JUDGMENT
C.K. Mahajan, J.
1. By way of this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the acquisition proceedings in respect of property comprised in Khasra No. 368 measuring 5 bighas 19 biswas in Village Misjid Moth, New Delhi as well as the notification dated 7th March 1962 issued by Delhi Administration and the LAC Case No. 72/85 pending in the Court of Addl. District Judge. (Land Acquisition Court).
2. Briefly the facts are, the property comprised of Khasra No. 368, measuring 5 bighas, 19 biswas was notified to be sold as a Government property by public auction on 21.6.1958. The late husband of the petitioner being displaced person bid for the same which was accepted as the highest bid. Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India vide letter dated 31.10.1960 directed delivery of provisional possession of the aforesaid property subject to terms of the Indemnity Bond. No title was given. The husband of the petitioner died on 6th June 1970, A sum of Rs. 14,992/- was demanded by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Govt. of” India vide letter dated 16.6.1980 towards balance sale consideration which was deposited by the petitioner. Certificate of Sale dated 22.8.1980 was issued in favor of the petitioner which was duly registered on 15.7.1981. Title of the said roperty stood transferred in favor of the petitioner.
3. However, one Mr. Chhugani, a friend of the petitioner, received a notice in LAC Case No. 72/85 which was communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner inspected the records and learnt that the land acquisition proceedings were taken in respect of the said land and pursuant thereto the land was acquired. Notification under Section 4, 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in 1962 followed by an award No. 1351 dated 30.6.1982.
4. As the petitioner’s possession was sought to be disturbed, she filed a suit for injunction being Suit No. 526 of 1992 in the Subordinate Court and the Subordinate Court granted ad interim injunction.
5. Aggrieved by the acquisition of the said property by the notification dated 7th March 1962, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
The petitioner contends that on the date of the Issue of the Section 4 notification, the title of the land had not yet passed in favor, of the petitioner. The land belonged to the Government being evacuee land and as such the same could not have been acquired. Provisional possession of the land was given to the late husband of the petitioner subject to final adjustment of compensation. Balance sale consideration of Rs. 14,992/- was demanded vide letter dated June 16, 1980. In the circumstances, the land continued to vest in the Government being evacuee land and ownership passed only on payment of full price where after Sale Certificate was issued and registered on 15.7.1981. The acquisition was thus bad and non-est.
6. The respondent DDA has opposed the petition. It Is stated that the present petition suffers from delay and laches Inasmuch as the notification was issued on 7.3.1962 and the award was given on 30.6.1962 whereas the present petition was filed on 30.7.1993. It is further stated that the land in question has already been acquired by award dated 30.6.1962. The physical vacant possession of the land was taken by the Land & Building Deptt. of the Delhi Administration on 11.7.1962 and was placed at the disposal of respondent-DDA on 9.2.1981. It is admitted that the property in question was conveyed to the petitioner on 22.8.1980 but she was declared purchaser of the said property w.e.f. 11.12.1960. It is further submitted that the land in question ceased to be Government land w .e. f. 11.12.1960 and the rights of the petitioner in the land could be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and per used t he documents on record.
8. The short questions involved in the present writ petition for consideration are :–
1. Whether the land in question was an evacuee land on the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 7.3.1962?
2. Whether the land, if it was an evacuee property, could have been acquired under the law?
9. It has been observed by the Full Bench of this Court in Roshanara Begum v. Union of India and Ors. that in case the evacuee land has been excluded from notification under Section 4, there was no need to resort to Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land and any subsequent proceedings of acquisition taken in respect of the said land on the basis of the said notification were on the face of it illegal.
10. Property in question is an open land measuring 5 bighass, 19 biswas comprised in Khasra No. 368, Village Maszid Moth vested in the, Central Government having been acquired under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons & Compensation Act, 1954. The property formed part of the compensation pool under Section 14 of the said Act. The property was notified to be sold as Government property by way of public auction on 21.6.1958. The petitioner bid at the auction and vide letter dated 31.10.1960 provisional possession was delivered to the husband of the petitioner. Adjustment of claims took time. The petitioner vide letter dated 16.6.1980 was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 14,992/- within 15 days falling which sale would be cancelled and earnest money forfeited. Balance sale consideration was deposited. Sale certificate was issued on 22.8.1980 and the sale was registered on 15.7.1981 . The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. It was contended by the respondents that the title in the property was vested in the petitioner prior to notification under Section 44 though the sale certificate was Issued w.e.f. 22nd August, 1980, thus, the notification was valid.
11. The property belonged to the compensation pool. It was transferred under Section 20 of the Displaced Persons & Compensation Act, 1954. Procedure for sale is laid down in chapter XIV of the Displaced Persons & Compensation Rules, 1955. The Supreme Court in Bishan Paul v. Mothu Ram, reported in AIR 1965 SC 1944 has held that the title passed in the case of auction sale of property in the compensation pool only when the full price was paid by the highest bidder. The observations of the Supreme Court are extracted hereunder:-
“It seems to us that the matter must be considered on general principles. In this case the highest bid was of the respondent and he paid the full price before the sale in his favor was confirmed. The sale certificate, though issued later, mentioned the date of the confirmation of the sale in his favor . The tenant was asked to attorn to the purchaser from the date of confirmation of sale and thus possession was also delivered on that day. Title, therefore, was not in abeyance till the certificate was Issued but passed on the confirmation sale. The intention behind the rules appears to be that title shall pass when the full price is realized and this is now clear from the new form of the certificate reproduced in Jaimal’s case, 68 Pun LR 99: (AIR 1964 Punj 99). No doubt till the price is paid in full there is no claim to the property, but it seems somewhat strange that a person who has paid the price in full and in whose favor the sale is also confirmed and who is placed in possession should only acquire title of the property from the date on which a certificate is issued to him.”
The relevant rules of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 are set out hereunder :-
“90. Procedure for sale of property by public auction-
(1) x x x x x (2) x x x x x
(3) Notice of the intended sale shall be given at least fifteen days before the proposed sale, the description of the property to be sold, its location and boundaries where possible, the terms and conditions of the sale and any other particulars which the Settlement Commissioner or other officer considers material. One copy of the notice shall be affixed on a conspicuous part of the property to be sold. It shall be within the discretion of the Settlement Commissioner or other officer to advertise the sale in newspapers and in such other manner as he may deem fit.
x x x x x x x (5) Every auction of a property under these rules shall be subject to a reserve price fixed in respect of the property, but such reserve price may not be disclosed. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
(8) The person declared to be the highest bidder for the property at the public auction shall pay in cash or by a cheque drawn on a scheduled bank and endorsed “good for payment up to six months” or in such other form as may be required by the Settlement Commissioner, immediately on the fall of the hammer a deposit not exceeding 10 per cent of the amount of his bid to the officer conducting the sale and in default of such deposit the property may be resold.
(9) The Initial deposit shall be refunded if the net compensation exceeds the purchase price.
(10) The bid in respect of which the initial deposit has been accepted shall be subject to the approval of the Settlement commissioner or the officer appointed by him for the purpose;
Provided that no bid shall be approved until after the expiry of a period of seven days from the date of auction.
(11) Intimation of the approval of a bid or Its rejection shall be given to the highest bidder (hereinafter refer red to as the auction purchaser) by registered post acknowledgement due and the auction purchaser shall where the bid has been accepted be required within 15 days of the issue of such intimation to send by registered post or to produce before the Settlement Commissioner or any other officer appointed by him for the purpose, a treasury cha11an in respect of the deposit of the balance of the purchase money.
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x (14) If the auction purchaser does not deposit the balance of the purchase money within the period specified in Sub-rule (11) ....., he sha11 not have any claim to the property.
(15) When the purchase price has been realised in full from the auction purchaser, the managing officer shall issue to him a Sale Certificate in the form specified in Appendix XXII or XXIII, as the case may be. A certificate copy of the sale certificate shall be sent by him to the Registering Officer within the 1ocal limits of whose jurisdiction, the whole or any part of the property to which the certificate relates is situated. If the auction purchaser is a displaced person and has associated with himself any other displaced person having a verified claim whose net compensation is to be adjusted in whole or in part against the purchase price, the sale certificate shall be made out jointly in the name of all such persons:
Provided that if it is agreed in writing by all concerned that the sale certificate may be made out in the name of the auction purchaser, the sale certificate may be made out in the name of auction purchaser.
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
13. From a perusal of the rules aforesaid, it is clear that the certificate was to issue only when full purchase price was paid. If the price is not paid, the amount of advance is forfeited and the auction purchaser has no claim to the property.
14. This Court in Pt. Haveli Ram v. Union of India and Ors. (C.W.No. 1092/67) decided on 30.3.1971 quashed the notification under Section 4 in similar circumstances and the only question was whether by reason of the sale certificate issued stating that it will take effect from 22.10.1959, it would have effect of vesting title from that date. The notification was quashed following the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Bishan Paul v. Mothu Ram (supra). The judgment of this Court in Dr. Bhargava & Co. and Anr. v. Sh. Shyam Sunder Seth reported in A1R 1988 Delhi 349 is also to this effect.
15. The plea of the respondents that the petition is belated and is without merit. The petitioner’s land was not covered by the notification being evacuee property and the notification was non-est and any proceeding taken for acquisition of land on the basis of such a notification issued under Section 4 would be void ab initio and without jurisdiction. I draw support from a decision of this Court in Sham Sunder Khanna v. Union of India reported in 1997 RLR 101 and in Nanak Chand Sharma v. Union of India and Ors. .
16. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon a decision of the Punjab High Court in Dewan Jhangi Ram v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (63) 1961 Pun LR 610 and a decision of this Court in Mohd. Yusuf v. Union of India reported in (72) 1970 Pun LR 241. I have given careful thought to the aforesaid decisions and am of the opinion that the same are of no help to the respondents.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I hold that the land in question was evacuee on the date of the notification and the same could not have been acquired in law.
18. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed. The notification dated 7th March 1962 under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act is quashed. Consequently the proceedings in LAC Case No. 72/85 pending in the Court of Addl. Distt. Judge (Land Acquisition Court) are also quashed.