LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS.versusMATWAL CHAND (D) THR. LRS.

                          (2015] 10 S.C.R. 346


 A                LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS.
                                     v.
                   MATWAL CHAND (D) THR. LRS.
                     (Civil Appeal No.3971 of2006)
 B                       SEPTEMBER 04, 2015
         [RANJAN GOGOi AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]

           Land Acquisition -Acquisition 11/s. 4 of Land Acquisition
 C   Act, 1894 - Subject properly, initially evacuee properly -
     Acquired uls. 12 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and
     Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (DPCR Act) - Further auctioned to
     the predecessor-in- interest of the respondents- Provisional
     possession of properly handed over before s.4 Notification
 D   - Sale certificate issued afters. 4 Notification but prior to s. 6
     Declaration - Award in respect of the subject properly -
     Challenged in writ petition - High Court declared the
     acquisition proceeding in respect of the subject land as null
     and -void holding that land being evacuee properly, was
 E   exempt from the purview of acquisition - On appeal, held:
     The subject land ceased to be evacuee properly and became
     property of the Central Government, after acquisition uls. 12
     of DPCR Act and hence not exempted from acquisition under
     Land Acquisition Act- Though ownership on the land vested
 F   in the Central Government, an encumbrance had been
     created in the subject properly and hence would not fall
     outside the purview of Land Acquisition Act- Only such land,
     in which entirety of the rights vests in the State and on which
     there are no private rights or encumbrances, would be outside
G    the purview of Land Acquisition Act- Land Acquisition Act,
     1894 - s. 4 -Administration of Evacuee Properly Act, 1950-
     s. 8 - Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)
     Act, 1954- s.12(2) & (4) and 14.

.H                                 346
 LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. v. MATWAL CHAND 347
                 (D) THR. LRS.

    Allowing the appeal, the Court                           A

     HELD: 1.1 The clear language of Section 8 of
Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and
Sections 12(2) & (4) and 14 of the Displaced Persons
(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, (DPCRAct) B
makes it abundantly clear that the transition from the
vesting of the evacuee property in the Custodian to the
Central Government is a distinct and identifiable process
under the law. The acquisition of the land under Section
12 of the DPCR Act brings the evacuee property into a C
common pool which is to be utilised in accordance with
the provisions of the Act. In the face of the clear
provisions ·of the two enactments and the respective
schemes contemplated thereunder, it cannot be held
that the evacuee property continues to retain such status D
after issuance of the notification under Section 12 of the
DPCR Act. [Para 13] [358-A-E]

    1.2 Therefore, the subject land ceased to be evacuee
property after publication of the notification of acquisition E
under Section 12 of the DPCR Act. Consequently the
exemption clause in the notification issued under Section
4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 exempting from its
purview evacuee land will have no application to the
present case. [Para 14] [360-F]                               F

     Major Gopa/ Singh and Others vs. Custodian,
     Evacuee Property, Punjab and Ors. AIR 1961 SC
     1320: 1962 SCR 328- relied on.
                                                             G
     Delhi Administration & Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Nangia
     & Ors. 2003 (1 O) sec 321: 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR
     360 - referred to.

    2. It is only such land in respect of which the entirety H
348        SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2015] 10 S.C.R.


A of the rights vests in the State and on which land there
  are no private rights or encumbrances which would be
  outside the purview of the Land Acquisition Act. In the
  present case, an encumbrance had been created in the
  subject property, which, could be acquired under the
B Land Acquisition Act, although the ownership in the land
  vested in the Central Government. [Para 15] [361-0, E]

          Saraswati Devi (Dead) by LR vs. Delhi
          Development Authority & Ors.2013 (3) SCC 571:
C         2013 (4) SCR 922 - relied on.

          Roshan Lal Goswami vs. Gobind Raj AIR 1963
          Punj 532; Sharda Devi vs. State of Bihar 2003
          (1) SCR 73: 2003 (3) SCC 128 - referred to.
D
                       Case Law Reference

        2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 360    referred to.   Para 13

        1962 SCR 328               relied on.     Para 13
E
        2013 (4) SCR 922           referred to.   Para 15

        AIR 1963 Punj 532          relied on.     Para 15

        2003 (1) SCR 73            referred to.   Para 15
 F
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
      3971 of 2006.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 15.04.2004 of the
G High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W. P. (C) No. 2677of1981
  and 697 of 1983.

