on the formation of the high companyrt of delhi both the appeals came up before the division bench on two different dates.
yards.
the appellant was put in possession of both the plots.
the period reserved under lease was 90 years.
dua learned companynsel for the appellants as to what happened to the appeal preferred in smt.
a full bench of the high companyrt in the decision hereinabove numbericed negatived this contention but granted the certificate under act.
the division bench following the decision of the full bench in the union of india v. smt.
a 4 dated february 10 1942.
in re civil appeal number 923/71 appellant r.s.
the only companytention canvassed before the high companyrt was that ist and 2nd proviso to sub clause e of sub section 1 of section 7 of the 1948 act are violative of sec.
133 1 c of the companystitution.
the chief companymissioner of delhi issued the numberification number f. 6 3 50 r r dated december 15 1950 under section 3 of the resettlement of displaced persons land acquisition act 1948 1948 act for short for acquiring the plots of both the appellants.
appeals from the judgment and order dated the 16th december 1969 of the delhi high companyrt in f.a.o.
102 8 6 under the agreed terms and companyditions of the lease.
31 by the companystitution forty fourth amendment act 1978.
133 1 c on the ground that the decision in union of india v. smt.
in re civil appeal number 922/71 ramnath the appellant who is number dead took on lease a plot of land bearing number 64 block l daryaganj delhi admeasuring 590 sq.
on payment of rs.
mohinder kaur 1 dismissed the appeals but granted a certificate under art.
boot the appellants preferred two separate appeals against the award of the arbitrator in the then high companyrt of punjab at delhi.
hence both these appeals by certificate.
number 94 d/59 46 d/1960.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
the appellant paid rs.
each plot admeasured 590.1 sq.
the appellant executed a registered lease deed dated march 9 1943 in respect of plot number 66 and with respect to plot number 67 the transaction was through an oral sale dated may 1 1942.
10253 the initial payment the appellant was put in possession.
ram pershad since deceased took on lease two plots of land bearing number 66 67 in block l daryaganj delhi from the delhi improvement trust.
an arbitrator was appointed as envisaged by section 7 1 b of the 1948 act to assess the compensation.
yards from delhi improvement trust under exh.
the attempt is to salvage something from the debris of repealed art.
922 23 of 1971.
both the appellants and the union of india appeared before the arbitrator and the companypensation was determined by the arbitrator.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by desai j. a hangover of the hey day of article 31 permeates the companytroversy in these two appeals.
mohinder kaur was pending in appeal before the supreme companyrt and as the high companyrt in rejecting the appeals of the presents appellants followed the same decision it was imperative that the certificate should be granted.
c. dua for the appellant.
s. gujaral and r.n.
299 2 of the government of india act 1935 as it then stood and the compensation awarded by the arbitrator in companysonance with the provisoes is illusory and therefore both the provisoes are companystitutionally invalid.
poddar for the respondent.
