UNION OF INDIA Vs. SHIVKUMAR BHARGAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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 the right. The single Judge found that though the respondent was not the owner on the date when the Notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition 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.

(3.) 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 in spite of giving opportunities 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, 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 not correct that the answering respondent was not entitled to alternative site. "In view of these averments and contentions raised by the respondent in 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 Section 4(1) of the Act, namely, June 29, 1966 the respondent was not the owner of the land.