         Rachana Srivastava, Utkarsh Sharma, Garima for the
      Appellants.

H
  LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. v. MATWAL CHAND 349
                  (D) THR. LRS.

    Kapil Sibal, Dushyant Dave, C. U. Singh, Virk Sibal, A
Shobha, Bharat Sachdeva, Anik Kumar, Vishnu 8. Saharya,
Viresh B. Saharya, Saharya & Co., Kuldip Singh for the
Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                        B
     RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. The challenge in this appeal is to
an order dated 15.04.2004 passed by the High Court of Delhi
in two writ petitions raising identical questions of law on similar
facts. The writ petitions filed by the respondent have been           c
allowed and the acquisition proceedings under the Lapd
Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the LAAct') have been declared
null and void. Aggrieved, the Delhi Administration has filed
the instant appeal.
                                                                      D
    2. The core facts lie in a short compass and are as fol-
lows:

     The subject land, admittedly, was evacuee property. It was
acquired under Section 12 of the Displaced Pe_rsons (Com-
pensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (in short 'the DPCR E
Act'). Thereafter the property was transferred to the compen-
sation pool under Section 14 of the said Act. A decision was
taken to transfer the subject property out of the compensation
pool to displaced persons. In an auction held on 6.8.1958 the F
predecessors of the respondents (hereinafter referred to as
the respondents) offered the highest bid which was accepted
on 15.10.1958. After adjustment of the verified claims, the re-
spondents were asked to deposit the balance price within 15
days which was so done. On 10.3.1959, the respondents were G
informed by the appellant that their bid has been accepted
and provisional possession of the property is being handed
over to them.

    3. On 13. 11. 1959 a notification under Section 4 of the LA H
Act was issued proposing to acquire 34070 acres of land in
350        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2015] 10 S.C.R.


A several villages including Village Basai Darapur where the
  subject land was situated. The notification under Section 4
  specifically excluded from the purview of the acquisition Gov-
  ernment and evacuee land. After the Section 4 notification
  was issued and prior to the declaration under Section 6 made
B on 6.1.1969, the sale certifiJ::ate was issued in respect of the
  subject land on 25.1.1962. The same which was registered
  on 21.2.1962 clearly recites that the respondents are declared
  as the purchasers of the property with effect from 25.1.1962.

C      4. After publication of the declaration under Section 6 on
  6.1.1969, notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the LAAct were
  issued on 10.1.1979. The respondents filed their claim before
  the competent authority. Thereafter on 7.1.1981 the award in
  respect of the subject property was passed which came to be
D challenged in the writ petitions out of which this appeal has
  arisen.

        5. By the impugned order the High Court on consideration
  of the rival contentions and the provisions of the DPCR Act
E and the facts set out above came to the conclusion that the
  subject land was evacuee property on the date of the notifica-
  tion issued under Section 4 of the LAAct and as the said noti-
  fication had exempted evacuee land from the purview of ac-
  quisition, the proceedings for acquisition, including the award,
F were null and void.

        6. Before us, Ms. Rachana Srivasatava learned counsel
  for the appellant has urged that the subject property, though
  evacuee property, ceased to be so upon acquisition of the
G same under Section 12 of the DPCR Act. It is u_rged that un-
  der Section 12(2) of the said Act, upon publication of the noti-
  fication under sub-section (1 ), the right, title and interest of any
  evacuee-in the evacuee property stands extinguished and the
  evacuee property vests absolutely in the Central Government
H free from all encumbrances. Under sub-section (4) of Section
    LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. v. MATWAL CHAND 351
            (D) THR. LRS. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

12 all such evacuee property acquired becomes a part of the A
compensation pool which vests in the Central Government
under Section 14(2) of the DPCRAct. Pointing out the provi-
sions of the Section 20 of the DPCR Act, it is urged that prop-
erty included in the common pool may be sold, leased, allot-
ted or otherwise transferred to a displaced person. It is there- B
fore urged that upon the acquisition of the subject property
under Section 12 of the DPCR Act the same had shed its char-
acter as evacuee property and by operation of the provisions
of the Act the property stood vested in the Central Govern-
ment. The exemption clause contained in the notification un- C
der Section 4 of the LA Act issued in the present case on
13.11.1959, in so far as evacuee property is concerned, there-
fore, has no application to the subject land:

