http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: SMT. SNEH PRABHA ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT15/11/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  540            1996 SCC  (7) 426  JT 1995 (8)   267        1995 SCALE  (6)393

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T K. Ramaswamy. J. C.A. No.1869 of 1981      The State  of Uttar  Pradesh got published in the State Gazette the  notification issued  under Section 4 [1] of the Land Acquisition  Act, 1894  [for short,  "the Act"] on July 16, 1960,  acquiring 287  acres of  land  in  Ghaziabad  for planned development by the Improvement Trust, Ghaziabad [for short, "the Trust"]. The appellant had purchased 1.9 and 2.9 bighas of land under sale deed dated March 15, 1961 and 1.9, 2.4 and 1.16 bighas of land on March 27, 1961 constituting a total extent of 4 acres 3025 square yards from the erstwhile owner of  the land. The Stat Government issued on August 13, 1962 what  is known  as "Land Policy" in which it was stated that the  lands  falling  within  the  limits  of  Ghaziabad Municipality may  be acquired  in the  first instance, under the Act;  that the Trust should make external development of the entire  area and  also internal  development in  certain categories of cases the details whereof are mentioned in the Schedule appended  thereto and  directed that "lease out the plotted area  to the persons from whom the land was acquired by charging premium which shall be equal to the compensation payable for  the acquisition  plus the cost of both external and internal  development. The lessee may be given the right to sub-lease  the plot  and thereby  earn profits  on  their lands. They  divided the  land owners into three categories, viz., [1]  those who  held an  area of  less than 2 acres of land, [2]  those who  held an  area of more than 2 acres but less than 20 acres of land and [3] those who held an area of 20 or  more acres  of land,  at one place. In paragraph 6 it was stated  that "those  in category No. [2] may be given an option either  to accept  cash compensation  for their  land under the  Land Acquisition  Act or to get back 40% of their land as  developed plotted  area after  paying the  cost  of external and  internal development.  In the latter case, the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

premium will be compensation payable for the land."      In furtherance thereof, the appellant had appellant had applied on  May 10,  1963 for allotment of the plot and also got herself  registered with  the Trust on November 25, 1968 seeking allotment  of the  land under  the Land  Policy. The appellant  also,   after  being  informed  of  her  need  to redeposit the compensation amount she received from the Land Acquisition Officer on September 12, 1969, and deposited the same with  the Trust on July 31, 1970. The appellant claimed that she  was allotted  7957 square  yards of land in Sector 12, viz.,  Chander Nagar but when she sought registration of the lease  deed in  her favour  on June  27,  1972  she  was informed to  supply a  copy of  the sale  deed of  the  land purchased by her vide communication dated April 18, 1974. By letter dated  May 6, 1974, the Trust informed her that since she had  purchased the land after notification under Section 4 [1]  had already  been published, she was not eligible for allotment and  accordingly the Trust had returned the amount deposited by her by a cheque dated June 3, 1974. Thereafter, the appellant  filed Miscellaneous  Writ Petition No.4517 of 1974 in  the Allahabad  High Court  which was  dismissed  on November 29, 1977.      When the  matter was  heard on  August 29, 1995 by this Court, it  transpired that  after the policy was issued, the State Government issued two G.Os. dated December 8, 1971 and June 2,  1972 providing guidelines for implementation of the Land Policy.  We, therefore,  directed the  counsel for  the State as  well as  the Trust  to produce  the copies  of the orders. Accordingly,  they came  to be  filed.  G.O.  No.342 dated December  8, 1971 addressed by the Deputy Secretary to the Trust  indicates in paragraph 2 that the persons who had purchased the  land which would fall under the notification, after  the   publication  of   the  notification   for   the acquisition of  land under  the Act,  may not  be given  any benefit under the Land Policy. Paragraph 3 provides that the benefit of  the Land  Policy may  also not  be given  to the persons who  although had  submitted their  applications for the  benefits   under  the   Land  Policy  well  before  the prescribed date  but had filed their suits in the courts for stay orders against the acquisition of land and had obtained the orders  of the  courts to  stop the  activities  of  the acquisition of  land. Other  clauses of  the said G.O. dated December 8,  1971 are  not relevance  and hence  omitted. In G.O. No.1802  dated June  2, 1972,  it was further clarified that the  orders mentioned  in para 3 of earlier G.O. No.342 dated December  8, 1971 will apply only to those persons who had filed suits in the courts in the acquisition of the land after December 8, 1971. Para 2 further states as under:           "I am  also  to  state  that  those      persons may be given benefit of the land      policy who  have applied within time for      taking benefit  of land  policy  and  in      whose cases  orders have  been passed to      give benefit of the land policy and with      whom agreements  have been entered into,      although they  have purchased  the  land      after the  issue of  Notification  under      section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act."      Shri G.L.  Sanghi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant  contended that  the  owner  of  the  land  is entitled under  the policy  for the allotment of the land in terms of  three categories  enumerated in  the Land  Policy. Admittedly, the  appellant falls  in category  [2]. Had  the owner claimed  under the  Land Policy,  the Trust  would  be enjoined to  allot the  land in  terms of  the Policy with a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

