JUDGMENT : 1. 24 bighas of land in Khasra No. 198 along with other lands situated in Sadhora Kalan, which is now part of developed area of Delhi and forms part of' Delhi Development Scheme, was proposed for acquisition under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'), by a notification published in the Gazette on November 13, 1959. Section 6 declaration was published on October 29, 1966. Award was made on November 8, 1967. The appellant is said to have purchased a portion of the acquired land of 2,400 Sq. yards, from his father under a registered sale deed, dated April 12, 1970, pursuant to an agreement dated February 2, 1969. Having regard to that purchase, he appears to have filed initially an application for allotment for industrial purpose of the entire purchased land and subsequently for a residential plot. Under the scheme dated May 2, 1961 framed by the Delhi Development Authority, it appears that the person whose land had been acquired was entitled to allotment or a plot of land for residential or industrial purpose. However, appellant's application was rejected on December 9, 1981. Consequently, he filed Writ Petition No. 532 of 1983 in the Delhi High Court, which was dismissed by the Division Bench on November 28, 1984 following the earlier decision in Writ Petition No. 255 of 1984. The High Court also held that the appellant purchased the land after the acquisition was completed and that, therefore, he was not entitled to the allotment of alternative site under the scheme formed. 2. Shri Harish Salve, learned senior counsel for the appellant, raises four- fold contentions. It is stated that a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Smt. Shiv Devi Viriley v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors., AIR 1987 Delhi 46 construing the scheme, held that any person, whose land had been acquired, was entitled to make a claim for alternative site upto the date of declaration published under Section 6. The Division Bench decision which had followed its earlier judgment in Writ Petition No. 225 of 1984 that the owner must be the person having ownership of the land as on the date of publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act as no longer, good law. The Division Bench decision which had followed its earlier judgment in Writ Petition No. 225 of 1984 that the owner must be the person having ownership of the land as on the date of publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act as no longer, good law. Therefore, the appellant, the purchaser of the property from his father, who died pending appeal in this Court, was entitled to seek direction for considering his claim either as owner or heir to his father for allotment of a suitable plot for residential purpose, subject to the scheme and the apply in vogue even as on date. He also further contended that the authorities having accepted his right to receive the compensation recognised his entitlement to the plot paid him, the compensation as an owner and thereby, he had stepped into the shoes of his father. He further contended that the purpose of the acquisition was only to acquire the land; develop on a systematic basis and give back the plots to the purchasers, the citizens of Delhi. The claimant being one of the owners, though purchased later from his father, was also entitled to be considered for allotment of suitable site in accordance with the scheme. The authorities having accepted the hull Bench decision, when had made allotment to all others, denial of the same benefit to the appellant should not be countenanced. On either grounds, the appellant's entitlement for allotment of suitable residential plot had to be considered. 3. Having given our anxious consideration to the facts of the case, we think that the view of the Division Bench under appeal is correct. The object of the scheme, as envisaged in para 8 thereof, appears to be that while developing the land and disposal thereof, subject to the terms and conditions therein, the dispossessed owner of the land was entitled to allotment of a suitable residential or industrial plot. The size of such plot would be determined according to the policy in vogue at the time of allotment and subject to the terms thereof, only to rehabilitate a dispossessed owner, to give a suitable plot for his residential or industrial purpose. It is to the owner himself. The size of such plot would be determined according to the policy in vogue at the time of allotment and subject to the terms thereof, only to rehabilitate a dispossessed owner, to give a suitable plot for his residential or industrial purpose. It is to the owner himself. The person as on the date of the notification mentioned in the scheme, therefore, appears to be the owner having right, title and interest in the land as on the date of the notification published under section 4(1) of the Act. It is in consonance with the law. It is not necessary, for the purpose of this case, to go into the correctness of the ratio in Snit. Shiv Devi Virlley's case that the owner as on the date of declaration under section 6 would be entitled to be considered for allotment of suitable residential or industrial plot. That apart, appellant himself realised that as owner only a claim for alternative plot could be made and accordingly he purchased the plot from his father. But by that date the father was directed of his title in the land. So he did not have any title but had an interest to receive compensation, provided the sale was in accordance with law. 4. Suffice to stated that, admittedly, the appellant's father had only 1/10th share in undivided 24 bighas of land which was acquired under the scheme and therein his father had computed his share at 2400 square yards. The appellant purchased the land on April 12, 1970 by which date the acquisition was already completed as the award was made on November 8, 1967 and obviously possession was so taken immediately thereafter. Thereby, his father was not even the owner of the entire extent. He had only 1/10th share in undivided 24 bighas of land. Admittedly, there were 9 more shares of that land. He need not go even into the question at this land originally stood vested in the Government under the Administration of evacuee Property Act, 1950 or its predecessor Act and thereafter the Government sold the property in public section whereat along with the father of the appellant, 9 others jointly purchased the land for a sum of Rs. 98,000/-. Under the scheme only a plot is to be allotted to the owner. 98,000/-. Under the scheme only a plot is to be allotted to the owner. In view of the fact that there are 10 shares entitled to claim a single plot and as we do not having any definite evidence on record whether others have laid any claim for their share in the plot, it is difficult to countenance the contention that one of the shares alone is entitled to the allotment of plot. The scheme does not envisage allotment of any plots pre rate of the land acquired to each one. It contemplates only allotment of one plot to the owner whose land was acquired. In this view, we find that though the appellant's entitlement to receive compensation was recognised by paying compensation to him, pursuant to the sale made by his father, he is not entitled to any allotment of the plot under the scheme. 