SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

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 1,585.3 square yards.

(2.) In 1948, the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Act 60 of 1948) was enacted with fee object of providing for speedy acquisition of land for S fee resettlement of displaced parsons. Notification under Sec. 3 of the Act and dated the 24th November, 1953 was published on 3rd December, 1953, with respect to the total area of 15,725.06 square yards. 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 m fee seventh day after the date of this notification. This notification included, the land in question as well. Compensation proceedings took place thereafter and the Petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 34,855 which the Petitioner adopted. It appears that thereafter some plots of land comprised in the same notification were returned to fee owners who paid back the money received by them. The Petitioner's plot of land was allotted to the Ministry of Education for the construction of a School building and this has given rise to the grievance on the part of the Petitioner who has filed this petition contending that (1) the Respondents cannot use the land for any purpose (other than fee resettlement of displaced persons) and the allotment to fee Ministry of Education for construction of a school balding is not such a purpose; (1) even if the land can be allotted to the Ministry of Education, it cannot be used for non -displaced persons; (3) the nature of user shows feat fee acquisition was made with a mala -fide intention; and (4) fee Petitioner has been illegally discriminated in as such as plots belonging to some other landowners and comprised in fee same notification have been returned to writ while fee Petitioner's plot has not been returned.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner draws my attention to the preamble and Sec. 3 of fee Act and contends feat fee land could be acquired under the special Act only for fee resettlement of fee displaced persons. He then safer to Rule 9 and submits that the proviso to fee said rule is ultra vires the Act and cannot authorise fee Respondents to utilize 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 fee affidavit filed by Shri M.J. Srivastava, Settlement Commissioner, dated the 25th August, 1964, and submits that fee Respondents are under a wrong impression about fee legal position when they contend that the property having wetted absolutely in fee Government, it is entitled to deal wife it as it likes and feat under Rule 9 fee land acquired wean be used for construction of school building; According to the submission of the learned Counsel utilisation for the construction of a school building is not utilisation of land for resettlement of displaced persons.