1980 Supreme(Bom) 78

Bombay High Court
DESHPANDE,MODY
Roosi K.Modi - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Decided On : 03/04/1980

The notification under S.10(3) of the ULC Act has an overriding effect on the notification under S.6 of the L.A. Act, resulting in partial invalidity of the latter. However, this does not render the acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act ineffective and invalid in their entirety.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - VALIDITY OF AWARD - REDUCTION IN AREA OF ACQUISITION - EFFECT ON PROCEEDINGS - ULC ACT - OVERRIDING EFFECT - NOTIFICATION UNDER S.10(3) - PARTIAL INVALIDITY OF S.6 NOTIFICATION - NO FRESH NOTIFICATION REQUIRED - PUBLIC PURPOSE - CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES - NO FRESH NOTICE UNDER S.9 REQUIRED - S.25(2) OF L.A. ACT - INTERPRETATION - EXEMPTION UNDER S.21 OF ULC ACT - EFFECT ON COMPENSATION CLAIM.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners challenged the validity of an award made by the Land Acquisition Officer under S.11 of the Land Acquisition Act (L.A. Act) for the acquisition of 5,967.12 sq. meters of land out of C.S. No.42, known as "Ashley House", situated at Bund Garden and Sassoon Road, Pune. The petitioners became the owners of the property under a Settlement Deed and a Transfer Deed. A notification under S.4 of the L.A. Act was issued in 1962 indicating the Government's proposal to acquire the entire land for the construction of residential quarters for employees in the Income-tax and Excise Department and an office building for the Excise Department. The proposal was finalized, and a notification under S.6 was issued in 1963 after disposal of objections. The trustees of the property instituted a suit challenging the validity of the acquisition proceedings, which was dismissed by the trial Court but decreed by a Division Bench of the High Court. A leave to appeal petition under Art.136 of the Constitution was rejected by the Supreme Court. The petitioners, on attaining majority, instituted another suit challenging the acquisition proceedings again, which was also dismissed. In the meantime, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act) was enforced, placing a ceiling limit on the holdings of vacant land. The petitioners were declared a surplus holder to the extent of 41,396.83 sq. meters, and a notification under S.10(3) of the ULC Act was issued for the acquisition of the surplus holdings, excluding the remaining area of 5,967.12 sq. meters of C.S. No.42 covered by old residential quarters. The Land Acquisition Officer proceeded to fix the price of the remaining area and passed the award.

Finding of the Court:

1. The Land Acquisition Officer, being merely an agent of the appropriate Government, cannot himself proceed to pass an award for any lesser area than the one indicated in the notification under S.6 of the L.A. Act. 2. No authority from the appropriate Government for making an award for any lesser area can be effective without first withdrawing from the acquisition proceedings under Section 48 of the L.A. Act or cancelling the earlier notification under S.6 of the L.A. Act and issuing a fresh notification thereunder in respect of the reduced area. 3. Acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act become ineffective and invalid in their entirety due to their inconsistency with the ULC Act, after finalization of the statement of surplus land under S.9 and acquisition thereof under S.10(3) thereunder. 4. Such reduction in the available area for acquisition is destructive of the original public purpose and invalidates the notification under S.6 of the L.A. Act based thereon. 5. Fresh notice under S.9 and opportunity to the owner of the land to claim compensation in the changed situation was obligatory.

Issues: 1. Whether the Land Acquisition Officer can pass an award for a lesser area than the one indicated in the notification under S.6 of the L.A. Act without authority from the appropriate Government? 2. Whether acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act become ineffective and invalid in their entirety due to their inconsistency with the ULC Act? 3. Whether such reduction in the available area for acquisition is destructive of the original public purpose and invalidates the notification under S.6 of the L.A. Act based thereon? 4. Whether fresh notice under S.9 and opportunity to the owner of the land to claim compensation in the changed situation was obligatory?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Land Acquisition Officer cannot proceed to pass an award for a lesser area than the one indicated in the notification under S.6 of the L.A. Act without authority from the appropriate Government. 2. Acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act do not become ineffective and invalid in their entirety due to their inconsistency with the ULC Act. The notification under S.10(3) of the ULC Act has an overriding effect on the notification under S.6 of the L.A. Act, resulting in partial invalidity of the latter. 3. Such reduction in the available area for acquisition does not necessarily invalidate the notification under S.6 of the L.A. Act or make the achievement of the notified public purpose impossible. 4. Fresh notice under S.9 and opportunity to the owner of the land to claim compensation in the changed situation is not obligatory, as the petitioners had already appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and set up their claim for compensation.

Final Decision: The petition challenging the validity of the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer was dismissed. The Court held that the acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act did not become ineffective and invalid in their entirety due to their inconsistency with the ULC Act. The reduction in the available area for acquisition did not invalidate the notification under S.6 of the L.A. Act or make the achievement of the notified public purpose impossible. Fresh notice under S.9 and opportunity to the owner of the land to claim compensation in the changed situation was not obligatory.