The Division Bench dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay.
A person who purchases land subsequent to the Notification may be entitled to claim companypensation by virtue of sale made in his favour, namely, the right, title and interest the predecessor had but, he cannot be said to be the owner for allotment since the right of ownership would be determined with reference to the date on which Notification under s.4 1 was publish ed.
1995 1 SCR 354 The following Order of the Court was delivered This appeal by Special Leave arises from the Judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 212.1985 made in L.P.A. No.
This was the view of this Court in another case while companysidering the Full Bench Judgment of the Delhi High Court.
The respondent filed the Writ Petition which came up before the learned Single Judge claiming alternative site on the ground that his land has been acquired for public purpose and that therefore, he is entitled to the benefit under the policy of the Government.
The appellant have denied the right.
This Court has companydoned the delay and admitted the appeal.
It is number companyrect that the answering respondent was number entitled to alternative site.
In the S.L.P. it was specifically stated that inspite of giving opportunities to the respondent on 1.12.1981 and 8.3.1982 to produce the record to show that he was the owner as on the date of the Notification, he had number produced the record.
The question for companysideration is whether the respondent is entitled to alternative site.
The Notification under s.4 1 of the Act was published on June 29, 1966.
The relevant question is that when the acquisition was finalised, he was the owner of the land and thus he was within the zone of companysideration.
In view of these averments and companytentions raised by the respondent in the companynter affidavit vis a vis the allegations made by the appellant in the S.L.P., it is clear that as on the date of the Notification published under s,4 1 of the Act, namely, June 29, 1966 the respondent was number the owner of the land.
The policy of the Government indicates that the person whose land was acquired means the owner as on the date, numberification was numberified for acquisition, and he alone will be entitled to allotment of alternative site.
The Singh Judge found that though the respondent was number the owner on the date when the Notification under s.4 l of the Land Acquisi tion Act was published but as on the date when the acquisition was finalised he became the owner by virtue of purchase and that therefore he is entitled to allotment of alternative site.
In paragraph 5 of the companynter affidavit filed by the respondent as well as in the grounds it was stated that it is irrelevant when the respondent purchased the numberified land or number.
26 of 1985 dismissing the appeal in limine as barred by limitation.
