JUDGMENT
S.B. Wad, J.
(1) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner New India Cooperative Industrial (Production) Society Ltd., against the order of the learned District Judge in Civil Suit No. 2/75 and S No. 8/75. The suit was originally filed for the specific performance of an agreement to sell 38 bighas and 12 biswas of the land situate village Lahar Heri, on Palam Nazafgarh Road, Delhi.
(2) The agreement was allegedly entered into on 2nd October, 1970. The suit for specific performance was filed on 2.1.1975. In the meanwhile, Delhi Land Holdings (Ceilings) Act, I960 was amended by Delhi Land Holdings (Ceillings) Amendment Ordinance 1976. Section 7(A) of the Act provides as under:-
“NOTWITHSTANDING anything contained in any other law every suit for specific performance of a contract for the transfer of the land, instituted after the appointed day and before the commencement of Delhi land Holdings (Ceilidgs) Amendment Act, 1976 shall abate and no suit for the specific performance of any such contract entered into before such commencement shall be maintainable.”
(3) The learned District Judge held that since the suit was filed after the appointed day under the Amending Act viz. 24th Day of January 1971 and before coming into force of the amending Act namely Delhi Land Holdings (Ceilings) Amendment Act, 1976 on 8th December, 1975. The suit had abated pursuant to amended Section 7(A) of the Act.
(4) This order has been challenged in the present petition. The petitioner has inter alia contended that Section 7(A) of the Act is ultravires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. But we need not go into this question. The suit lands were admittedly acquired by the Central Government in 1986 and they now vest in the Central Government, free from all encumberances. The rights, if any, of the original plaintiff and defendant are now to be understood in terms of the payment of the compensation. The matter in dispute is before the District Judge for that purpose. Section (A) of the Amending Act only bars the legal remedy, since it says that the pending suit shall abate and no suit for specific performance of a contract would be maintainable The substantive rights of the parties are not touched by the said amendment. The plaintiff and the defendant are entitled to go before the District Judge and prove their respective interests in the property. The District Judge will be free to decide the nature and extent of the interest of the plaintiff and defendants in the property and apportion payment of compensation on that basis.
(5) With this order the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.