U.O.l. v. S. BHARGAVA
355
CIVI~ APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1711 of. A
1993.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.1.85 of the Delhi High Court
in LP.A. No. 26 of 1985.
N.N. Goswamy, Ms. Niranjana Singh for C.V. Subba Rao for the B
Appellant.
V.B. Saharya for Saharya & Co. for the Respondent No. 2.
N. S. Bisht for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
This appeal by Special Leave arises from the Judgment of the Delhi
High Court dated 21.2.1985 made in L.P.A. No. 26 of 1985 dismissing the
appeal in limine as barred by limitation.
The respondent filed the Writ Petition which came up before the
learned Single Judge claiming alternative site on the ground that his land
has been acquired for public purpose and that therefore, he is entitled to
the benefit under the policy of the Government. The appellant have denied
c
D
the right. The Singh Judge found that though the respondent was not the E
owner on the date when the Notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisi-
tion Act was published but as on the date . when the acquisition was
finalised he became the owner by virtue of purchase and that therefore he
is entitled to allotment of alternative site. The Division Bench dismissed
the appeal on the ground of delay. This Court has condoned the delay and
admitted the appeal.
F
The question for consideration is whether the respondent is entitled
to alternative site. The Notification under s.4(1) of the Act was published
on June 29, 1966. In the S.L.P. it was specifically stated that inspite of giving
opportunitie~ to the respondent on 1.12.1981 and 8.3.1982 to produce the
record to show that he was the owner as on the date of the Notification, G
he had not produced the record. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit
filed by the respondent as well as in the grounds it was stated that "it is
irrelevant when the respondent purchased the notified . land or not. The
relevant question is that when the acquisition was finalised, he was the
owner of the land and thus he was within the zone of consideration. It is H
356
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995) 1 S.C.R.
A not correct that the answering respondent was not entitled to alternative
site." In view of these averments and contentions raised by the respondent
in the counter affidavit vis-a-vis the allegations made by the appellant in
the S.L.P., it is clear that as on the date of the Notification published under
s.4(1) of the Act, namely, June 29, 1966 the respondent was not the owner
of the land.
B
The policy of th~ Government indicates that the person whose land
was acquired means the owner as on the date, notification was notified for
acquisition, and he alone will be entitled to allotment of alternative site. A
person who purchases land subsequent to the Notification may be entitled
C to claim compensation by virtue of sale made in his favour, namely, the
right, title and interest the predecessor had but, he cannot be said to be
the owner for allotment since the right of ownership would be determined
with reference to the date on which Notification under s.4(1) was publish-
ed. This was the view of this Court in another case while considering the
Full Bench Judgment of the Delhi High Court. Under these circumstances,
D the appeal is allowed. The respondent cannot be considered to be the
owner as on the date of Notification under s.4(1) published in the Gazette.
The direction given by the learned Single Judge is accordingly quashed ..
The Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
E G.N.
Appeal allowed.
Lex