Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th March, 2003 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP (C) No. 4855/1999 and WP (C) No. 4854/1999.
2. Broadly, the facts of the case are that Respondent No. 1 claims to have come into possession in 1986-87 as actual owner of land bearing Khasra No. 86/18 (5-4) and 86/17/1 (1-16) admeasuring 7 bighas situated in the revenue estate of Village Narela, Delhi.
3. On or about 23rd August, 1990, Respondent No. 1 filed proceedings under Section 84 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (for short the DLR Act) before the Sub Divisional Magistrate/ Revenue Assistant (SDM/RA) for being declared as a bhumidar of the said land in terms of Section 85 of the DLR Act.
4. While the above case filed by Respondent No. 1 was pending adjudication (it was decided on 21st September, 1993) the appropriate Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the LA Act) on 19th March, 1993 proposing to acquire a large area of land in Village Narela including that of Respondent No. 1. The appropriate Government thereafter issued a declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act on 20th April, 1993 and possession of the land was taken on 7th October, 1993. An Award under Section 11 of the LA Act was passed on 31st March, 1995.
5. As mentioned above, the case filed by Respondent No. 1 was adjudicated by the SDM/RA on 21st September, 1993 whereby she was declared a bhumidar of the said land.
6. On or about 21st May, 1961, the Delhi Government appears to have come out with a scheme (amended in 1989) wherein it was decided that persons whose land had been acquired under the provisions of the LA Act are entitled to an alternative residential plot subject to fulfilling certain conditions. Two relevant conditions are that the applicant should be the recorded owner of the acquired land and he/she should have received compensation for the acquisition.
7. According to Respondent No. 1, she fulfilled both the conditions (in fact there is no dispute with regard to the second condition) and, thereforee, she was entitled to an alternative residential plot. Unfortunately, she was not given an alternative residential plot by the Delhi Government, and on the contrary her request in this regard was rejected by an order dated 22nd July, 1999.
8. Feeling aggrieved, Respondent No. 1 challenged the order dated 22nd July, 1999 and prayed for an appropriate order directing the Delhi Government to allot her an alternative residential plot against her acquired land.
9. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the Delhi Government to consider the case of Respondent No. 1 for allotment of an alternative plot in accordance with the policy.
10. In appeal before us, learned counsel for the Appellant raised two contentions: firstly, that the SDM/RA had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the case filed by Respondent No. 1 after the notification under Section 4 of the LA Act was issued; and secondly, that Respondent No. 1 was not the recorded owner of the said land prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the LA Act.
11. As far as the first contention is concerned, nothing has been shown in the LA Act to oust the jurisdiction of the SDM/RA. Reference was, however, made to Section 1(2)(c) of the DLR Act to contend that since the said land was acquired, the SDM/RA had no jurisdiction to decide any dispute in relation to the said land. We cannot agree with learned counsel for the Appellant.
12. Section 1(2)(c) of the DLR Act reads as follows:-
'1. Short title, extent and commencement
(1) xxx xxx xxx
(2) It extends to the whole of the Union territory of Delhi, but shall not apply to -
(a) to (b) xxx xxx xxx
(c) areas held and occupied for a public purpose or a work of public utility and declared as such by the Chief Commissioner or acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, or any other enactment other than this Act, relating to acquisition of land for a public purpose.
(3) & (4) xxx xxx xxx'
13. When is land said to be 'acquired' under the LA Act? There does not appear to be any clear indication under the provisions of the LA Act. However, Section 6(3) of the LA Act suggests that even after a declaration is issued under Section 6 of the LA Act, acquisition is not complete because as per Section 6(3) of the LA Act, it is only after a declaration is made that 'the appropriate Government may acquire the land in the manner hereinafter appearing.' It seems to us that when possession of land is taken by the appropriate Government under Section 16 of the LA Act, only then can a land owner be said to be divested of all his rights in the land. thereforee, we are of the view that land is acquired under the LA Act only when possession of the notified land is taken under Section 16 of the LA Act and not before.
14. Looking at the problem from another angle, it is clear from a reading of Section 48 of the LA Act that the appropriate Government cannot withdraw from acquisition after it takes possession of the notified land. This would also suggest that the cut-off point between land being 'acquired' or not is the time when possession thereof is taken.
