9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (in short 'the DPCR Act'). Thereafter the property was transferred to the compensation pool Under Section 14 of the said Act. A decision was taken to transfer the subject property out of the compensation pool to displaced persons. In an auction held on 6.8.1958 the predecessors of the Respondents (hereinafter referred to as the Respondents) offered the highest bid which was accepted on 15.10.1958. After adjustment of the verified claims, the Respondents were asked to deposit the balance price within 15 days which was so done. On 10.3.1959, the Respondents were informed by the Appellant that their bid has been accepted and provisional possession of the property is being handed over to them. 3. On 13.11.1959 a notification Under Section 4 of the LA Act was issued proposing to acquire 34070 acres of land in several villages including Village Basai Darapur where the subject land was situated. The notification Under Section 4 specifically excluded from the purview of the acquisition Government and evacuee land. After the Section 4 notification was issued and prior to the declaration Under Section 6 made on 6.1.196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the subject land. 7. It is further argued that though in the present case the sale certificate in respect of the property was issued on 25.1.1962 and the property therein was transferred to the Respondents with effect from the said date, there is no inherent contradiction between the transfer of title in favour of the Respondents on a subsequent date and the acquisition of the property or initiation of such process of acquisition on a prior date. In this regard placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in Saraswati Devi (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors. 2013 (3) SCC 571 it is contended that the bid offered by the Respondent; the acceptance thereof and the delivery of provisional possession creates an encumbrance on the subject land which is amenable to a process of acquisition under the LA Act as held in Saraswati Devi (supra). 8. Reliance has also been placed on a judgment of this Court in Delhi Administration and Ors. v. Madan Lal Nangia and Ors. 2003 (10) SCC 321 to contend that the evacuee property vests in the Custodian for the purposes contemplated by the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and in the Central Government only after the not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondents. 11. Two questions as set out below, in our considered view, arise for determination in the present case. (i) Whether the land, after issuance of notification Under Section 12 of the DPCR Act, ceased to be evacuee property so as to be excluded from the purview of the notification issued Under Section 4 of the LA Act? (ii) If the subject land vested in the Central Government upon publication of the notification Under Section 12 of the DPCR Act and thereby ceased to be evacuee land, could such land vested in the Central Government be acquired under the provisions of the LA Act? 12. A reading of the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 would go to show that the said Act (since repealed with effect from 5.9.2005) had been enacted for the administration of evacuee property and for matters connected therewith. While it will not be necessary to set out the definition of "evacuee" and "evacuee property" as defined in the said Act regard must be had to the provisions of Section 6 which contemplated appointment by the Central Government by means of a notification in the official gazette, a Custodian for any State for discharge of duties under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the matter of making a requisition for the convening of a meeting or of presenting a petition to the Court under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, or the articles of association of the company or in any other matter as the evacuee shareholder himself could have done had he been present, although the name of the Custodian does not appear in the register of members of the company; (ll) in any case where the evacuee property which has vested in the Custodian consists of fifty-one per cent. or more of the shares in a company, the Custodian may take charge of the management of the whole affairs of the company and exercise, in addition to any of the powers vested in him under this Act, all or any of the powers of the directors of the company, notwithstanding that the registered office of such company is situate in any part of the territories to which this Act extends, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (7 of 1913), or in the articles of association of the company: Provided that the Custodian shall not take charge of such management of the company except with the previous approval of the Central Governme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ished and the evacuee property shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances." Under Sub-section (4) of Section 12 all such evacuee property acquired forms part of the compensation pool which Under Section 14 vests in the Central Government "free from all encumbrances and shall be utilised in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder". The vesting of the property in the Custodian under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (Section 8) and in the Central Government (after issuance of Section 12 notification under the DPCR Act) are two distinct and different phases which are contemplated to be brought into effect by specific acts and conscious decisions as contemplated by the provisions of the two enactments. The clear language of Section 8 of Administration of Evacuee Property Act and Sections 12(2) & (4) and 14 of the DPCR Act makes it abundantly clear that the transition from the vesting of the evacuee property in the Custodian to the Central Government is a distinct and identifiable process under the law. The acquisition of the land Under Section 12 of the DPCR Act brings the evacuee property into a common pool whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tting him to do so. No provision was, however, pointed out to us in either of these Acts whereunder despite the vesting of the property in the Central Government the Custodian was empowered to deal with it. Sub-section 4 of Section 12 of the 1954 Act provides that all evacuee property acquired under that section shall form part of the compensation pool. Under Section 16(1) of this Act the Central Government is empowered to take such measures as it considers necessary or expedient for the custody, management and disposal of the compensation pool. Sub-section 2 of Section 16 empowers the Central Government to appoint such officers as it deems fit or to constitute such authority or corporation as it deems fit for the purpose of managing and disposing of the properties forming part of the compensation pool. Section 19 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or any other law for the time being in force but subject to the rules that may be made under the Act the managing officer or managing corporation may cancel any allotment etc., under which any evacuee property acquired under the Act is held or occupied by a person whether such allotment or lease w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act although the ownership in the land vested in the Central Government. In this regard we must also take note of the manner in which the earlier decision of this Court in Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar 2003 (3) SCC 128 has been understood in Saraswati Devi (supra), namely, it is only such land in respect of which the entirety of the rights vests in the State and on which land there are no private rights or encumbrances which would be outside the purview of the LA Act. 16. In view of the above discussions we arrive at the conclusion that the judgment and order of the High Court under challenge in the present appeal is not sustainable in law. We, therefore, set aside the same and allow this appeal. 17. This application seeks directions that the subject land acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed Under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 18. In view of the issues raised and the consistent orders of this Court on similar applications, we leave it open to the Respondents to approach the appropriate forum, if they are so advised, to initiate appropriate proceedings Under Section 24 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
