IMPORTANT POINT
The order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer canceling the Section 4 Notification is beyond his jurisdiction as he has no adjudicatory powers with regard to the legality or otherwise of a preliminary notification u/s 4 of the Act.

Headnote:(i) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4, 5A and 6-Notification u/s 4-Order passed by Sub Divisional Officer canceling the Notification-Whether sustainable-(No)-Order passed was wholly incorrect and beyond his jurisdiction-The only power of Sub Divisional Officer exercising powers u/s 5A of the Act is to make a report after hearing objections of persons interested in the land which was proposed to be acquired.
       Held : That the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer on 24.6.1983, canceling the Section 4 Notification, was wholly incorrect and beyond his jurisdiction. The only power of the Sub Divisional Officer exercising the powers of the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 5A of the Act is as contemplated under the section, to make a report after hearing the objections of the persons interested in the land which was proposed to be acquired. There is no manner of doubt that the officer hearing the objections under Section 5A of the Act has no adjudicatory powers with regard to the legality or otherwise of a preliminary notification made under Section 4 of the Act. (Para 10)
       (ii) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4, 5A and 6-Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966-Section 247-Order of Sub Divisional Officer made u/s 5A of Land Acquisition Act-Whether appealable u/s 247 of the Code-(No)-Report made u/s 5A of the Act by the Sub Divisional Officer is not done in his capacity as a Revenue Officer so as to be amenable to appellate jurisdiction of the Commissioner u/s 247 of the Maharashtra Code.
       Held : It may be true that, both the Sub Divisional Officer or Collector and the Commissioner are Revenue Officers are defined in Section 2(31) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. But when they act under the provisions of the Act, they are not acting as Revenue Officers under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, but as designated authorities under the Act. When they function under the provisions of the Act, their powers are determined by the provisions of the Act and not by the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. It is not possible to accept the contention of Mr. Dhabe that the report made under Section 5A of the Act by the Sub Divisional Officer was done in his capacity as a Revenue Officer so as to be amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. (Para 10)
       (iii) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4, 5A and 6-Cancellation of notification-Validity-Father of two appellants was owner of agricultural land in Survey No. 2-He sold 14 acres of land from Survey No. 2 to Respondent Committee (APMC)-In order to be eligible for Central Government s financial assistance, respondent Committee required 15 acres of land-Respondent submitted a proposal to the Collector for acquisition of required land-Notification u/s 4 of the Act for acquisition of appellant s land-Appellants filed objections to the preliminary notification alleging mala fides in seeking to acquire additional land under the guise of a public purpose-Sub Divisional Officer held an enquiry u/s 5A of the Act and made an order holding that demand for additional land made by the Committee was not genuine-SDO passed an order canceling the Notification-Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by respondent Committee and set aside order of Sub Divisional Officer-He restored the notification-Whether order passed by SDO was sustainable-(No)-Whether Commissioner was empowered to make a declaration u/s 6 of the Act-(No).
       Held : It is also not possible to accept the contention that the order of the Sub Divisional Officer was non est because based on the said order, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act itself was cancelled. Once this was done, we see no power in the Commissioner under Section 6 or any other provision of the Act to make a declaration contemplated by Section 6 of the Act, unless the order canceling the notification issued under Section 4(1) was set aside by a procedure known to law. What the Commissioner has done is wholly impermissible under the provisions of the Act. We are also not in a position to accept the contention urged by the learned counsel that the Commissioner s order is one disagreeing with the objections, for at that point of time, the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act itself had been cancelled and, therefore, there was no ground for the Commissioner to proceed ahead. (Para 11)
       The High Court seems to have completely erred in no noticing that the Commissioner purported to exercise a power which he did not possess under the Act. Therefore, it is not possible to uphold the order made by the Additional Commissioner as sustainable under any provision of the Act. We are not deterred by the consequences contemplated by the learned counsel for the Fourth respondent on the basis of the observations made by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Padma Sundara (supra). In such are the consequences, they shall necessarily follow. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT

Srikrishna, J.-These two appeals by special leave arise out of different judgments of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, but are factually interconnected. It would, therefore, be convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment.

Facts in Civil Appeal No. 6142 of 2002:

2. Appellants are two brothers and sons of one Bhagchand Navalmal Gugale. The father of the appellants was the owner of agricultural land in Survey No. 2 of Pathardi village, Distt. Ahmednagar. The father of the appellants sold 14 acres of land from Survey No. 2 to Respondent No. 4, Agricultural Produce Market Committee (A.P.M.C.) by a registered sale deed dated 11.4.1960. Consequent to this sale, Survey No. 2 was divided into two parts, i.e., Survey No. 2/1 and Survey No. 2/2. The portion of the land sold to the Fourth respondent-Committee came to be marked as Survey No. 2/2 and the land which remained with the appellants came to be marked as Survey No. 2/1.

3. The Director, Agricultural Produce Marketing, Pune addressed a letter dated 17.5.1980 to the Fourth respondent-Committee informing them inter alia that in order to be eligible for Central Government s financial assistance, the Fourth respondent should acquire 15 acres of land. Perhaps, in order to fulfill this condition, the Fourth respondent submitted a proposal to the Collector, Ahmednagar for acquisition of the required land for its acquisition. The proposal was processed and accordingly a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act ) was published in the Official Gazette of 24.6.1982. The appellants filed their objections to the preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act, raising a number of objections and inter alia alleging malafides on the part of the Fourth respondent in seeking to acquire for the reason of enriching themselves under the guise of a public purpose. The Third respondent, Sub Divisional Officer, held an inquiry under Section 5A of the Act and made an order on 24.6.1983 holding that the demand for additional land made by the Fourth respondent-Committee was not genuine and, therefore, the notification published under Section 4 of the Act should be cancelled. Accordingly, on 24.6.1983, the Third respondent-S.D.O. passed an order canceling the Notification dated 24.6.1982 and this order was published in the Official Gazette on 11.10.1983.

4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, the Fourth respondent-Committee approached the Additional Collector (Appeals), Ahmednagar, impugning the order of the Sub Divisional Officer. This appeal came to be dismissed by an order dated June, 1983 made by the Additional Collector (Appeals). A further appeal was made by the Fourth respondent-Committee to the Additional Commissioner at Nasik, who is Second respondent before us. The Second respondent purported to entertain the appeal despite a preliminary objection raised by the appellants. While this appeal was pending before the Additional Commissioner, the Fourth respondent-Committee approached the High Court by its Writ Petition No. 1046/84 challenging the Second respondent in entertaining the appeal. This writ petition came to be dismissed by an order dated 9.3.1984 by observing: "The Commissioner is seized of the matter and under Section 6 of the Act final decision is to be taken by the Commissioner. Hence, the writ petition is premature. Hence, rejected."

5. The Second respondent-Additional Commissioner, finally by his order dated 14.2.1985 allowed the appeal filed by the Fourth respondent-Committee and set aside the order of the Additional Collector and Sub Divisional Officer. He restored the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and directed the Deputy Collector to submit a proposal for a final declaration under Section 6 of the Act.

6. Accordingly, a declaration came to be made under Section 6 of the Act on 27.6.1985. The appellants challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2004 Supreme(SC) 1474

IMPORTANT POINTThe order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer canceling the Section 4 Notification is beyond his jurisdiction as he has no adjudicatory powers with regard to the legality or otherwise of a preliminary notification u/s 4 of the Act.

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis

IMPORTANT POINT
The order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer canceling the Section 4 Notification is beyond his jurisdiction as he has no adjudicatory powers with regard to the legality or otherwise of a preliminary notification u/s 4 of the Act.