The provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, prevail over the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of matters covered by the former Act.

( 1 ) THESE three writ petitions challenge the judgment of the District Judge, meerut. disposing of Urban Ceiling Appeals Nos. 51, 52 and 53 of 1980.

( 2 ) THE only point involved before the District Judge and before me in these writ petitions was, could the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976, be taken in respect of the lands involved in these three cases on account of those lands having been notified under Section 6 of the land Acquisition Act for acquisition. The learned District Judge answered this question in the negative holding that as the land was intended to be acquired by the State Government for making constructions, the entire land would be excluded from the total holding of the respondents for the purposes of computing the excess vacant land under the Ceiling Act.

( 3 ) IT may suffice to notice the facts of Writ Petition No. 5106 of 1982 for deciding these three petitions inasmuch as the facts of this case would be sufficient for appreciating the point of law involved in all the three cases. Ram singh, respondent 2 filed a statement under Section 6 (1) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). According to him, he was not possessed of any excess vacant land under the Act. Under sub-section (3) of Section 8, the respondent No. 2 was sent a draft statement by the Competent Authority by registered post intimating, that he held 15602. 89 square metres of excess vacant land. Respondent No. 2 filed an objection on 10-12-1979 claiming that he did not have any land in excess of the ceiling limit. He pleaded that his land, which was agricultural, had also been wrongly taken into account by the Competent Authority in calculating the excess vacant land.

( 4 ) THE Competent Authority on 12-6-1980 accepted the draft statement and declared 15602. 89 square metres as excess vacant land with the respondent. Against this order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the District judge. Before this appeal could be decided, the State Government published a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in continuation of the notification No. 8668/xxxviii-2-51-79, dt. April 29, 1980, issued under Subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act declaring that the land mentioned in the Schedule was needed for a public purpose, namely, for construction of residential buildings for the people of Meerut by the Meerut development Authority, under the planned development scheme.

( 5 ) AT the time of hearing of the three appeals aforesaid by the learned District judge, the respondent relied upon the aforesaid notification and contended that as the lands in respect of which proceedings under the Act had been taken, had been notified under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the same could not be declared surplus treating it to be that of the respondent. The learned District judge accepted the contention of the respondent and allowed the three appeals. Against these three judgments in the three appeals, the present writ petitions have been filed.

( 6 ) THE submission made on behalf of the State was that after the judgment of the Competent Authority given on 12-6-1980, the Competent Authority took possession of the land declared surplus under Section 10 (3) of the Act, and upon the possession being taken, the right, title and interest of the respondents had extinguished. It was further contended that Section 42 of the Act overrides the provisions of all other Acts inconsistent with those of (he present which were for the time being in force, hence the Land Acquisition Act had to give way to the Act and the Scheme of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, which was a special Act for the imposition of ceiling on vacant land, and would prevail over others.

( 7 ) IN the instant case, the learned District Judge relied on the notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and held on its basis that the proceedings un