JUDGMENT
P.N. Nag, J.
(1) The petitioner has challenged the impugned communication dated 25th September, 1989 issued by Shri Gita Sagar, Joint Secretary (L&B) (Annexure P-8 to the writ petition) vide which the case of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of the petitioner’s land, which was acquired vide Award No. 2052 dated 30.12.1967, in village Dallupura, Shahdara, Delhi, has been rejected on the ground that the land in question has been purchased by him after the date of notification u/Sec. 4; which does not allow eligibility in accordance with the policy.
(2) The brief facts set out in the petition are that the petitioner purchased 1200 sq. yards of land in Khasra No. 12, in village Dallupura, Shahdara, Delhi from one Shri Harbans Kaur and Smt. Sheila Malhotra vide a registered sale deed dated 7.2 1967 which was duly registered on 16.2.1967 in the office of the Sub-registrar, Delhi. This land admittedly was purchased after the issue of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 13.11.1959. It appears to be the admitted case of the parties that under the policy of the Delhi Administration of 1961 if the land of an owner is acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Delhi Administration for the purpose of planned development of Delhi, he is entitled to alternative plot at the reserved price to be fixed by the Delhi Administration in addition to the compensation that may be awarded. Accordingly the petitioner applied, under the aforementioned scheme, for the alternative plot, but his application was rejected by the impugned communication on the ground that he had purchased the land after the date of issue of Section 4 Notification and as such he was not eligible in accordance with the said scheme/policy.
(3) No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in this case.
(4) Mr. Vipin Sanghi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has brought to my notice a judgment of the Full Bench of Delhi High Court in Smt. Shiv Devi Virlley v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Others reported as Air 1987 Delhi 92 46 The present case seems to be squarely covered by this judgment wherein it has been clearly laid down that a person who acquires land, after Sec. 4 Notification under the Land Acquisition Act cannot be treated to be a non-owner for the purposes of the Scheme which was framed in 1961. In fact, there is nothing in the Scheme, which shows that it is restricted to owners when the land was notified being one which the government contemplated to acquire. It is quite clear from the Scheme that any one whose land has been acquired as a result of the Notifications mentioned in Clause, 8 of the Scheme is entitled to apply for allotment oF plot. By anyone is meant the owner of the land at the time of acquisition and not the owner at the time of the issue of the Notification under Sec. 4. Land Acquisition Act. in fact, there is no impediment in law at all either today or earlier regarding transfers, after the Notification has been issued under Sec. 4. There is an impediment after the acquisition notice is issued under Sec. 6 of the Delhi Lands (Restriction on Transfer) Act, but that too applies after 1972.
(5) It may be noted here that the land of the petitioner was acquired much earlier than 1972.
(6) Mr. Mathur, learned Counsel for the Dda fairly concedes that this case is fully covered by the decision of the Full Bench, aforementioned. However, he submits that the petitioner is not a “recorded owner” in the revenue records of the land in dispute which has since been acquired. It is undoubtedly not in dispute that the land in question has been purchased by the petitioner after the issue of Section 4 Notification. It Is again not in dispute that the compensation also has been paid to the petitioner on the acquisition of the land in dispute. Reference in this connection may be made to Annexure P-3 to the writ petition, from which it is apparent that the petitioner has been recognised as the owner by the respondents. At any rate, the case set up by the impugned communication only specifies that the petitioner is not eligible for allotment of the alternative plot because he has purchased the land in dispute after the date of issue of Sec. 4 Notification. As already stated, this objection is not tenable in view of the Full Bench’s decision of this Court, referred to above.
(7) In the light of the above discussion, I allow the petition and the impugned communication (Annexure P-8 to the writ petition) is quashed. The respondents are directed to approve the case of the petitioner for the allotment of alternative plot in accordance with the Scheme of the Delhi Administration in lieu of the petitioner’s acquired land in dispute under Award No.2052 dated 30.12.1967 in village Dallupura, Shahdara, Delhi and recommend his case within two months from today to D.D.A.
(8) In the circumstances of this case, I make no order as to costs.