15. In the present case, possession of the land was taken only on 7th October, 1993. This is after 21st September, 1993 on which date the proceedings before the SDM/RA concluded. Consequently, when the SDM/RA decided the matter on 21st September, 1993, the land was not 'acquired' under the LA Act, and so he had the necessary jurisdiction to entertain and continue with the proceedings; it could be said, at best, that he ceased to have jurisdiction only on or after 7th October, 1993. Since possession of land was taken after the decision by the SDM/RA, we are of the view that the provisions of Section 1(2)(c) of the DLR Act do not support the case of the Appellant. Consequently, the contention of learned counsel for the Appellant is misconceived and is rejected.
16. Learned counsel for the Appellant placed reliance on Pyare v. Financial Commissioner and Ors., : 94(2001)DLT348 . We find that this decision deals with extinguishment of the rights of a land owner under Section 67 of the DLR Act. Moreover, in that case, no argument was raised to the effect that mere issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the LA Act does not amount to acquiring the land. The Division Bench proceeded on the basis, in the absence of any argument to the contrary, that when a notification is issued under Section 4 of the LA Act, the notified land is acquired and it was on this basis that it was held that the land has been acquired within the meaning of Section 67(b) of the DLR Act. In the appeals before us, a specific contention has been urged that land is not acquired until its possession is taken by the appropriate Government and we are of the view that this contention must be upheld. The decision of the Division Bench has to be confined to the facts of that case only.
17. As regards the second contention, even that must be rejected. Section 13(2) of the DLR Act reads as follows:-
'Every person, who after the commencement of this Act is admitted to land as Bhumidar or who acquires bhumidhari rights under any provisions of this Act, shall have all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon Bhumidhars under this Act with effect from the date of admission or acquisition, as the case may be'.
This section makes it clear that a person who is admitted to or acquires bhumidari rights does so with effect from the date of admission or acquisition of the rights, as the case may be. In the present case, Respondent No. 1 claimed to be in possession of the said land from 1986-87. She claimed to be a bhumidar with effect from that date. In any case, as per Section 85 of the DLR Act bhumidari rights were admitted to her or were acquired by her three years after she came in possession of the said land. Section 85 of the DLR Act reads as follows:-
'85. Failure to file suit under section 84 or to execute decree obtained there under. 'If a suit is not brought under sub-section (1) of section 84 or a decree obtained in any such suit is not executed within the period of limitation provided for the filing of the suit or the execution of the decree, the person taking or retaining possession shall'
(i) where the land forms part of the holding of a Bhumidhar, become a Bhumidhar thereof;
(ii) where the land forms part of the holding of an Asami on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, become an Asami thereof;
(iii) in any case to which the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 84 apply, become a Bhumidhar or Asami as if he had been admitted to the possession of the land by the Gaon Sabha:
Provided xxx xxx xxx
Provided further xxx xxx xxx'
18. The result of the proceedings instituted by Respondent No. 1 merely recognized or declared her claim to bhumidari rights under Section 85 of the DLR Act. This recognition or declaration must necessarily relate back to 1986-87 when she claims to have acquired bhumidari rights, or three years thereafter (as per Section 85 of the DLR Act) or in any case on 23rd August, 1990, when she instituted proceedings under Section 84 of the DLR Act. All these three dates are prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the LA Act, which was issued on 19th March, 1993. This being the position, there can be no doubt that Respondent No. 1 was entitled to be recorded as the bhumidar of the said land before the notification under Section 4 of the LA Act was issued.
19. Support in this regard may be drawn from a decision of the Supreme Court in Fateh Singh v. Sewa Ram, : [1983]3SCR929 . In this case, although it pertained to the declaration of a tenant as a bhumidar, the Supreme Court considered the provisions of Section 13(2) of the DLR Act and held as follows:-
'The present case before us is one of the tenant acquiring bhumidhari rights under the Act on the date of its commencement and not of his being admitted to bhumidhari rights after the date of commencement of the Act. Merely because there was some delay in the Deputy Commissioner or Revenue Assistant declaring a tenant as Bhumidhar under the provisions of the Act or because there is no such declaration at all the tenant entitled to acquire such rights under the Act from the date of its commencement cannot be said to have not acquired these rights having regard to the words of Section 13(2) of the Act which says that any person who acquires bhumidhari rights under any provisions of this Act shall have all the rights and shall be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon Bhumidhar under this Act with effect from the date of acquisition of those rights.'
20. Finally, there is no dispute about the fact that Respondent No. 1 received compensation for acquisition of her land and, thereforee, no submissions were advanced by learned counsel for the Appellant in this regard.
21. Since Respondent No. 1 fulfilled the conditions laid down in the policy of 1961, as amended in 1989, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
22. Under the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.