1. These are regular second appeals against the common judgment dated 25th October, 1980 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby decree for possession passed by Sub-Judge, Delhi on 27th February, 1979 in favour of appellants was set aside.

2. Facts are broadly admitted. The suit land bearing Khasra No. 1424/958 measuring 17 bighas 13 biswas situated in the revenue estate of Bahapur, Delhi originally vested in the appellants. So much so Jamabandi of the land still stands in the names of the appellants. Under Section 3 of the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act No. 40 of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as Act), the said land was notified for acquisition for the purpose of Kalka Colony for resettlement of displaced persons vide Notification No. F.I (71)/48-LSG (i). The Land Acquisition Collector made the award on 30.5.1962 to the effect that the land in question along with several other Khasra numbers had been released from acquisition for the reason that it was out of scheme and as such no compensation was awarded. Subsequently another award dated 31.8.1962 by Sh. M.L. Mongia was passed wherein it was observed that since the land stood already acquired no compensation was payable.

3. On 20.6.1967, appellants served notice under Section 80, CPC to respondent-UOI calling upon the latter to hand over possession because of release of land from acquisition. Receiving no response to the said notice, the appellants filed instant suit for possession. Suit was decreed vide judgment dated 11.3.1969 on the ground that since land had been released from acquisition, same vested in the appellants and as such they were entitled for compensation. The said judgment was appealed against before the learned Additional District Judge. The then Additional District Judge remanded the case back to the Sub-Judge with the direction that society named East Punjab Railway Refugees Rehabilitation and House Building Cooperative Society who had been given possession by UOI be impleaded as a party being interested party.

4. The learned Trial Court again decreed the suit on 27.2.1979. In appeal, the said decree was set aside vide judgment dated 25.10.1980 passed by Additional District Judge. Instant appeals are against the said judgment.

5. The reasons provided by Additional District Judge in short are that since the society had developed the land by spending heavy amount in laying roads, water and sewer lines, electrification and construction of water storage tank etc., the land in suit was therefore no longer a waste land i.e. banjar qadim but comprises of buildings and building sites. It was also observed that appellants were aware of these developments but did not raise any objection to the construction activities of the society nor did they take any action to stop it. It was also observed that once the land was acquired question of releasing it did not arise at all. It appears that learned Additional District Judge was swayed by the fact that price of land in that area has gone very high and therefore the appellants declined to accept compensation offered to them and further that land vested in the Government in the year 1949 and it was transferred to the society which developed the allotted plots to various persons.

6. As is apparent from the aforesaid conspectus of facts the land in suit was first acquired in 1949 and subsequently released from acquisition in 1962 and it was after long span of five years the appellants served a notice upon Government of India under Section 80, CPC when they saw the on-going construction activities in adjacent land. The other relevant fact is that land was granted to the society in 1970 i.e. after filing of suit for possession by the appellants. Even if it is assumed that the appellants did not raise any objection to the acquisition notification, the fact remains that the appellants were not served with notice under Section 4 of aforesaid Act.

7. Section 4 of theprovides as under:

4. Service on owner or occupier affected by notice of acquisitionAs soon as may be after the publication of the notification under Section 3, the Competent Authority shall cause to be served by registered post on the owner of the land and also on the occupier in cases where the owner is not in occupation of the land or, where the person to be served is not readily traceable or the ownership of the land in dispute, shall publish in the Official Gazette, a notice stating the particulars specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 3.

8. It is clear from Section 4 that first and foremost requirement of law is that the Competent Authority after publication of notification under Section 3, shall cause to be served a notice by registered post on the owner of the land and also on the occupier in cases where the owner is not in occupation of the land. Further where the person to be served is not readily traceable or the ownership of the land is in dispute notice under Section 3 shall be published in Official Gazette.

9. Another relevant provision is Section 6. It provides an opportunity to the person interested in any land which has become vested in the Government to file objections before the Competent Authority within one month from vesting. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 specifically provides that if any land is released from acquisition under Sub-section (1) it shall be deemed to revest in the person originally entitled thereto and any encumbrance which may have been extinguished under Section 5 shall revive. Section 7 provides method of determining compensation.

10. There is no document on record to show service of notice under Section 4 by Regd. post either on the appellant or on occupier nor is there any report that the person to be served was not readily traceable or that the ownership of the land was in dispute.

11. Merely because development activities were undertaken by the society to whom land was transferred and the society spent huge sum on construction of roads, water and sewer lines, water storage tank etc. does not mean that the appellants stood deprived of their statutory rights. The observations of the Appellate Court that even if the land had not been acquired and possessed by the Government and not transferred in a legal manner to the House Building Coop. Society it is unjust to give the relief because the appellants by their conduct and neglect put themselves in the position which they would not have even in worst case the remedy of the appellants was to seek compensation and not possession are not only difficult to accept but suffer from an element of unsoundness.

12. There is a specific prescribed procedure for acquiring any land under the. The Competent Authority seeking acquisition has to first publish notification under Section 3 that it is necessary to acquire the land for the resettlement of displaced persons. Immediately after publication of notice, the Competent Authority is required to serve by registered post on the owner of the land and also on the occupier and in cases where the owner is not in occupation of the land or where the person to be served is not readily traceable or the ownership of the land is in dispute it shall publish the notice in the Official Gazette stating the reasons for acquisition of land. It is only after publication of such a notice or on service of notice under Section 4 that any person interested in any land which has become vested in the Government shall file his objections within one month.

13. Even if it is assumed that the society had carried out development work in the land in suit and allotted the same to various persons for construction of houses still the Competent Authority cannot be absolved from the statutory obligation of service of notice by Regd. post on the owner of the land and in case he is not traceable such a notice be published in Official Gazette.

14. However, keeping in view the fact that the land was granted to the society in the year 1970 and for the last many years persons are living in house constructed by them, decree for possession cannot be granted as the land is not in the same form as it was before acquisition nor can it be restored to the original position. The only relief appellants can be granted is by way of compensation. By way of amendment of plaint vide C.M. 302/1981 in RSA 48/1981, the appellants have sought compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs though the appellants have claimed Rs. 20 lakhs with an undertaking that requisite Court-fee will be paid by them in case decree for Rs. 6 lakhs is passed. The said C.M. is now allowed.

15. Keeping in view the size of the land and to avoid further procrastination of the proceedings which commenced in the year 1967 and have been lingering for more than 34 years, I deem that interests of justice would be met if compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs is granted to the appellants as equity also operates in their favour.

As a consequence, both the appeals stand partly allowed in the aforesaid terms as these arise from the common order. Union of India shall pay compensation within three months of deposit of requisite Court-fee failing which the same shall be recoverable by way of execution of a decree.