LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. versus MATWAL CHAND (D) THR. LRS.

Citation: [2015] 10 S.C.R. 346 · Decided: 04-09-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2015] 10 S.C.R. 346 
LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. 
v. 
MATWAL CHAND (D) THR. LRS. 
(Civil Appeal No.3971 of2006) 
SEPTEMBER 04, 2015 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition -Acquisition 11/s. 4 of Land Acquisition 
C Act, 1894 - Subject properly, initially evacuee properly -
Acquired uls. 12 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and 
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (DPCR Act) - Further auctioned to 
the predecessor-in- interest of the respondents- Provisional 
possession of properly handed over before s.4 Notification 
D - Sale certificate issued afters. 4 Notification but prior to s. 6 
Declaration - Award in respect of the subject properly -
Challenged in writ petition -
High Court declared the 
acquisition proceeding in respect of the subject land as null 
and -void holding that land being evacuee properly, was 
E exempt from the purview of acquisition - On appeal, held: 
The subject land ceased to be evacuee properly and became 
property of the Central Government, after acquisition uls. 12 
of DPCR Act and hence not exempted from acquisition under 
Land Acquisition Act- Though ownership on the land vested 
F in the Central Government, an encumbrance had been 
created in the subject properly and hence would not fall 
outside the purview of Land Acquisition Act- Only such land, 
in which entirety of the rights vests in the State and on which 
there are no private rights or encumbrances, would be outside 
G the purview of Land Acquisition Act- Land Acquisition Act, 
1894 - s. 4 -Administration of Evacuee Properly Act, 1950-
s. 8 - Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) 
Act, 1954- s.12(2) & (4) and 14. 
.H 
346 
LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. v. MATWAL CHAND 347 
(D) THR. LRS. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1 The clear language of Section 8 of 
Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and 
Sections 12(2) & (4) and 14 of the Displaced Persons 
(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, (DPCRAct) B 
makes it abundantly clear that the transition from the 
vesting of the evacuee property in the Custodian to the 
Central Government is a distinct and identifiable process 
under the law. The acquisition of the land under Section 
12 of the DPCR Act brings the evacuee property into a C 
common pool which is to be utilised in accordance with 
the provisions of the Act. In the face of the clear 
provisions ·of the two enactments and the respective 
schemes contemplated thereunder, it cannot be held 
that the evacuee property continues to retain such status D 
after issuance of the notification under Section 12 of the 
DPCR Act. [Para 13] [358-A-E] 
1.2 Therefore, the subject land ceased to be evacuee 
property after publication of the notification of acquisition E 
under Section 12 of the DPCR Act. Consequently the 
exemption clause in the notification issued under Section 
4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 exempting from its 
purview evacuee land will have no application to the 
present case. [Para 14] [360-F] 
F 
Major Gopa/ Singh and Others vs. Custodian, 
Evacuee Property, Punjab and Ors. AIR 1961 SC 
1320: 1962 SCR 328- relied on. 
Delhi Administration & Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Nangia 
& Ors. 2003 (1 O) sec 321: 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 
360 - referred to. 
G 
2. It is only such land in respect of which the entirety H 
348 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A of the rights vests in the State and on which land there 
are no private rights or encumbrances which would be 
outside the purview of the Land Acquisition Act. In the 
present case, an encumbrance had been created in the 
subject property, which, could be acquired under the 
B Land Acquisition Act, although the ownership in the land 
vested in the Central Government. [Para 15] [361-0, E] 
Saraswati Devi (Dead) by LR vs. Delhi 
Development Authority & Ors.2013 (3) SCC 571: 
C 
2013 (4) SCR 922 - relied on. 
D 
E 
F 
Roshan Lal Goswami vs. Gobind Raj AIR 1963 
Punj 532; Sharda Devi vs. State of Bihar 2003 
(1) SCR 73: 2003 (3) SCC 128 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 360 
referred to. 
Para 13 
1962 SCR 328 
relied on. 
Para 13 
2013 (4) SCR 922 
referred to. 
Para 15 
AIR 1963 Punj 532 
relied on. 
Para 15 
2003 (1) SCR 73 
referred to. 
Para 15 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
3971 of 2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.04.2004 of the 
G High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W. P. (C) No. 2677of1981 
and 697 of 1983. 
H 
Rachana Srivastava, Utkarsh Sharma, Garima for the 
Appell
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.