    7. It is further argued that though in the present case the D
sale certificate in respect of the property was issued on
25.1.1962 and the property therein was transferred to the re-
spondents with effect from the said date, there is no inherent
contradiction between the transfer of title in favour of the re-
spondents on a subsequent date and the acquisition of the E
property or initiation of such process of acquisition on a prior
date. In this regard placing reliance on a judgment of this Court
in Saraswati Devi (Dead) bv LR vs. Delhi Development
Authority & Ors.. 1 it is contended that the bid offered by the F
respondent; the acceptance thereof and the delivery of provi-
sional possession creates an encumbrance on the subject land
which is amenable to a process of acquisition under the LA
Act as held in Saraswati Devi (supra).

    8. Reliance has also been placed on a judgment of this G
Court in Delhi Administration & Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Nangia
& Ors. 2 to contend that the evacuee property vests in the Cus-
, 2013 (3) sec s11
2
    2003 (10) sec 321                                           H
352         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 10S.C.R. .


A todian for the purposes contemplated by the Administration of
  Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and in the Central Government
  only after the notification of acquisition under Section 12 of
  the DPCRAcf is issued but not prior thereto.

 s         9. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on be-
      half of the respondents has contended that the acquisition of
      evacuee property by the Central Government under Section
      12 of the DPCRAct and the transfer of such land to the com-
      pensation pool under Section 14 does not divest the status of
 C    the subject land as evacuee property. Pointing out the provi-
      sions of the two enactments i.e. the DPCRAct and theAdmin-
      istration of Evacuee Property Act, it is contended that while
      the object and purpose of the latter Act is the administration of
      evacuee property by the custodian in accordance with the pro-
 D    visions thereof, acquisition of such property for inclusion in the
      common pool for allotment of such land to displaced persons
      is contemplated under the DPCRAct. The transfer of evacuee
      land to the common pool by issuance of a notification under
      Section 12 of the DPCR Act does not change the character of
 E    the land which continues to remain evacuee property. Hence it
      is contended that the subject land is covered by the exemp-
      tion clause of the Section 4 notification dated 13.11.1959. It
      is also urged that if by virtue of Section 12 of the DPCR Act
 F    the property is vested in the Central Government it cannot be
      understood how the Central Government could have initiated
      the process of acquisition of its own property under the provi-
      sions of the LAAct.·

        10. Learned counsel has further argued that in the present
 G case in terms of the expressed stipulation in the sale certifi-
   cate dated 25.1.1962 to the said effect, the property stood
   transferred in the name of the respondents with effect from the
   said date and not from any anterior date including the date of
 H payment of the full amount due. This is notwithstanding the fact
 LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. v. MATWAL CHAND 353
         (D) THR. LRS. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

that under Rule 90 of the Rules of 1955 for sale of properties A
forming part of the compensation pool, the sale certificate only
formalises the transfer which is effective from the date of pay-
ment of the full price. Relying on the clear terms embodied in
the sale certificate issued in the present case it is argued that
the subject land continued to vest in the Central Government · B
unti.125.1.1962 and hence could not have been acquired by
the notification dated 13.11.1959 under Section 4 of the LA
Act, the said date being anterior to the date of transfer of title
in favour of the respondents.
                                                                   c
     11. Two questions as set out below, in our considered view,
arise for determination in the present case.
   (i)    Whether the land, after issuance of notification under
          Section 12 of the DPCR Act, ceased to be evacuee         o
          property so as to be excluded from the purview of the
          notification issued under Section 4 of the LAAct?

   (ii)   If the subject land vested in the Central Government
          upon publication of the notification under Section 12 E
          of the DPCR Act and thereby ceased to be evacuee
          land, could such land vested in the Central Govern-
          ment be acquired under the provisions of the LAAct?

     12. A reading of the provisions of the Administration of F
Evacuee Property Act, 1950 would go to show that the said
Act (since repealed with effect from 5.9.2005) had been en-
acted for the administration of evacuee property and for mat-
ters connected therewith. While it will not be necessary to set
out the definition of "evacuee" and "evacuee property" as de- G
fined in the said Act regard must be had to the provisions of
Section 6 which contemplated appointment by the Central Gov-
ernment by means of a notification in the official gazette, a
Custodian for any State for discharge of duties under the Act.
Section 7 empowers the Custodian to declare any prope_rty H
354       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015) 10 S.C.R.


A as an evacuee property after issuance of appropriate notice
    in the manner prescribed and after holding an inquiry in the
    matter. Under Section 8 any property declared as evacuee
    property under Section 7 is deemed to have vested in the Cus-
    todian. Possession of all such properties is to be taken over
B · by the Custodian under Section 9 of the Act. Section 10 deals
    with the powers and duties of the Custodian and may be use-
    fully extracted herein below.

         "10 - Powers and duties of the Custodian generally-
C        ( 1) Subject to the provisions of any rules that may be
         made in this behalf, the Custodian may take such
         measures as he considers necessary or expedient for
         the purposes of securing, administering, preserving and
         managing any evacuee property and generally for the
D        purpose of enabling him satisfactorily to discharge any
         of the duties imposed on him by or under this Act and
         may, for any such purpose as aforesaid, do all acts and
         incur all expenses necessary or incidental thereto.

E        (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions
         contained in sub- section (1 ), the Custodian may, for any
         of the purposes aforesaid,-

         (a) carry on the business of the evacuee;
F
         (b) appoint a manager for the property of the evacuee or
         for carrying on any business or undertaking of the evacuee
         and authorize the manager to exercise any of the powers
         of the Custodian under this section;
G        (c) enter, or authorize any other person to enter, any land
         or premises to inspect any evacuee property;

         (d) take all such measures as may be necessary to keep
         any evacuee property in good repair;
H
LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. v. MATWAL CHAND 355
        (D) THR. LRS. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

  (e) complete any building which has vested in him and A
  which requires to be completed;

  [***]

  (i) take such action as may be necessary for the recovery
                                                            8
  of any debt due to the evacuee;

  (j) institute, defend or continue any legal proceeding in
  any Civil or Revenue Court on behalf of the evacuee or
  refer any dispute between the evacuee and any other
  person to arbitration or compromise any claims, debts C
  or liabilities on behalf of the evacuee;

  (I) in any case where the evacuee property which has
  vested in the Custodian consists of a share or shares in
  a company, exercise, notwithstanding anything to the D
  contrary contained in the 3 Indian Companies Act, 1913
  (7 of 1913 ), or in the articles of association of the
  company, the same rights in the matter of making a
  requisition for the convening of a meeting or of presenting
  a petition to the Court under the provisions of the Indian E
  Companies Act, 1913 , or the articles of association of
  the company or in any other matter as the evacuee
  shareholder himself could have done had he been
  present, although the name of the Custodian does not F
  appear in the register of members of the company;

  (II) in any case where the evacuee property which has
  vested in the Custodian consists of fifty- one per cent. or
  more of the shares in a company, the Custodian may
  take charge of the management of the whole affairs of G
  the company and exercise, in addition to any of the
  powers vested in him under this Act, all or any of the
  powers of the directors of the company, notwithstanding
  that the registered office of such company is situate in H
356    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 10S.C.R.


A     any part of the territories to which this Act extends, and
      notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this
      Actor the Indian CompaniesAct, 1913 (7of1913 ), or in
      the artic!es of association of the company:

 B        Provided that the Custodian shall not take charge of
      such management of the company except with the
      previous approval of the Central Government;

      (m) incur any expenditure, including the payment of taxes,
 c    duties, cesses and rates to Government or to any local
      authority ;

      (n) pay to the evacuee, or to any member of his family or
      to any other person as in the opinion of the Custodian is
      entitled thereto, any sums of money out of the funds in
 D
      his possession;

      (o) transfer in any manner whatsoever any evacuee
      property, notwithstanding anything to the contrary
      contained in any law or agreement relating thereto:
 E
      Provided that the Custodian shall not sell any immovable
      property or any business or other undertaking of the
      evacuee, except with the previous approval of the
      Custodial)- General;                             ·
 F
      (p) acquire any non- evacuee interest in evacuee
      property, whether by way of purchase or otherwise:
      Provided that no such acquisition shall be made except
 G    with the previous approval of the Custodian- General;

      (q) delegate, by general or special order, all or any of his
      functions under this Act to such officers or persons as he
      thinks fit."

 H    13. On the other hand, the DPCRAct has been enacted,
   LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. v. MATWAL CHAND 357
           (D) THR. LRS. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

 inter alia, for the purpose of making payment of compensa-           A
  tion and rehabilitation grants to displaced persons. Section
  12 contained in Chapter Ill of the DPCRAct confers power in
  the Central Government to acquire evacuee property for reha-
  bilitation of displaced persons. The provisions of Sections 12,
  14 and 20 which are relevant have already been noticed and          B
  will not require any further mention. The effect and interplay
  between the two enactments have been noticed in Delhi Ad·
  ministration & Ors. vs. Madan Lal Nangia & Ors. (supra)
  wherein it has been held that under the Administration of
  Evacuee Property Act, 1950, the evacuee property vests in           C
  the Custodian for purposes of administration of such property
  in accordance with the provisions of the Act and at that stage
  the property does not vest in the Central Government. How-
  ever, after the issuance of the notification under Section 12 of    D
  the DPCRAct the property vests in the Central Government.
  This is, in fact, abundantly clear from the provisions of Section
  12(2) of the DPCR Act which clearly provides that on publica-
  tion of a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 12 ''the
   right. title and interest of any evacuee in the evacuee property   E
  specified in the notification shall. on and from the beginning of
  the date on which the notification is so published be extin-
  guished and the evacuee property shall vest absolutely in the
. Central Government free from all encumbrances." Under sub-
  section (4) of Section 12 all such evacuee property acquired        F
  forms part of the compensation pool which under Section 14
   vests in the Central Government "free from all encumbrances
   and shall be utilised in accordance with the provisions of this
  Act and the rules made thereunder". The vesting of the prop-
  erty in the Custodian under the Administration of Evacuee           G
   Property Act (Section 8) and in the Central Government (after
   issuance of Section 12 notification under the DPCR Act) are
  two distinct and different phases which are contemplated to
   be brought into effectby specific acts anq conscious deci-
   sions as contemplated by the provisions of the two enactments.     H
358            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 10 S.C.R.


A The clear language of Section 8 of Administration of Evacuee
  Property Act and Sections 12(2) & (4) and 14 of the DPCR
  Act makes it abundantly clear that the transition from the vest-
  ing of the evacuee property in the Custodian to the Central
  Government is a distinct and identifiable process under the
B law. The acquisition of the land under Section 12 of the DPCR
  Act brings the evacuee property into a common pool which is
  to be utilised in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
  Specifically, once the property is included in the common pool
  and vests in the Central Government, under Section 16 of the
C DPCR Act, the Central Government may take such measures
  as it considers necessary or expedient for the custody, man-
  agement and disposal of such property including transfer of
  the property out of the compensation pool to a displaced per-
D son. In the face of the clear provisions of the two enactments
  and the respective schemes contemplated thereunder, it is
  difficult to hold that the evacuee property continues to retain
  such status after issuance of the notification under Section 12
  of the DPCRAct. In fact the above view would find resonance
E in an old vintage decision in Major Gopal Singh and Others
  vs. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Punjab an Others3
  though rendered in a somewhat different context. The relevant
  details thereof in para 9 may be extracted below.

              "9. Section 12 of the 1954 Act empowers the Central
 F
              Government to acqu'ire evacuee property for
              rehabilitation of displaced persons by publishing in the
              official gazette a notification to the effect that it has
              decided to acquire such evacuee property in pursuance
G             of this provision ................................. .

              Sub-section 2 of s.12 of the Act provides that on the
              publication of the notification under sub-s. 1 the right, title
              or interest of any evacuee in the property specified in
H     3
          AIR 1961 SC 1320
LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. v. MATWAL CHAND 359
        (D) THR. LRS. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

  the notification shall immediately stand extinguished and       A
  that property shall vest absolutely in the Central
  Government free from all encumbrances. The power of
  the Custodian under the Administration of Evacuee
  Property Act, 1950, to allot any property to a person or to
  cancel an allotment existing in favour of a person rests        B
  on the fact that the property vests in him. But the
  consequence of the publication of the notification by the
  Central Government under s. 12(1) of the Displaced
  Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act with              C
  respect to any property or a class of property would be
  to divest the Custodian completely of his right in the
  property flowing from s.8 oftheAdministration of Evacuee
  Property Act, 1950, and vest that property in the Central
  Government. He would, therefore, not be competent to            D
  deal with the property in any manner in the absence of
  any provision in either of these two enact11-1ents permitting
  him to do so. No provision was, however, pointed out to
  us in either of these Acts whereunder despite the vesting
  of the property in the Central Government the Custodian         E
  was empowered to deal with it. Sub-s. 4 of s. 12 of the
   1954 Act provides that all evacuee property acquired
  under that section shall form part of the compensation
  pool. Under s. 16( 1) of this Act the Central Government
  is empowered to take such measures as .it considers             F
  necessary or expedient for the custody, management and
  disposal of the compensation pool. Sub-s. 2 of s.
   16 empowers the Central Government to appoint such
  officers as it deems fit or to constitute such authority or
  corporation as it deems fit for the purpose of managing         G
  and disposing of the properties forming part of the
  compensation pool. Section 19 of the Act provides that
  notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or any
  other law for the time being in force but subject to the
  rules that may be made under the Act the managing               H
360         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 10 S.C.R.


A          officer or managing corporation may cancel any allotment
           etc., under which any evacuee property acquired under
           tho Act is held or occupied by a person whether such
           allotment or lease was granted before or after the
           commencement of the Act. This provision thus confers
 B         the power to deal with evacuee property acquired under
           the Act only on a managing officer appointed or
           managing corporation constituted under the Act and
           makes no mention whatsoever of the Custodian
           appointed under the Administration of Evacuee Property
c          Act. No doubt, under s.10 of the Administration of
           Evacuee Property Act the Custodian is empowered to
           manage evacu~e property and in exercise of his power
           he will be competent to allot such property to any person
           or to cancel an allotment or lease made in favour of a
D
           person. Apart fromlhe fact that subsequent to the issue
           of the notification unders. 12(1) of the Displaced Persons
           (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. the property
           would cease to be evacuee property. the aforesaid
E          powers of the Custodian would be in conflict with those
           conferred by s.19 of the 1954 Act on a managing officer
           or a managing corporation constituted under that Act."

           14. In view of the above it has to be held that the subject
 F    land ceased to be evacuee property after publication of the
      notification of acquisition under Section 12 of the DPCRAct.
      Consequently the exemption clause in the notification issued
      under Section 4 exempting from its purview evacuee land will
      have no application to the present case.
G      15. This will bring us to the second question that has been
  formulated for an answer in the present appeal. In Saraswati
  Devi (supra) on an exhaustive consideration of the issue with
  regard to the effect of delivery of provisional possession, which
H in the present case was handed over to the respondents on
    LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. v. MATWAL CHAND 361
            (D) THR. LRS. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

approval of the highest bid, it was held that such provisional A
possession gives the auction purchaser possessory rights as
distinguished from proprietary rights in the auctioned prop-
erty. The above proposition culled out in a judgment of the
Punjab High Court in Roshan Lal Goswami vs. Gobind Raf
was approved by this Court to further hold that such propri- B
etary rights occasioned by the delivery of provisional posses-
sion creates an encumbrance on the property which can be
the subject of acquisition under the LAAct. In the present case
also the facts being identical, we have to hold that an encum-
brance had been created in the subject property, which, as C
held in Saraswati Devi (supra), could be acquired under the
LAAct although the ownership in the land vested in the Central
Government. In this regard we must also take note of the·man- ·
ner in which the earlier decision of this Court in Sharda Devi D
vs. State of Bihar6 has been understood in Saraswati Devi
(supra), namely, it is only such land in respect of which the
entirety of the rights vests in the State and on which land there
are no private rights or encumbrances which would be out-
side the purview of the LA Act.                                   E
     16. In view of the above discussions we arrive at the con-
clusion that the judgment and order of the High Court under
challenge in the present appeal is not sustainable in law. We,
therefore, set aside the same and allow this appeal.
                                                                   F
Kalpana K. Tripathy                              Appeal allowed.




4
    AIR 1963 Punj.532
s 2oo:r (3) sec 12s