GENERAL GOVT. SERVANTS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., AGRA versus WAHABUDDIN & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 46 · Decided: 02-03-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
H 
G 
46 
GENERAL GOVT. SERVANTS CO-OPERATIVE 
HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., AGRA 
v. 
WAHAB UDDIN & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
Marrh 2, 1981 
[R.S. PATHAK, 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act-Sections 4, 5A and 6--Land acquired for a company-
Part Vil of the Act, if attracted-Requirement of rule 4 of Land Acquisition 
(Companies) Rules 1963-Ifmandator)~"Person interested"-Meaning of. 
The land in dispute originaly belonged to a person who had migrated to 
Pakistan. After acquiring the lessee rights in the land under section 12 of the 
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 the Central 
Government sold these rights by auction. The first respondent purchased a plot 
of land and a sale certificate was issued to him. The respondent, however, could 
not get possessi'On of the land as a result of litigation resorted to by the person in 
possession of the land. Jn the meantime the State Government filed a suit against 
the Custodian of Evacuee Property and the auction purchasers for possession; 
but the suit and later appeal were dismissed. 
Before the respondent obtained possession of the land a notification under 
section 4 of the Land Acquistion Act was issued seeking to acquire the land for 
construction of residential houses for the members of the appellant society. 
Having had no knowledge of the notification the respondent did not file any 
objection under section SA. 
After the issue of notification under section 6 of 
the Act proceedings relating to determination of compensation for the lands were 
started. A notice was served on the respondent under section 9(3) of the Act 1 
calling upon him to prefer his claim for compensation. 
Allowing the respondent's petition impugning the action of the Government 
the High Court held that the State Government could acquire the land only after 
complying with the provisions of Chapter VII of the Act and the Land Acquisi-
tion (Companies) Rules, 1963 and this not having been done there was a breach 
of the principle of natural justice and that secondly the respondent was a "person 
interested" within the meaning of section 3(b) of the Act. 
On the question whether the respondent was a 'person interested' and 
whether the notification issued under section 6 was valid. 
HELD : The expression "person interested" is defined in section 3(b) as 
including all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account 
of acquisition of land under the Act. 
That the first respondent had interest in the 
land in question is warranted by the following circumstances : (i) a sale certi· 
ficate had been issued to him after he purchased the land in auction sale; (ii) the 
Collector knew that he had purchased the land for he had himself filed a suit 
for ejectment against him from the land and that the suit was dismissed and the. 
appeal against that order was also dismissed; (iii) the Collector called upon the 
respondent to prefer his claim under section 9(3) of the Act which showed that 
)-
l 
COOPT. HOUSING SOCIETY v. WAHAB UDDIN (Islam, J.) 
47 
the Collector had admitted the first respondent's interest in the land ; and 
A 
(iv) before the High Court the Collector had not denied the respondent's right 
to compensation. Therefore, the first respondent was a "person_ interested" 
within the meaning of section 3(b). [50 F-H) 
2. The notification under section 6 is invalid for non-compliance with 
rule 4 of the Rules. 
(54 G] 
The appellant society is a "company" within the meaning of section 3(e) of 
the Act. When the land was acquired for the purpose of a company, Part VII 
of the Act is attracted and the provisions of that Chapter have to be followed. 
Rule 4 is mandaiory and unless the directions enjoined by this rule are complied 
with the notification under section 6 would be invalid. Its compliance precedes 
the notification under section.4 as well as compliance of section 6 of the Act. 
(51 F-G] 
In the instant case on receipt of the notice under section 9(3) the respondent 
objected to the acquisition on the grounds that the land or lessee rights having 
been acquired by the Central Government under the provisions of the Displaced 
Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 could not be acquired by 
the State Government, and that the mandatory procedure for acquisition of land 
for private companies had not been followed. No inquiry report had been 
submitted by the Collector. The report submitted was under se

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.