SULOCHANA DADAJI Vs. COMMISSIONER NAGPUR DIVISION NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UPON hearing the learned advocates for the parties, it is clear to us that the impugned notification will have to be quashed. Field khasra No. 40, area 13. 25 acres of village Takli, tahsil Warora, district Chandrapur, was held by the petitioner as its tenure-holder. Several persons in that village applied to the revenue authorities for plots for abadi purposes. On inquiring into these applications the Naib Tahsildar reported to the authorities that the area of the abadi required to be extended and none of the unoccupied lands comprised in the 12 khasra numbers measuring 42. 67 acres could be available for that purpose. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, issued his notification, Annexure B, dated 25-2-1965 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring 2. 50 acres of land from khasra No. 40 area, 13. 25 acres, belonging to the present petitioner. Objections to the proposed acquisition was called and the petitioner was noticed to appear before the Land Acquisition Officer for putting forth her objections, if any. The petitioner filed her objections, if any. The petitioner filed her objections, Annexure C, wherein she challenged the necessity of acquiring any land from her field. She stated, in the alternative, that in case of any land were to be acquired from her field, the portion proposed in the plan, which was part of the notification under Section 4, should not be acquired, but another portion in the centre of the field as shown by red colour in the map Annexure D should be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer rejected the contentions of the petitioner against the proposal to acquire land from her field but accepted her contention that the land from the centre of the field as shown by her in the map in red colour should be acquired instead. The Land Acquisition Officer forwarded his report to that effect to the Commissioner, presumably through the Collector. The Collector did not accept that report and the return of the respondents shows that the Collector rejected that report after a further inquiry into the matter through the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Collector recommended, instead, that the land as initially proposed in that notification under Section 4 should be acquired. Thereupon, the Commissioner issued the impugned notification dated 28-11-1965 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner has moved this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing that notification.

(2.) THE first contention of Mr. Madkholkar, advocate for the petitioner, was that once the powers of the Collector under Section 5-A were delegated to a subordinated officer by virtue of the provision of Section 52-A which was added by the Bombay Act No. 35 of 1949, the report and recommendations by the Land Acquisition Officer were binding on the Collector. He further submitted that once the powers were so delegated, they were exhausted when the Land Acquisition Officer submitted his report and the Collector could not purport to act under that section by proceeding to make a further inquiry. His further contention was that the Collector could not also proceed to make any such inquiry or report de hors the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the recommendation of the Collector to reject the report of the Land Acquisition Officer upon which the final notification under Section 6 was based was void and without jurisdiction, Mr. M. N. Chandurkar, Assistant Government pleader, submitted, on the contrary, that in view of Section 52-A, which was subsequently added to the Land Acquisition Act, it was possible for the Collector to delegate only part of his powers under Section 5-A, and in that view, the report of the Land Acquisition Officer in consequence of the inquiry made by him under Section 5-A, would not be binding on the Collector who would still retain the powers to pass his final orders thereon. The section limb of his submission was that even apart from Section 52-A, the action taken by the Collector was an executive one and it could not be controlled or curtailed by limitations to judicial powers.

(3.) UNDER sub-section (1) of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, any person interested in any land which has been notified under Section 4, sub-section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose, may, within thirty days after the issue of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land in question. Sub-section (2) of that section provides that such an objection shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, submit the case for the decision of the appropriate authority, namely, the Commissioner or the State Government, with a report containing his recommendations on the objections. Under Section 52-A, which is now added by the Bombay Act No. 35 of 1949, these powers and functions of the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act may be delegated to an officer not below the rank of mamlatdar. Therefore, there can be no dispute that the power can be delegated by the Collector to the Land Acquisition Officer who was his subordinate. It was also not disputed that the powers were in fact delegated to the Land Acquisition Officer who was also the Sub-divisional Officer.