SHIV DEVI Vs. LT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference to a F.B. was made by one of us (Chadha J.) because of the conflict between the judgments delivered by different Division Benches of this Court. Actually there was no conflict between the various Benches regarding the effect and meaning of the Scheme called the' "Large Scale Acquisition, Development & Disposal of Land in Delhi, 1961", prior to the decision recorded by a Bench consisting of Sachar J. and Wad J. in Krishan Kumar Malik vs Union of India. The view taken by the other Benches was that individuals whose land has been acquired as a result of the Chief Commissioner's notification would be entitled to be considered for allotment of an alternative plot for making a residential building in certain circumstances. The question as to who was the person entitled to the benefit would depend on the question as to whose land had been acquired eventually, i.e. if the land belonged to 'A' when the notification u/s 4 was issued and it belonged to 'B' when the notification u/s 6 was issuer arid it belonged to 'C' when the land was actually acquired, then it was the last person who would be deemed to be the person whose land was acquired. On the other hand, when the matter came before the Bench which decided Krishan Kumar Malik's case it was held that the person who would be entitled to apply for an alternative plot was the person who owned the land at the time the notification u/s 4 was issued and not subsequent transferees.

(2.) The initial judgment in this respect was of Udai Raj Giri vs. Union of India, decided by Parkash Narain, CJ, and B.N. Kirpal J on 22.4.83. That was CW. 591/82. In that case it was held that the person who was owning the land at the time the award, concerning the land was acted upon, would be the person entitled to get an alternative plot. This view was followed in a number of other cases, taking the view that the matter had been finally decided by this Court.

(3.) When this matter came before the Bench presided by Sachar J., it took the view that Udai Raj Giri's case was not properly decided because the Delhi Lands (Restriction & Transfer) Act, 1972 was not brought to the notice of the Bench which decided Udai Raj Giri's case. This Act prevented transfers after the land was notified.