Skip to content


Bhola Shanker Vs. the Distt. Land Acquisition Officer, Aligarh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 35 of 1972
Judge
Reported inAIR1972SC2477; (1973)2SCC59
ActsLand Acquisition Act - Sections 4, 9, 9(1) and 9(3)
AppellantBhola Shanker
RespondentThe Distt. Land Acquisition Officer, Aligarh and ors.
Appellant Advocate P.N Tiwari, Adv
Respondent Advocate J.P. Goyal and ; R.A. Gupta, Advs. for Respondent No. 4
Prior historyFrom the Judgment and Order dated February 19, 1971 of Allahabad High Court in Spl. Appeal No. 1070 of 1970
Excerpt:
.....appellant after purchasing disputed property took no step to correct his name in official papers - notice under section 9 (3) for land acquisition was issued to owners on papers and not to appellant - appellant himself was blamed not for mutating his name and remained in ignorance of land acquisition proceedings - held, appellant not entitled for any claim. - subordinate/delegated legislation:[d.k. jain & r.m. lodha, jj] banks -voluntary retirement scheme, 2000 (vrs 2000) - held, the amendment in regulation 28, as is reflected from communication dated 5.9.2000, was intended to cover employees who had rendered 15 years service but not completed 20 years service. it was not intended to cover optees who had already completed 20 years service as the provisions contained in regulation 29..........been paid any part of the compensation money. these are matters which the appellant ought to have agitated before the appropriate authorities and if it is open to him he may still do so. but we cannot entertain any argument or contention in respect of these points in the present appeal.2. the appeal is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.
Judgment:

A.N. Grover, J.

1. The main point involved in this appeal namely the challenge to the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act have been disposed of by us in the connected civil appeal No. 34 of 1972, and the decision therein will govern the decision in this case as well. The only other contention is the one which was raised as the third argument before the High Court. According to the High Court the appellant had admittedly purchased the plot in dispute from. Ram Sarup and Madan Mohan in the year 1951, i.e. subsequent to the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. He took no steps to get his name mutated. When the time came for the issue of notice under Section 9 Ram Sarup and Madan Mohan were still shown in the official papers as the tenure holders of the plot in question and the individual notice required by Section 9(3) was therefore issued to them and not to the petitioner Bhola Shanker, the present appellant. The High Court rightly observed that for this it was the appellant who himself was to blame. Moreover, from the counter affidavit filed in the High Court it was clear that the public notice under Section 9(1) was affixed at prominent places in the locality and the High Court was not inclined to believe that the petitioner remained in ignorance of the land acquisition proceedings-Nothing has been brought to our notice which would persuade us not to accept the decision of the High Court on this point. It has been urged that the appellant has put up a house and also a temple as well as there is a grove standing on the land and that he has not been paid any part of the compensation money. These are matters which the appellant ought to have agitated before the appropriate authorities and if it is open to him he may still do so. But we cannot entertain any argument or contention in respect of these points in the present appeal.

2. The appeal is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //