Case: R L Jain (D) By Lrs Vs. D D A

The relevant facts may be noticed in brief. The Chief Commissioner, Delhi, on behalf of the Delhi Administration, issued a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 13.11.1959 for acquisition of a large area of 34070 acres of land including 1 bigha 11 biswa area in khasra no. 223 of village Kharera for the planned development of Delhi. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which was published in the Gazette on 11.10.1961. The dispute in the present appeal relates to aforesaid plot bearing khasra no. 223. Being an evacuee property, the said plot was notified for being sold in public auction by the Ministry of Rehabilitation and it appears that in the auction notice it was mentioned that the same shall be out of the purview of the notification issued on 13.11.1959 under Section 4(1) of the Act for acquisition of the land. The original appellant R.L. Jain purchased the said plot in the auction held on 8.4.1960 and a sale certificate was issued in his favour on 31.8.1961. In pursuance of the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act, the possession of plot no. 223 was taken over by the Collector on 10.11.1961 and was handed over to the Delhi Development Authority (for short the DDA). The plot was included in Award No. 1245 made by the Collector on 30.12.1961 and compensation amount was determined. R.L. Jain received the compensation amount under protest and sought reference to the Court since he was dissatisfied with the amount of the compensation offered and paid to him. The Collector thereafter made a reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Act.3. After considerable period of time, R.L. Jain filed Suit No. 154 of 1965 impleading Union of India as the sole defendant seeking a declaration that the proceedings taken for acquisition of plot bearing no. 223 of village Kharera, which had been purchased by him in public auction, were illegal as it was stipulated in the auction notice that the said plot was not included in the preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act which was published on 13.11.1959. After contest, the Sub-Judge First Class, Delhi passed a decree on 12.4.1967 that the acquisition proceedings including notification dated 11.10.1961 issued under Section 6 of the Act with regard to the plot in dispute are null and void. The Union of India preferred an appeal being RCA No. 59 of 1968 but the same was dismissed by Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi (with enhanced appellate powers) on 13.1.1969 and the judgment and decree dated 12.4.1967 of the Subordinate Judge was affirmed. The matter rested there as it was not carried in second appeal before the High Court.4. As mentioned earlier in pursuance of the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act, the possession of the plot in dispute had been taken over by the Collector on 10.11.1961 and was handed over to the DDA which commenced construction on the acquired land. R.L. Jain then filed Suit No. 421 of 1967 against Union of India and DDA for permanent injunction restraining them from making any construction over the disputed plot and from disposing of the same in any manner. During the pendency of the suit an undertaking was given by the DDA that no construction would be raised on the plot in dispute. However, the DDA proceeded with the constructions and consequently the plaint was amended and relief of mandatory injunction for removal of the construction was sought. The Sub-Judge, Delhi decided the suit on 19.1.1980 and passed a decree for demolition of the construction and the possession. The appeal (RCA No. 465 of 1980) preferred against said judgment and decree was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi on 18.3.1989 and the decree for demolition and removal of the construction was affirmed. The DDA preferred a second appeal (RSA No. 71 of 1989) in Delhi High Court which was summarily dismissed on 14.8.1991 and then Special Leave Petition was filed in this Court. In order to save the demolition of the building constructed over the plot in dispute, the appropriate authority issued fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Act for acquisition of the plot in dispute on 9.9.1992 and the declaration made under Section 6(1) of the Act was published on 8.9.1993. After noticing that the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 had already been issued, the Special Leave Petition filed by DDA was disposed of on 13.12.1993 with the following

Reasoning:
18. In a case where the land owner is dispossessed prior to the issuance of preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act the government merely takes possession of the land but the title thereof continues to vest with the land owner. It is fully open for the land owner to recover the possession of his land by taking appropriate legal proceedings. He is therefore only entitled to get rent or damages for use and occupation for the period the government retains possession of the property. Where possession is taken prior to the issuance of the preliminary notification, in our opinion, it will be just and equitable that the Collector may also determine the rent or damages for use of the property to which the land owner is entitled while determining the compensation amount payable to the land owner for the acquisition of the property. The provision of Section 48 of the Act lend support to such a course of action. For delayed payment of such amount appropriate interest at prevailing bank rate may be awarded.19. The case may be examined from the equitable consideration as well. In the earlier acquisition proceedings the notification under Section 4(1) had been published on 13.11.1959 and the Collector had made an award for Rs. 6301/- for the plot in dispute on 30.12.1961. The award was made within 1-1/2 months of dispossession which allegedly took place on 10.11.1961. This amount was paid to R.L. Jain and was retained by him. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed before the Court a copy of the sale certificate issued in favour of R.L. Jain on 31.8.1961 which shows that the plot was purchased by him for Rs. 3200/- only and thus he had received almost double amount of compensation. Therefore, even on equitable ground he is not entitled to any amount from the date of dispossession till the date of second notification under Section 4(1) of the Act which was issued in 1992.20. In this connection, it may be noted that the only plea taken in Suit No. 154 of 1965 filed by R.L. Jain was that it was given out at the time of auction sale of the plot that the same was outside the purview of the preliminary notification issued on 13.11.1959 under Section 4(1) of the Act. Even assuming that it was so but that by itself could not render the acquisition proceedings invalid. At best, he would have been entitled to refund of the sale consideration paid by him. However, the Sub-Judge passed a decree that the acquisition proceedings with regard to the plot in dispute are illegal and the notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Act on 11.10.1961 is null and void. The decree having become final it is binding upon the respondent, DDA. The original appellant R.L. Jain on the one hand received compensation amount in terms of the award of the Collector and sought a reference to the Court on the ground of alleged inadequacy of compensation and at the same time filed the suit challenging the acquisition proceedings wherein he obtained a decree that the acquisition proceedings are null and void. It was on account of this judgment and decree that he succeeded in the second suit (Suit No. 421 of 1967), wherein a decree for demolition of construction made by DDA and restoration of possession in his favour was passed. It is in such circumstances that in order to save the construction the land acquisition proceedings were initiated again by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 9.9.1992. Under the award given by the Collector on 11.6.1994 he has been awarded Rs. 16,54,175/ as the market value of the land and Rs. 4,96,252 as solatium. The appellant has thus been more than adequately compensated and in our opinion even on equitable grounds he is not entitled to any further