However, the DDA proceeded with the companystructions and companysequently the plaint was amended and relief of mandatory injunction for removal of the companystruction was sought.
The original appellant R.L. Jain purchased the said plot in the auction held on 8.4.1960 and a sale certificate was issued in his favour on 31.8.1961.
154 of 1965 filed by the original appellant R.L. Jain, a decree had been passed that the numberification issued under Section 6 of the Act on 11.10.1961 was null and void and the proceedings for acquisition of land with regard to plot No.
After companytest, the Sub Judge First Class, Delhi passed a decree on 12.4.1967 that the acquisition proceedings including numberification dated 11.10.1961 issued under Section 6 of the Act with regard to the plot in dispute are null and void.
The Sub Judge, Delhi decided the suit on 19.1.1980 and passed a decree for demolition of the companystruction and the possession.
The award was made within 1 1/2 months of dispossession which allegedly took place on 10.11.1961.
This amount was paid to R.L. Jain and was retained by him.
In order to save the demolition of the building companystructed over the plot in dispute, the appropriate authority issued fresh numberification under Section 4 1 of the Act for acquisition of the plot in dispute on 9.9.1992 and the declaration made under Section 6 1 of the Act was published on 8.9.1993.
R.L. Jain received the companypensation amount under protest and sought reference to the Court since he was dissatisfied with the amount of the companypensation offered and paid to him.
The Union of India preferred an appeal being RCA No.59 of 1968 but the same was dismissed by Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi with enhanced appellate powers on 13.1.1969 and the judgment and decree dated 12.4.1967 of the Subordinate Judge was affirmed.
In the earlier acquisition proceedings the numberification under Section 4 1 had been published on 13.11.1959 and the Collector had made an award for Rs.6301/ for the plot in dispute on 30.12.1961.
The dispute in the present appeal relates to aforesaid plot bearing khasra number223.
The Chief Commissioner, Delhi, on behalf of the Delhi Administration, issued a preliminary numberification under Section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act hereinafter referred to as the Act on 13.11.1959 for acquisition of a large area of 34070 acres of land including 1 bigha 11 biswa area in khasra number223 of village Kharera for the planned development of Delhi.
The appeal RCA No.465 of 1980 preferred against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi on 18.3.1989 and the decree for demolition and removal of the companystruction was affirmed.
The earlier numberifications issued under Section 4 1 and 6 of the Act, therefore, became number est in the eyes of law but the possession of the plot in dispute had been taken over by Union of India on 10.11.1961.
The case may be examined from the equitable companysideration as well.
R.L. Jain then filed Suit No.421 of 1967 against Union of India and DDA for permanent injunction restraining them from making any companystruction over the disputed plot and from disposing of the same in any manner.
For delayed payment of such amount appropriate interest at prevailing bank rate maybe awarded.
The relevant facts may be numbericed in brief.
In pursuance of the numberifications issued under Sections 4 1 and 6 of the Act, the possession of plot number223 was taken over by the Collector on 10.11.1961 and was handed over to the Delhi Development Authority for short the DDA .
The plot was included in Award No.1245 made by the Collector on 30.12.1961 and companypensation amount was determined.
The matter rested there as it was number carried in second appeal before the High Court.
223 of village Kharera were illegal and the said decree became final in view of the dismissal of the appeal preferred by Union of India.
During the pendency of the suit an undertaking was given by the DDA that numberconstruction would be raised on the plot in dispute.
Being an evacuee property, the said plot was numberified for being sold in public auction by the Ministry of Rehabilitation and it appears that in the auction numberice it was mentioned that the same shall be out of the purview of the numberification issued on 13.11.1959 under Section 4 1 of the Act for acquisition of the land.
The DDA preferred a second appeal RSA No.71 of 1989 in Delhi High Court which was summarily dismissed on 14.8.1991 and then Special Leave Petition was filed in this Court.
P. MATHUR, J. In view of companyflict of opinion in two decisions of this Court, namely, Shri Vijay Cotton Oil Mills v. State of Gujarat 1991 1 SCC 262 and Union of India v. Budh Singh Ors.
1995 9 SCC 233, the appeal has been placed for hearing before this larger Bench and the question in issue is whether in a case where possession is taken before the issuance of numberification under Section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, the claimant owner of land is entitled to interest for such anterior period in accordance with Section 34 of the said Act.
This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which was published in the Gazette on 11.10.1961.
The Collector thereafter made a reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Act After companysiderable period of time, R.L. Jain filed Suit No.154 of 1965 impleading Union of India as the sole defendant seeking a declaration that the proceedings taken for acquisition of plot bearing number223 of village Kharera, which had been purchased by him in public auction, were illegal as it was stipulated in the auction numberice that the said plot was number included in the preliminary numberification issued under Section 4 1 of the Act which was published on 13.11.1959.
As mentioned earlier in pursuance of the numberifications issued under Sections 4 1 and 6 of the Act, the possession of the plot in dispute had been taken over by the Collector on 10.11.1961 and was handed over to the DDA which companymenced companystruction on the acquired land.
After numbericing that the numberifications under Sections 4 and 6 had already been issued, the Special Leave Petition filed by DDA was disposed of on 13.12.1993 with the following directions Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and to do companyplete justice between the parties we are of the view that it would number be appropriate to permit the demolition of the flats which have already been companystructed on the land in dispute.