5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. Civil Appeal Nos. 96 & 95 of 1992 and 97 & 98 of 1982 6. 'these appeals raise a common question for decision. They are, therefore, disposed of together. The facts in Civil Appeal No. 96 of 1992 are sufficient for decision. 7. By notification issued and published in the State Gazette under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act') on January 23, 1965, certain lands in Pul Pahlad, Tehsii Mehrauli, New Delhi, were acquired for planned development of Delhi. Declaration under section 6 was published on January 13, 1969. Appellant Krishan Kumar Malik, purchased a portion of the property on May 21, 1973. He also obtained permission under section 5 of the Delhi Land R_ strictions on Transfer) Act 30 of 1972 (for short L.R.T. Act) from the competent authority. Thereafter, he laid the claim for allotment of alternative site. The authorities have refused allotment. The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 255 of 1984. By judgment dated November 28, 1984, the Division Bench construing the policy, held that the persons having ownership as on the date of notification under section 4(1) were entitled to the allotment of alternative plot. Therefore, the appellant, having purchased after the notification under section 4(1), is not entitled to the allotment of the residential plot. Other writ petitions also stood dismissed by separate orders on the same principle. 8. Therefore, the appellant, having purchased after the notification under section 4(1), is not entitled to the allotment of the residential plot. Other writ petitions also stood dismissed by separate orders on the same principle. 8. Shri Harish Salve, learned senior counsel for the appellants in all these appeals, apart from relying upon the Full Bench judgment in Smt. Shiv Devi Virlley v. Kt. Governor of Delhi & Ors., AIR 1987 Delhi 46, further contended that under the L.R.T. Act the authorities have recognised his right, title and interest in the acquired land. The purchaser stepped into the shoes of the owner and that, therefore, the appellants are entitled to allotment of respective residential plots, which the owners themselves would have had under the 1961 Scheme. 9. The policy gets attracted to all the subsequent notifications as envisaged under the scheme itself. The question emerges whether the appellants, admittedly being subsequent purchasers, are entitled to benefit of the scheme. Section 4 of the L.R.T. Act prohibits transfer, without authority of permission in writing of the competent authority, after the date of the declaration under section 6. Under section 5 of the L.R.T. Act, such permission could be granted the permission would not defeat any of the objectives enumerated in clauses (i) to (iii) of section 5. By virtue of the grant of permission, the further question that arises is what right or interest the purchaser gets? By virtue of the transfer under section 5, the purchaser gets right, title and interest in the land acquired by the State for public purpose, namely, planned development of Delhi. Thereby, the bundle of rights the owner had in the land stood transferred to and the transferred acquired the interest i.e. to receive compensation determined under section 11. As said earlier, the question is whether the transferee is also entitled to the benefit of the scheme. In this behalf, it is necessary to carefully scan the scope and purpose of the scheme. It would appear that the owner of the land who was displaced, by virtue of acquisition, if he is not possessed of any suitable plot or house already in his possession, is entitled to the allotment of a suitable plot for rehabilitation, subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein. It is personal to the owner. It would appear that the owner of the land who was displaced, by virtue of acquisition, if he is not possessed of any suitable plot or house already in his possession, is entitled to the allotment of a suitable plot for rehabilitation, subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein. It is personal to the owner. Compensation is payable to the owner as on the date of the publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act in the Gazette towards his bundle of rights in the land. The entitlement to the compensation for the bundle of rights of the owner in the land is distinct from the entitlement to the benefit of a scheme formulated by the Government. If the owner himself continued to remain to be the owner and if he is not already possessed of any land building or plot for his residential or industrial purpose, he alone is entitled to be considered for the benefit. Take an instance that knowing that a land has been proposed for acquisition, the owner, with a view to get some extra consideration towards the proposed entitlement for allotment of the plots, may enter into different sale transactions with the third parties alienating his rights in the land. It is settled law that no owner can create any encumbrance on he land, after the notification under section 4(1) was published in the Gazette as the publication of the notification is a notice to the public that the land is proposed to be acquired by the Government for a public purpose and that, therefore, any encumbrance created thereafter does not bind the Government. When such is the law, the subsequent purchaser would not stand in a higher footing, to get an interest in a beneficial policy unrelatable to he payment of compensation for the acquired land. In determining the compensation of the market value under section 11, allotment of a plot is not one of the components. The collector has no jurisdiction or authority in that behalf. His power is to determine the extent of the land; fix the market value and to apportion among the claimants, if more than one exist and offer the same to him/ them. As stated earlier, it is only an enabling scheme to relieve the owner from hardship of displacement from his residential house or land, due- to acquisition. His power is to determine the extent of the land; fix the market value and to apportion among the claimants, if more than one exist and offer the same to him/ them. As stated earlier, it is only an enabling scheme to relieve the owner from hardship of displacement from his residential house or land, due- to acquisition. The policy was envisaged to allot a suitable plot for rehabilitation. Therefore, subsequent purchaser does not acquire any right to claim entitlement for allotment of a suitable residential or industrial plot in his favour. Thus considered, we agree with the Division Bench of the High Court that subsequent purchasers are not entitled to claim allotment of plots. The Full bench to this extent also took the same view. 10. The appeals are accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs.