D.K. Kapoor, J.
1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of the circumstance that the petitioner who is a displaced person from West Pakistan was allotted certain land comprised in Khasra No. 759 situated at Tughlakabad, New Delhi, which khasra measures 44 bighas 4 bids was and eventually he was granted a sanad regarding a portion of that khasra in the end of November, 1966. The area granted to the petitioner measures 3 bighas, 6 biswas. It was assigned khasra No. 759/1/2/2/1.
2. It appears from the documents on record that this land had been acquired by the Central Government by means of a Notification dated July 26, 1963 published in the Gazette of India of August 3, 1963. It was acquired under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The Notification covered all properties in the State of Delhi which had vested in the Custodian under Section 11 of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951. The said land is allegedly covered by a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act issued on February 4, 1965, which is Annexure A to the petition. The date of the order mentioned in the said Notification is January 23, 1965. That Notification covered an area of 4400 bighas 8 bids was situated in Tughlakabad and included several khasra fields i.e., 737 to 871 which would include 759, a portion of which came to the petitioner eventually. Subsequently, a Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was also published on January 13, 1969.
3. The subject-matter of the present petition is the question whether the land which has come to the petitioner from the Central Government as compensation under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 is included within the scope of the Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is clearly admitted from the facts that this land already belonged to the Central Government on August 3, 1963 and thereforee, was outside the scope of the Section 4 Notification published in February 1965, but dated January 23, 1965. After the Section 4 Notification was published a portion of the said khasra was transferred by means of the sanad, Annexure E, to the petitioner. The real point is whether on the date of the sanad the land could be covered by the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. As it already belonged to the Central Government the question of it being covered by the Notification did not arise. The same view has been accepted as correct by a Division Bench of this Court in The Uttar Pradesh Samaj Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., New Delhi v. Union of India and Ors., (1970) 72 P.L.R. 332, regarding an area of 76 bighas 1 bids was which had been acquired by the Central Government under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, and was vesting in the Central Government on the date of the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, on November 13, 1959 : though the Notification in that case had expressed excluded government land so in a sense, it can be distinguishable. The other judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Chand Bishna Ram and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors., has also laid down that land owned by the Central Government cannot be acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
4. In addition to what may be stated in these judgments the provisions of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act clearly exclude the possibility of the Government acquiring its own land. The provisions are that whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed of on is likely to be needed for any public purpose, a Notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette. The subsequent provisions of Sections 5A, 5, 9 and 10 and the making of the award showed that the ownership of the land is transferred on the date of taking possession under the award. In order to acquire any land under the Land Acquisition Act which would result in ownership being transferred to the Government, it is necessary that land should not belong to the Government on the date of the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. This position of law is reinforced by the fact that only the aggrieved person can file objections under Section 5A. The petitioner not being aggrieved on the date of Section 4 Notification when the land belonged to the Central Government was not in a position to file the objections. So, from all points of view the Notifications could not apply to the land already owned by the Central Government.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the petition is very much belated because the Notifications in question came in 1963, 1965 and 1969. However, the present factual position appears to be that the petitioner continues to be the owner as no-one has taken any step to act on the basis of the Notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act. There is a possibility of notices etc. being issued and an award being given. Till those steps are taken the petitioner will continue to have his right in the land and enjoy it as an owner. thereforee, the petitioner's rights to move the petition are not at all affected by any delay. It is only when the threat to the petitioner's title arose that he has to move the Court. The real point in the case is that the petitioner is challenging the effect of the Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and the scope of the same qua his own land. For this purpose he is not belated. We would accordingly grant the writ and declare that the Notifications have no application to the petitioner's land, and issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to take to further action on the basis of those Notifications qua the petitioner's land. The parties are left to bear their own costs.