INDER PARSHAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant admittedly was a lessee of Nazul land admeasuring 3.1 acres or thereabout situated at Block No. 160 in Delhi having had perpetual lease from the government of India on 14/06/1934 on payment of premium of Rs. 10,850. 00 and annual rent with stipulations that "and of the land hereinafter reserved and of the covenants on the part of the lessee hereinafter contained, the lessor both hereby demise unto the lessee all the plot. of land containing. . ". He was also entitled to retain the demise land in perpetuity subject to the right of the lessor to enhance the rent and the right to re-entry upon the demised land on breach of the covenants. The appellant with permission of the lessor constructed a building on the demised land and was in its quiet enjoyment, complying with the covenants. By a notification dated 5/03/1967 published in the Gazette under Section 4 (1 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894, for short 'the Act', the demised land together with the building, along with other lands was acquired for a public purpose. The land Acquisition Collector by an award dated 26/03/1973 awarded compensation with the following observations:

(2.) After determining the compensation the Collector, who was not able to decide at what proportion the appellant and the government were entitled to receive the compensation, made a reference under Section 30 of the Act tothe civil court. The District court by judgment dated 15/11/1976 held that the government and the appellant were entitled to compensation at a the proportion of 33% and 67% respectively. On further appeal by the appellant, while upholding the title to the compensation by the government and the appellant, the High court altered the proportion to 75% and 25% between the appellant and the government respectively. The government did not question the said proportion at which the compensation the civil court. The District Court by judgment dated November 15, 1976 held that the Government and the appellant were entitled to compensation at the proportion of 33% and 67% respectively. On further appeal by the appellant, while upholding the title to the compensation by the Government and the appellant, the High Court altered the proportion to 75% and 25% between the appellant and the Government respectively. The Government did not question the said proportion at which the compensation was payable to the appellant and the respondent. The appellant being aggrieved for apportionment of 25% of the compensation in favour of Government filed this appeal by special leave.

(3.) Sri Kailash Vasudev, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the Government being the owner of the land cannot acquire its own interest therein. What was acquired is only of the sum total of the right and interest held by the appellant in the perpetual lease and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to the total compensation determined by the award. In support thereof he placed reliance on Collector of Bombay v. Nusserwanjl Rattanji mistri. With a view to appreciate the contention it is necessary to see the relevant provisions of the Act.