160 in Delhi having had perpetual lease from the Government of India on June 14, 1934 on payment of premium of Rs 10,850 and annual rent with stipulations that and of the land hereinafter reserved and of the companyenants on the part of the lessee hereinafter companytained, the lessor doth hereby demise unto the lessee all the plot of land companytaining He was also entitled to retain the demise land in perpetuity subject to the right of the lessor to enhance the rent and the right to re entry upon the demised land on breach of the companyenants.
The land is Nazul which was given on a perpetual lease by Chief Commissioner, Delhi on an yearly rent of Rs 542/8/ Rs 542 and 8 annas, i.e. Rs 542.50 P per annum.
The Land Acquisition Collector by an award dated March 26, 1973 awarded companypensation with the following observations Thus the land under acquisition is a leasehold held at present on lease by the claimant Shri Inder Parshad.
After determining the companypensation the Collector, who was number able to decide at what proportion the appellant and the Government were entitled to receive the companypensation, made a reference under Section 30 of the Act to the civil companyrt.
On further appeal by the appellant, while upholding the title to the companypensation by the Government and the appellant, the High Court altered the proportion to 75 and 25 between the appellant and the Government respectively.
By a numberification dated March 5, 1967 published in the Gazette under Section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short the Act, the demised land together with the building, along with other lands was acquired for a public purpose.
In support thereof he placed reliance on Collector of Bombay v. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri 1.
The Government did number question the said proportion at which the companypensation was payable to the appellant and the respondent.
The appellant admittedly was a lessee of Nazul land admeasuring 3.1 acres or thereabout situated at Block No.
The District Court by judgment dated November 15, 1976 held that the Government and the appellant were entitled to companypensation at the proportion of 33 and 67 respectively.
The appellant with permission of the lessor companystructed a building on the demised land and was in its quiet enjoyment, companyplying with the companyenants.
The appellant being aggrieved for apportionment of 25 of the companypensation in favour of Government filed this appeal by special leave.
The perpetual lease is subject to the performance of certain companyenants including prior permission of the lessor to assign the land to third parties All urbanisable land in Delhi is companyered by the master plan which was framed under the Delhi Development Act, 1957.