right to the owner to sub-lease the same. In consequence, it makes little  difference if  the subsequent  purchaser steps into the  shoes of  the owner  and lays claim for allotment. The only  condition which disables the appellant as owner or successor in  interest is as provided in paragraph 3 of G.O. No.342 dated  December 8,  1971. Since  she does not fall in that category,  the appellant  is entitled  to the allotment under paragraph  2 of  G.O.  No.1802  dated  June  2,  1972. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the allotment of the land covered  under category  [2] as a matter of right since she had  land to  an extent  of below  20 acres  and above 2 acres. On  the approved lands, she was entitled to allotment of the  40 per cent of the developed land. She alternatively contended that  though on  the date  of the notification she was not  the owner,  subsequently she  became the owner. She had  duly   registered  her   application  with  the  Trust. Therefore, in terms of paragraph 2 of the G.O. dated June 2, 1972, she  is entitled  to the  allotment of the land as she had already  applied within  the time  and orders  had  been passed to give effect to the Land Policy. Agreements, though unregistered, had  already been  entered into  and  she  had purchased the land after the publication of the notification under Section 4 [1] of the Act.      Though at  first blush,  we were inclined to agree with the  appellant  but  on  deeper  probe,  we  find  that  the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of the Land Policy. It is  settled law  that any person who purchases land after publication of the notification under Section 4 [1], does so at his/her  own peril.  The object  of  publication  of  the notification under  Section 4 [1] is notice to everyone that the land  is needed  or is  likely to  be needed  for public purpose  and  the  acquisition  proceedings  points  out  an impediment  to   anyone  to   encumber  the   land  acquired thereunder. It  authorizes the  designated officer  to enter upon the  land  to  do  preliminaries  etc.  Therefore,  any alienation of land after the publication of the notification under Section  4 [1]  does not  bind the  Government or  the beneficiary under  the acquisition.  On taking possession of the land,  all rights,  titles and  interests in  land stand vested in  the State, under Section 16 of the Act, free from all encumbrances  and thereby  absolute title in the land is acquired thereunder.  If any  subsequent purchaser  acquires land, his/her  only right would be subject to the provisions of the Act and/or to receive compensation for the land. In a recent judgment,  this Court  in Union  of  India  vs.  Shri Shivkumar Bhargava  & Ors.  [JT 1995  (6) SC 274] considered the controversy  and held  that a  person who purchases land subsequent  to   the  notification   is  not   entitled   to alternative site.  It is seen that the Land Policy expressly conferred that  right only  on that  person whose  land  was acquired. In  other words,  the person  must be the owner of the land  on the  date on which notification under Section 4 [1] was  published. By necessary implication, the subsequent purchaser  was  elbowed  out  from  the  policy  and  became disentitled to the benefit of the Land Policy.      Para 2 of the G.O. No.1802 dated June 2, 1972 also does not come  to the  aid of the appellant. This order is not in supersession of  earlier Land  Policy or  G.O. No.342  dated December 8,  1971. It  would appear,  as pointed  out in the impugned judgment of the High Court, that a special case had arisen in  respect of  three co-owners  whose "strip of land remained outside  allotment". To relieve hardship to them, a clarification was  sought for  by the  letter dated February 14, 1972  by the Trust. In response thereto, this G.O. dated June 2,  1972 came  to be issued. It clearly envisages three

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

conditions, viz.,  [i] benefits  of the  Land Policy  may be given to  those who have applied within time to avail of the benefit of  the Land Policy; [ii] orders have been passed to give benefit  of the  Land Policy;  and [iii] the agreements have already  been entered into; in other words, lease deeds were executed  in favour  of the  allottees.  Although  they purchased the land after the issue of the notification under Section 4  [1], the  benefits would  be given to them. It is seen  that  it  is  not  a  general  policy  nor  is  it  in supersession of  the earlier  policy but is a classificatory one. In  other words,  it intends  to deal with only limited collateral contingent circumstance.      In this  case, though  the appellant had applied within time to avail of the benefits of the Land Policy and she was asked to  deposit the  compensation received  for  the  land acquired, the  Trust was  not in  know of  the fact that the appellant had  purchased the  land after  the publication of Section 4  [1] notification.  When the  appellant sought for execution of  the lease  deed she was called upon to produce her title  deed which, when produced, disclosed that she had purchased the  land after  Section 4  [1]  notification  was published. In  other words,  she fell  into the main part of the general  land policy  and G.O.  No.342 dated December 8, 1971. Thereby,  there is  no order  passed in  her favour to extend the benefits of the Land Policy nor was any agreement to lease  the said  land in  her favour was entered into and registered  although   she  purchased  the  land  after  the notification under  Section 4  [1] was  published. It  would thus be  clear that  the appellant had not fulfilled all the conditions mentioned  in paragraph  2 of  the  G.O.  No.1802 dated June 2, 1972.      It is  next contended  that having given the benefit to the persons  mentioned in  the impugned G.Os. denial thereof to the  appellant is  an invidious  discrimination violating Article 14  of the Constitution. It is seen that the benefit was given  only to three co-owners whose land formed part of a particular  strip of land and the excess thereof obviously was not  capable of use or inconvenient to proper use by the owner of  the leased  land. As  a special  case, benefit was given to  them. The consistent policy has been that a person who purchased the land, after Section 4 [1] notification was published, becomes  disentitled as  she was not the owner as on the  date on  which the  notification under Section 4 [1] was published,  as indicated  in the  Land Policy itself. It was reiterated  in paragraph 2 of G.O. No.342 dated December 8, 1971.  It would thus be seen that no discrimination, much less  invidious   discrimination,  was   meted  out  to  the appellant. Even  if a  benefit is wrongly given in favour of one or two, it does not cloth with a right to perpetrate the wrong and  the court cannot give countenance to such actions though they are blameworthy and condemnable. Equality clause does not  extend to perpetrate wrong nor can anyone equate a right  to   have  the  wrong  repeated  and  benefit  reaped thereunder.      Considered from this perspective, we are of the opinion that the  appellant is  not entitled  to the benefits of the Land Policy.  The High  Court rightly  did  not  extend  the benefits to  the appellant.  Hence  our  interference  under Article 136 of the Constitution is not warranted.      The  appeal   is  accordingly  dismissed  but,  in  the circumstances, without costs. C.A. No.4549 of 1984      For the  reasons given in the above appeal, this appeal also stands dismissed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5