's husband participated in a public auction for the sale of the property, and his bid was accepted on 31.10.1960. However, the full purchase price was paid only in 1980, and the sale certificate was issued on 22.08.1980. The court held that the ownership could have transferred to the appellant only in 1980 when the full purchase price was paid. However, provisional possession given to the appellant's husband in 1960 created an encumbrance in the property, making it subject to acquisition under the LA Act. Issue 2: Whether the land, if it was an evacuee property, could have been acquired under the law? The court examined whether the land, being an evacuee property, could be acquired under the LA Act. The court referred to the legal position that the government cannot acquire its own land unless there are private rights or encumbrances. The court found that an encumbrance was created in 1960 when provisional possession was given to the appellant's husband. Therefore, the land could be acquired under the LA Act. The court also referred to the decision in Madan Lal Nangia (2003) 10 SCC 321, which held that evacuee properties could be acquired for public purposes. Conclusion The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which set aside the Single Judge's order quashing the acquisition notification. The court found that the land could be acquired under the LA Act due to the encumbrance created in 1960. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the court clarified that the appellant's claim for compensation or any other monetary claim would be considered on its own merits in accordance with the law.
|
