LexDELHI ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. versus MADAN LAL NANGIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
DELHI AOMINISTRA TION AND ORS.
·v.
MADAN· LAL NANGIA AND· ORS.
O~_TOBER. 8, 2093
B.
[S.N. VARIAVA AND HJ{.;SEMA; JJ.]
·Land Acquisition :
... ,_ .
. 1 Land AcquisitiOn 'Act: 1894-Seclion 4.:...:.Larid acquisition-High
C; Court- setting aside the acquisition· in respect of those lands which were
evacuee properties-High Court proceeding on the ground that acquisition
was pursuant to Notification dated 13-11~1959 which excluded evacuee
properties-Held, High Court fell in error as petitioners lands were
acquired by Notification dated 23-1-1965 which did not exempt evacuee
D properties-Factual basis on which acquisition of evacuee lands was set
aside did not exist-Administration of Evacuee Properties Act, 1950.
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954-
Sections 10 and 12-Evacuee properties being vested in the Custodian-
Held, merely because a property vests in the custodian does not mean
E that the property vests in the Central Government, Custodian being a
distinct person from the Central Government-Evacuee properties vested
in the custodian not being properties of the Governme._nt, can be acquireq
not just under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,
1954 but even under the Land Acquisition Act.
F
Evacuee ln_terest (Separation) Act, 1951-Section 10-.Composite
property-Interests of Evacuee and non-evacuee being composited under
the Act-By notification dated 7-7-1955, the Central Government acquired
all evacuee properties in St;,,te of Delhi under Section 12 of Displaced
Persons (Compensation <ind Rehabilitation) Act, 1954-Composite
G properties being excluded by such notification-Held, even if the
notification applied to composite properties, what was acquired was the
interest of the evacuee-Therefore, the interest of the non-evacuee/private
person could have been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act-·
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954-Section
H 12.
360
DELHI ADMINISTRATION v. M.L. NANGIA
361
Evacuee Properties-Vested in custodian-Acquisition of-Held, A
·merely because the properties vest in the custodian as evacuee properties
does not mean that the same cannot be acquired for some other public
purpose-Jn such a case, compensation payable under the Land Acquisition
Act would be paid to the custodian who would then distribute it under
the provisions of various Acts.
B
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Land acquisition-Pre-existing
rights-Status of-Held, once an acquisition takes place under the Land
Acquisition Act all prior rights would stand terminated-Position qua the
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act wherein interest C
in land continued even after acquisition, distinguished-Displaced Persons
(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954-Section JO, 12.
Constitution of India, 1950 :
Article 136-Special Leave Petition-Summary dismissal of- D
Held, does not bar other parties from filing a Special Leave Petitiori
against the same judgment-Practice and Procedure.
A number of writ petitions were filed in High Court challenging
the acquisition oflarge tracts ofland, which were acquired for planned E
development of Delhi. Most of the writ petitions were dismissed
upholding the acquisition proceedings. However, a few writ petitions,
wherein the lands were evacuee properties, were allowed and acquisition
in respect of those lands was set aside on the ground that the
acquisition was pursuant to a notification dated 13-11-1959 under F
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act; that this notification did not
cover evacuee lands and therefore further proceedings would not be
valid; that evacuee lands or composite lands belong to the Govt. and
in case the Govt. needed the land for public purpose they could have
easily retained the possession of the land and there was no need to G
resort to Land Acquisition Act for acquiring such land; and that once
it was shown that there was no Notification issued under Section 4
pertaining to the said lands, the subsequent proceedings being void, the
petitioners were not debarred from challenging such proceedings even
belatedly. Hence, the present appeal.
H
362
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the Govt.
while issuing the Notification on 13-11-1959 recognised the fact that
evacuee properties were required for a public purpose and that same
position continued even when the NotifExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.