S. A. BOBDE, J. :- The Question referred to this Full Bench for consideration is:

“Whether the State can, in respect of the land though covered at the relevant time under the provisions of the ULC Act, but acquired subsequently under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, call upon the expropriated land-holder to furnish an undertaking as contained in the communication dated 31.3.2006 that he will not seek enhanced compensation under the Land Acquisition Act ?"

2. The issue arose in a Writ Petition filed by the expropriated land-holder challenging the condition sought to be imposed by the Government that compensation would be released and remitted to him under the award only if he gave an undertaking to the effect that he would not seek its enhancement under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

3. The facts which give rise to the question are as follows:-

The land-holder holds land which was liable to be declared surplus under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Ceiling ,Act"). He filed statements and returns under Sections 6 & 7 of the Ceiling Act. A notification under Section 10(1) giving the particulars of the vacant land held by the land-holder in excess of the ceiling limit was published by the Government on 31.12.1981. However, and it is undisputed, that the requisite notification under Section 10(3) declaring that the excess land referred to in the earlier notification is deemed to have been acquired by the State Government was not published and, therefore, the land has not vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances. In the meanwhile, due to mounting public pressure from farmers, who were deprived of their lands for the MIHAN Project, the Government decided to abandon proceedings under the Ceiling Act and instead chose to initiate proceedings for acquisition of the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, the Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 18.11.2002. This was followed by a notification under Section 6 of that Act on 21.1.2003. An award was passed on 20.1.2005. Under the award, the Government acquired both kinds of lands: i.e. retainable by the land-holder as well as the surplus land under the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act. Under the award, compensation became payable to the land-holder in respect of retainable land as per market value. As regards the surplus land, the compensation was made payable taking market value as the basis; however, this compensation was termed in the award as ex-gratia payment. The Government released the compensation in the sum on' 18,95,373/- for retainable land on 24.9.2008. However, the Government refused to release compensation in the sum of 14,09,613/- for surplus land acquired under the same award, without an undertaking by the land-holder that he would not seek enhancement of compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The land-holder having surrendered possession of the retainable land and being in possession of the surplus land. has approached this Court by way of Writ Petition challenging the aforesaid condition sought to be imposed by the Government that he should give an undertaking. It appears that earlier. Writ Petition No.5555 of 2006 filed by a similarly circumstanced land-holder challenging the imposition of the same condition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 28.8.2007, thus rejecting the challenge to the demand for the undertaking. Another Division Bench disagreeing with the former view, has formulated the aforesaid question for answer by a Larger Bench. Thus, the aforesaid question has been referred by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to this Bench.

4. The main contention of Shri. P. V. Vaidya, the learned Counsel for the expropriated land-holder is that the Government having decided to acquire the surplus land (hereinafter referred to as "the land") under the provisi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document