2015 (9) TMI 1756 - SC - Indian Laws

Evacuee property or not - acquisition of land vested with the Central Government - Validity of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - whether the land, after issuance of notification Under Section 12 of the DPCR Act, ceased to be evacuee property so as to be excluded from the purview of the notification issued Under Section 4 of the LA Act or not? - HELD THAT - The acquisition of the land Under Section 12 of the DPCR Act brings the evacuee property into a common pool which is to be utilised in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Specifically, once the property is included in the common pool and vests in the Central Government, Under Section 16 of the DPCR Act, the Central Government may take such measures as it considers necessary or expedient for the custody, management and disposal of such property including transfer of the property out of the compensation pool to a displaced person. In the face of the clear provisions of the two enactments and the respective schemes contemplated thereunder, it is difficult to hold that the evacuee property continues to retain such status after issuance of the notification Under Section 12 of the DPCR Act. Section 19 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or any other law for the time being in force but subject to the rules that may be made under the Act the managing officer or managing corporation may cancel any allotment etc., under which any evacuee property acquired under the Act is held or occupied by a person whether such allotment or lease was granted before or after the commencement of the Act. This provision thus confers the power to deal with evacuee property acquired under the Act only on a managing officer appointed or managing corporation constituted under the Act and makes no mention whatsoever of the Custodian appointed under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. No doubt, Under Section 10 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act the Custodian is empowered to manage evacuee property and in exercise of his power he will be competent to allot such property to any person or to cancel an allotment or lease made in favour of a person. Apart from the fact that subsequent to the issue of the notification Under Section 12(1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, the property would cease to be evacuee property, the aforesaid powers of the Custodian would be in conflict with those conferred by Section 19 of the 1954 Act on a managing officer or a managing corporation constituted under that Act. Thus, the subject land ceased to be evacuee property after publication of the notification of acquisition Under Section 12 of the DPCR Act. Consequently the exemption clause in the notification issued Under Section 4 exempting from its purview evacuee land will have no application to the present case. If the subject land vested in the Central Government upon publication of the notification Under Section 12 of the DPCR Act and thereby ceased to be evacuee land, could such land vested in the Central Government be acquired under the provisions of the LA Act? - HELD THAT - In Saraswati Devi 2013 (1) TMI 1058 - SUPREME COURT on an exhaustive consideration of the issue with regard to the effect of delivery of provisional possession, which in the present case was handed over to the Respondents on approval of the highest bid, it was held that such provisional possession gives the auction purchaser possessory rights as distinguished from proprietary rights in the auctioned property. The above proposition culled out in a judgment of the Punjab High Court in Roshan Lal Goswami v. Gobind Raj 1963 (2) TMI 75 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT was approved by this Court to further hold that such proprietary rights occasioned by the delivery of provisional possession creates an encumbrance on the property which can be the subject of acquisition under the LA Act. In the present case also the facts being identical, it is held that an encumbrance had been created in the subject property, which, as held in Saraswati Devi, could be acquired under the LA Act although the ownership in the land vested in the Central Government. Thus, the judgment and order of the High Court under challenge in the present appeal is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the land, after issuance of notification under Section 12 of the DPCR Act, ceased to be evacuee property so as to be excluded from the purview of the notification issued under Section 4 of the LA Act.
2. If the subject land vested in the Central Government upon publication of the notification under Section 12 of the DPCR Act and thereby ceased to be evacuee land, could such land vested in the Central Government be acquired under the provisions of the LA Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the land, after issuance of notification under Section 12 of the DPCR Act, ceased to be evacuee property so as to be excluded from the purview of the notification issued under Section 4 of the LA Act.

The Supreme Court examined the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, and the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (DPCR Act). The Administration of Evacuee Property Act was enacted for the administration of evacuee property, and under Section 8, evacuee property vests in the Custodian. However, under Section 12 of the DPCR Act, the Central Government can acquire evacuee property for the rehabilitation of displaced persons, and upon publication of the notification under Section 12(1), the evacuee property vests absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances.

The Court referred to the judgment in Delhi Administration and Ors. v. Madan Lal Nangia and Ors., which clarified that the vesting of property in the Custodian under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act and in the Central Government under the DPCR Act are distinct phases. The Court concluded that once the property is included in the common pool and vests in the Central Government under Section 14 of the DPCR Act, it no longer retains its status as evacuee property. Therefore, the exemption clause in the notification issued under Section 4 of the LA Act, which exempted evacuee land from acquisition, does not apply to the subject land after it vested in the Central Government.

Issue 2: If the subject land vested in the Central Government upon publication of the notification under Section 12 of the DPCR Act and thereby ceased to be evacuee land, could such land vested in the Central Government be acquired under the provisions of the LA Act.

The Court referred to the judgment in Saraswati Devi (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors., which held that delivery of provisional possession creates an encumbrance on the property, making it amenable to acquisition under the LA Act. In the present case, the provisional possession was handed over to the Respondents upon approval of their highest bid, creating an encumbrance on the property. The Court also noted that it is only land with no private rights or encumbrances that would be outside the purview of the LA Act, as understood from the judgment in Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar.

Therefore, the Court concluded that the subject land, although vested in the Central Government, could be acquired under the LA Act due to the encumbrance created by the provisional possession.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and order of the High Court, holding that the subject land ceased to be evacuee property after the issuance of the notification under Section 12 of the DPCR Act and could be acquired under the LA Act despite being vested in the Central Government. The appeal was allowed, and the application seeking directions under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, was disposed of with the liberty to the Respondents to approach the appropriate forum within eight weeks.