TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 1.16 bighas of land on March 27, 1961 constituting a total extent of 4 acres 3025 square yards from the erstwhile owner of the land. The Stat Government issued on August 13, 1962 what is known as Land Policy in which it was stated that the lands falling within the limits of Ghaziabad Municipality may be acquired in the first instance, under the Act; that the Trust should make external development of the entire area and also internal development in certain categories of cases the details whereof are mentioned in the Schedule appended thereto and directed that lease out the plotted area to the persons from whom the land was acquired by charging premium which shall be equal to the compensation payable for the acquisition plus the cost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated April 18, 1974. By letter dated May 6, 1974, the Trust informed her that since she had purchased the land after notification under Section 4 [1] had already been published, she was not eligible for allotment and accordingly the Trust had returned the amount deposited by her by a cheque dated June 3, 1974. Thereafter, the appellant filed Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.4517 of 1974 in the Allahabad High Court which was dismissed on November 29, 1977. When the matter was heard on August 29, 1995 by this Court, it transpired that after the policy was issued, the State Government issued two G.Os. dated December 8, 1971 and June 2, 1972 providing guidelines for implementation of the Land Policy. We, therefore, directed the counsel for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e purchased the land after the issue of Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Shri G.L. Sanghi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the owner of the land is entitled under the policy for the allotment of the land in terms of three categories enumerated in the Land Policy. Admittedly, the appellant falls in category [2]. Had the owner claimed under the Land Policy, the Trust would be enjoined to allot the land in terms of the Policy with a right to the owner to sub-lease the same. In consequence, it makes little difference if the subsequent purchaser steps into the shoes of the owner and lays claim for allotment. The only condition which disables the appellant as owner or successor in int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be needed for public purpose and the acquisition proceedings points out an impediment to anyone to encumber the land acquired thereunder. It authorizes the designated officer to enter upon the land to do preliminaries etc. Therefore, any alienation of land after the publication of the notification under Section 4 [1] does not bind the Government or the beneficiary under the acquisition. On taking possession of the land, all rights, titles and interests in land stand vested in the State, under Section 16 of the Act, free from all encumbrances and thereby absolute title in the land is acquired thereunder. If any subsequent purchaser acquires land, his/her only right would be subject to the provisions of the Act and/or to receive compensati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds, lease deeds were executed in favour of the allottees. Although they purchased the land after the issue of the notification under Section 4 [1], the benefits would be given to them. It is seen that it is not a general policy nor is it in supersession of the earlier policy but is a classificatory one. In other words, it intends to deal with only limited collateral contingent circumstance. In this case, though the appellant had applied within time to avail of the benefits of the Land Policy and she was asked to deposit the compensation received for the land acquired, the Trust was not in know of the fact that the appellant had purchased the land after the publication of Section 4 [1] notification. When the appellant sought for execution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of G.O. No.342 dated December 8, 1971. It would thus be seen that no discrimination, much less invidious discrimination, was meted out to the appellant. Even if a benefit is wrongly given in favour of one or two, it does not cloth with a right to perpetrate the wrong and the court cannot give countenance to such actions though they are blameworthy and condemnable. Equality clause does not extend to perpetrate wrong nor can anyone equate a right to have the wrong repeated and benefit reaped thereunder. Considered from this perspective, we are of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled to the benefits of the Land Policy. The High Court rightly did not extend the benefits to the appellant. Hence our interference under Article 136 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
