SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .The dispute in" this civil writ relates to a plot of land in block No. 56. Western Extension Area. Karol Bagh, New Delhi, measuring about 1585.3 Sq. yards.

(2.) In 1948 the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act 1948 (Act 60 of 1943) was enacted with the object of providing for speedy acquisition of land for the resettlement of displaced persons. - Notification under section 3 of the Act and dated the 24th November 1953 was published in the Gazette on 3rd December, 1953, with respect to the total area of 15725.05 Sq. Yds. In the said notification it was inter alia stated that the land specified therein shall be acquired for the construction of shops for displaced persons, on the seventh day after the date of this notification. The notification included the land in question as well. Compensation proceedings took place thereafter and the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 34,855.00 which ths petitioner accepted. It appears that thereafter some plots of land comprised in the same notification were. returned to the owners who paid back the money received by them. The petiiier's plot of land was allotted to ths Ministry of Education for the construction of a School building and this has given rise to the grievance on ths part of the petitioner who has refiled this petition contending that (1) that the respondents cannot use the land for any parpose (other than the resettlement of displaced persons an.i the allotment to the Ministry of Education for construction of a school building is not such a purpose; (2) even if the land can ba allotted to the Ministry of Education it cannot be used for non-displaced persons (3) the nature of user shows that the acquisition was nude with a mala fide intention and (4) the petitioner has been legally discriminated in as much as plots belonging to some other land owners and comprised in the same notification have been returned to them while the petitioner's plot has not been returned.

(3.) The learned counsel for the patitionar draws my attention to the preamable and section 3 of the act and contends that the land could be acquired under the special Act only for the resettlement of the displaced persons. He then refers to rule 9 and submits that the proviso to the said rule is ultra vires the Act and cannot authorise the respondents to utlise the land for construction of school being contrary to the express provisions of the Act. The learned counsel further draws my attention to paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed by Shri M. J. Srivastava, Settlement Commissioner dated the 25th August 1964 and submits that the respondents are under a wrong impression about the legal position when they contend that the property having vested absolutely in the Government it is entitled to deal with it as it likes and that under rule 9 the land acquired can be used for construction of school building. According to the submission of the learred counsel utilisation for the construction of a school building is not utilisation of land for resottlment of displaced persons.