GULABRAO BABLAJI UJJAINKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The five petitioners before us are challenging in this writ petition the notification dated November 18, 1975, issued by the Additional Commissioner. Nagpur Division, Nagpur, Declaring that the lands belonging to the petitioners are needed or likely to be needed for the public purpose , viz., providing of house sites to the landless labourers in the rural areas. By the same notification, the Additional Commissioner further issued a direction under subsection (4) of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act that the provisions of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act shall not apply in respect of the said lands. This notification is challenged by the petitioners mainly on two grounds; (i) that the Additional Commissioner had no authority to issue the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and , therefore, the notification as well as the direction issued by him is without jurisdiction being ultra vires of his powers ; (ii) the list of the landless labourers prepared by the authorities concerned is not correct because many persons mentioned in the aforesaid list have got their own houses in the village. therefore, according to the petitioners, there is no basis for the acquisition.

(2.) In reply to these contentions, it is contended by the respondents that vide the notification dated August 31, 1974, issued by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Maharashtra land Revenue Code, the Government has directed that every Additional Commissioner shall exercise all the powers and discharge all the duties and functions conferred on the Commissioner under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, according to the respondents, the Additional Commissioner is a Commissioner within the meaning of Sections 4(1) and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. So far as the merits of the matter are concerned, an affidavit has been filed before us duly sworn by the Additional Commissioner that there are about 52 Landless labourers in the village to whom the plots are to be allotted and the averments made in the petition that some persons out of these 52 persons are having house of their own in the village is not correct. Therefore, the said allegation made in the petition is specifically denied by the respondents. For properly appreciating the controversy involved in this petition, it will be useful if the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the Bombay General Clauses Act as well as the Maharashtra Land Revenue code are referred to.

(3.) The Land Acquisition Act, in its application to the State of Maharashtra, was amended by the Bombay Act VIII of 1958. By the said Amending Act, in Section 4(1) as well as in Section 17, the words "Commissioner" were added. By the same Act, the Bombay General Clauses Act was also amended and in Section 3 (13), the term "Commissioner" was defined as under: