GANESH RANGNATH DHADPHALE Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [His Lordship narrated the facts of the various petitions and Proceeded.] Now, after Notifications are issued under Sections 4 and 6, the land acquisition officer is under a statutory obligation to proceed with the inquiry as to the compensation on the date indicated in the notice under Section 9 of the L.A. Act (Land Acquisition Act, 1894) 'or on any other day to which the inquiry has been adjourned' and he has to 'make an award under his hand' thereafter under Section 12 and take possession of the land under Section 16 on which the title in the land 'vests absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances'. Mr. A. H. Desai, Mr. Agarwal, Mr. Mehta and Mr. Shah and Mr. Setalvad, the learned advocates appearing for the petitioners, appear to us to be right in contending that suspending of such proceedings indefinitely, awaiting the sanction of the department concerned for the amount required, or awaiting its acquisition under the U.L.C. Act (Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 at a cheaper price, is not legal. Such delay, after conclusion of the enquiry under Section 11 of the Act is liable to be treated as inordinate and unjustified, and this Court, on being approached under Article 226 of the Constitution, has to direct the land acquisition officer to discharge his statutory duties in terms of the ratio of the Supreme Court case of Ambalal v. Ahmedabad Municipality : [1968]3SCR207 .

(2.) THE only defence, set up on behalf of the Government to this statutory obligation in all the above cases, is that with the enforcement of the U.L.C. Act with effect from February 17, 1976, the proceedings under the L.A. Act stand automatically suspended till the contemplated acquisition proceedings in respect of the available land under the U.L.C. Act are finalised in view of its overriding effect under Section 42 thereof. According to Mr. C. J. Sawant, the learned Additional Government Pleader, and Mr. Rele and Mr. Kotwal and Mr. A. V. Savant, the learned advocates for the State and the Union Governments, and the Poona Municipal Corporation, supporting him, any possible conflict between the provisions of the two enactments or orders passed thereunder, can be avoided only by suspending the LA. Act proceedings and enabling the competent authority under the U.L.C. Act to work out its provisions unfettered by any other consideration. Mr. Savant contends that out right withdrawal of proceedings under Section 48 of the L.A. Act is, also not possible till the entire land, required for this public purpose already notified, is not found to have been acquired under the U.L.C. Act. The proceedings shall have to be revived, so contends Mr. Sawant, if the land or any portion thereof is found to have remained untouched by the acquisition under the U.L.C. Act.

(3.) SECTION 42 of the U.L.C. Act reads as follows: