4 was ultra vires as it contravened Art. The third point may be taken up first and disposed of shortly. As the question was a mixed one of fact and law, we would not be justified to allow the appellant at this very late stage to reopen the closed matter. We are not going into this controversy since the ultimate outcome is not influenced by the aforesaid factor, as would be noticed in the later part of judgment. (b) All the petitioners shall be entitled for allotment of developed Abadi plot to the extent of 10% of their acquired land subject to maximum of 2500 square meters.

161 Indian Penal Code and s. On appeal the High Court held that on the facts of the case the statutory presumption under S. We however, leave it open to the Authority in cases where allotment of abadi plot to the extent of 6% or 8% have already been made either to make allotment of the balance of the area or may compensate the land owners by payment of the amount equivalent to balance area as per average rate of allotment made of developed residential plots.

77 of the said Act bad been given by the respondent. 77 of the Indian Railways Act, and on that concession it was held that a valid notice under s. The High Court, while accepting such a plea of the land owners on the ground of laches and delay, has referred to certain judgments which were relied upon before us as well and taken note of above. As per their own case, they became aggrieved only when they found that land was not utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired namely industrial development but a large portion thereof was sought to be given away to the builders for development of the land as residential.

It would be relevent to refer to the plea which appellant 2 sought to raise by this application. 14 of the Constitution, (ii) that the presumption under s. P-32, fully satisfied the requirements of s. 2,10,251-4-0 each separately in the name of the respondent and appellant I so as to vest the same in them forthwith, and he urged that these amounts and their accretions were not the properties of the family liable to partition in the suit.

The appellant's explanation was that he had borrowed the amount as he was in need of money for meeting the expenses of the clothing of his children who were studying in school, The Special judge accepted the evidence of the contractor and held that the money had been taken as a bribe, that the defence story was improbable and untrue, that the presumption under s. However, what we highlight and reiterate is that these appellants were not aggrieved by the acquisition per se in the manner it was done by the respondents.

In the High Court no attempt was made to question the factum of this concession; nor was it questioned by the appellant in its application for special leave. The appellant contended (i) that S. We, therefore, reject this contention. Physical possession of land of many of these appellants have also been taken. 5 Of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 169 of 1949/409 of 1950. It is a matter of record that before coming to the Court and filing the writ petitions, most of these appellants had received the compensation.

4 Of the Prevention of Corruption Act had to be raised and that the presumption had not been rebutted by the appellant and accordingly convicted him under s. In other words, it is clear that the appellants did not challenge the acquisition per se inasmuch as when the land was acquired even after invoking urgency provisions contained in Section 17 of the Act and dispensing with the requirement of Section 5A of the Act, this position was accepted by the land owners.

He alleged that the deceased Chidambaram Chettiar bad set apart on March 25, 1925, two sums of money of Rs. In many other cases, paper possession had been taken before filing of the writ petition. 4 had to be raised, that the explanation offered by the appellant was improbable and palpably unreasonable and that the presumption had not been rebutted, and upheld the conviction. A great deal of argument was made as to whether such physical possession/paper possession should be treated as taking possession in the eyes of law, it would be a debatable point inasmuch as in various judgments, this Court has held that whenever there is large scale of acquisition and possession of large chunk of land belonging to number of persons is to be taken, paper possession would be a permissible mode, particularly when it is Abadi land.

76 of 1952, arising out of the judgment and decree dated December 15, 1951, of the Court of Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi in Suit No. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated August 17, 1954, of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi, in Regular First Appeal No. They even allowed the authorities to proceed further in passing the award and taking possession from many of these land owners and even paying compensation to them. 4 could not be raised merely on proof of acceptance of money but it had further to be proved that the money was accepted as a bribe, (iii) and that even if the presumption arose it was rebutted when the appellant offered a reasonably probable explanation.

They also sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for higher compensation. Before the learned Subordinate Judge it was conceded by the learned Counsel for the defendant that the notice, Ex.