IMPORTANT POINT
There is no inconsistency or repugnancy between Central Act and State Act. By empowering Deputy Commissioner with the powers in State Act, the powers which could be exercised by the appropriate Govt. under Central Act, no question of repugnancy u/A 254 of Constitution between Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended in 1984) and Section 4 of Mysore Act would arise.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India-Article 254-Inconsistency between laws passed by the Parliament and the State Legislature - Inconsistency between Land Acquisition (Mysore Extension and Amendment) Act, 1961 and Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended in 1984-Initiation of acquisition proceedings in Central Act by appropriate Govt. and in Mysore Act by State Govt. or Deputy Commissioner-Whether any inconsistency or repugnancy between the Central Act and State Act? (No)-High Court s holding to contrary set aside.
       Held : The limited question would be whether the supplementary provision empowering the Deputy Commissioner to exercise the powers which could be exercised by the appropriate Government is repugnant? By empowering the Deputy Commissioner with the powers which could be exercised by the appropriate Government, no question of repugnancy between Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (law made by the Parliament) and Section 4 of the Mysore Act would arise. (Para 7)
       Applying the propositions enunciated above, it would be difficult to hold that the amendments made by the Mysore Act which are supplementary in nature, cannot stand together with the amended Land Acquisition Act. It cannot be stated that the amended Land Acquisition Act is so exhaustive and unqualified that only the appropriate Government has to be satisfied before issuing the Notification under Section 4 and it excludes empowering of other authority to exercise such powers by State Legislation. The only difference is - before issuing the Notification, the Deputy Commissioner is also empowered to decide - whether the land is needed or is likely to be needed for public purpose. From this, it cannot be held that there is repugnancy between the two provisions as both can co-exist without any conflict. Hence, the finding recorded by the High Court is, on the face of it, illegal and erroneous. (Para 12)
       (ii) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 3(f)(vi) and 4(1)-Acquisition of Land for Public Purpose -Co-operative Group Housing Scheme-Prior approval by the appropriate Govt. by a local authority u/s 3(f)(vi)-Non-compliance-High Court holding acquisition was illegal-Whether correct? (No).
       Held : In our view, aforesaid finding is, on the face of it, erroneous. It has been pointed out by the State Government and also by the Housing Co-operative Society that with a view to provide sites to the members, who were site-less, the Society requested the State Government to acquire the land in Sy. Nos.19/2, 26 and 29 of Kadirenhalli village in Bangalore South Taluk. At the direction of the State Government, the Asstt. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Bangalore-II Circle verified the requirement of the members of the Society and recommended to the Revenue Department that the extent of land in the above-said survey numbers was required by the Society. The State Government placed the above matter before the Committee of three members for scrutiny. The three-Member Committee approved and cleared the proposal for the acquisition of the aforesaid survey numbers for the benefit of the Society. The State Government conveyed its approval for initiating the proceedings for acquisition of the aforesaid lands for the benefit of the Society by its order dated 14.11.1985 as per Annexure R-1. After issuance of Notification dated 29th March, 1986 under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, the land-owners made representations to the Government and the State Government over-ruled the objections of the writ petitioners and issued directions for taking further proceedings in the matter vide order dated 25.4.1987 which was followed by a Notification dated 4.5.1987 issued under Section 6 of the Act acquiring the above mentioned lands. The acquisition proceedings are stated to have been initiated and concluded in accordance with law. (Para 15)
       Considering the fact that State Government directed the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies of Bangalore to verify the requirement of the members of the Society and also the fact that the matter was placed before the Committee of three Members for scrutiny and thereafter the State Government has conveyed its approval for initiating the proceedings for acquisition of the land in question by letter dated 14.11.1985, it cannot be said that there is lapse in observing the procedure prescribed under Section 3 (f)(vi). Prior approval is granted after due verification and scrutiny. (Para 17)
       The High Court allowed the writ appeals on the aforesaid two grounds and has quashed the land acquisition proceedings. For the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained In the result, these appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in Writ Appeals is quashed and set aside. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions is restored. (Paras 19 and 20)

JUDGMENT

Shah. J.-

C.A. Nos. 5699, 5705, 6420-21, 5706, 5708 of 1998:

Respondents land owners challenged the Notification dated 29th March, 1986 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 4 and the Notification dated 4.5.1987 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) for acquisition of lands for a Co-operative Housing Society by filing Writ Petition Nos.7837, 8113 and 8958 of 1987 before the High Court of Karnataka. By judgment and order dated 14.11.1995, the learned .Single Judge dismissed the said writ petitions. Against the said judgment and order, Writ Appeal Nos. 95 and 4630 of 1995 were preferred by the landowners and Writ Appeal No. 75 of 1995 was filed by the Kanaka Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha [the Group Housing Society] which was impleaded as a party - respondent in writ petitions. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ appeal Nos.95 and 4630 of 1995 and quashed the notification under sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Act and also all consequential proceedings relating to the acquisition of the land subject to the writ petitioners depositing the amount of compensation received by them along with interest calculated @ 15 per annum from the date of payment of amount. Writ Appeal No. 75 of 1995 filed by the Society was dismissed.

2. The Court also held that no writ appeal was filed by the land owners who had filed Writ Petition No. 8958/87 and they have acquiesced in the action of the State Government and were satisfied with the compensation. Hence, the judgment would not confer any right upon the said writ petitioners to re-open the case or re-agitate the matter by way of appeal or any other proceedings.

3. The Court allowed the writ appeals on the ground - (a) the initiation of action by the Special Deputy Commissioner under Section 4 of the Act for issuing notification is illegal as under the Land Acquisition Act, the appropriate Government is required to be satisfied that the land is needed for public purpose; (b) respondents have also not placed on record any document to show that prior approval in terms of Section 3(f)(vi) was granted by the Government and Annexure R-1 cannot be deemed to be substitute of the powers required to be exercised under Section 3(f)(vi) and sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. Hence, these appeals.

4. At this stage, we may note that in Writ Appeal Nos. 6804-05/1996, Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court by judgment and order dated 27th March, 2002 held that the view taken by the Divisions Bench in case of Naveen Jayakumar and Kanaka Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha was not a good law. The Full Bench arrived at the conclusion that initiation of proceedings by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be said to be illegal. There was no inconsistency or repugnancy between the State Act and the Land Acquisition Act as amended in 1984. For the reasons stated below, we agree with the said findings.

Re: Inconsistency between Mysore Act and Amended Land Acquisition Act.

5. We would first deal with the contention that the proceedings under the Land Acquisition (Mysore Extension and Amendment) Act 17 of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Mysore Act ) are illegal, null and void because by Act 68 of 1984, the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was substantially amended and was made applicable to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The Mysore Act being repugnant to the Act of Parliament, would be void. Hence, the proceedings initiated under the said Act by the approval of the Deputy Commissioner instead of the State Government would also be void.

6. For dealing with the said contention, we would refer to the relevant part of the Mysore Act which requires consideration. It inter alia provides thus: -

"An Act to extend the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894), the whole of the State of Mysore and further to amend it in its application to the State.

WHEREAS it is expedient to extend the Land Acq

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 1001

Cases Referred (3)