Karnataka High Court
Manjunatha House Building ... vs State Of Karnataka on 20 November, 1991
Equivalent citations: ILR1991KAR4487, 1991(3)KARLJ8
ORDER Venkatachala, J.
1. Whether a land, which could be acquired under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 [for short "the UL (C & R) Act"], cannot be acquired under any other laws or enactments providing for acquisition of such land by reason of the provision in Section 42 of the UL (C & R) Act, is the short question for our Decision in this Writ Petition.
2. Material facts giving rise to the need for Decision on the said question, briefly stated, are these:
Manjunatha House Building Co-operative Society Limited - the petitioner - Society, which wanted to purchase lands of Tavarekere village situated in the out-skirts of Bangalore, for the purpose of formation of a lay-out of residential building sites, entered into Agreements in the year 1975 with the owners of such lands for their purchase and took possession of them as well. 2 acres 8 guntas of land in Survey No. 14/16 of Tavarekere was one of such lands, for which an Agreement of purchase had come into existence on 30-12-1975 and the owner of which was respondent-4. When UL (C & R) Act became applicable to the Karnataka State from 28th January 1976, the said land of respondent-4 agreed to be purchased by the petitioner-Society having become a vacant land within the meaning of that Act, also became available for acquisition under the same Act. Respondent-4, who filed a statement on 14-9-1976 as required under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the UL (C & R) Act read with the Rules made thereunder before the Competent Authority envisaged therefor, included therein, among others, the said vacant land of 2 acres 8 guntas in Survey No. 14/16 of Tavarekere which had been agreed to be sold earlier to the petitioner-Society. But, no action under Section 10 of the UL (C & R) Act came to be taken by the Competent Authority for acquisition of the said vacant land.
However, by a Preliminary Notification dated 19-9-1977 issued under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short "the BDA Act") (Annexure-D) and published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 29-9-1977, the said land in Survey No. 14/16 of Tavarekere was proposed for acquisition, among other lands, for formation of residential building sites by the Bangalore Development Authority under the BDA Act, under a layout scheme known as "Byrasandra Tavarekere Madivala Scheme". Objections raised respecting the proposed acquisition of the land in Survey No. 14/16 of Tavarekere by the petitioner-Society, having been over-ruled; by a Final Notification dated 7-2-1978 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the BDA Act (Annexure-E) and published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 9-3-1978, a declaration is made that that land, among other lands, is needed for a public purpose, and that further proceedings as to determination of compensation for the acquired land, etc., would be taken under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the LA Act"). When the acquisition of the land in Survey No. 14/16 of Tavarekere had been thus completed under the BDA Act, an order dated 22-4-1983 (Annexure-F) has come to be made by the State Government at the instance of the petitioner-Society exempting the same land from the purview of the UL (C & R) Act in the purported exercise of its powers under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of that Act. It appears that the said order of exemption was withdrawn by the State Government by an order made in that regard on 22-2-1983. However, that order of withdrawal of exemption having been quashed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4492 of 1984 at the instance of the petitioner-Society on the ground that the same had been made unilaterally by the State Government, the matter is said to be still pending consideration and decision by the State Government. In the said circumstances, the petitioner-Society has filed the present Writ Petition seeking the quashing of the aforesaid Preliminary Notification and Final Notification (Annexures-D & E) issued under the BDA Act, by which acquisition of 2 acres 8 guntas of land in Survey No. 14/16 of Tavarekere is made by the Bangalore Development Authority.
3. The only contention raised by Sri V. Tarakaram, learned Counsel for the petitioner-Society, against the validity of the Preliminary and Final Notifications of acquisition sought to be quashed by the filing of the Writ Petition, was the non-availability of the provisions of the BDA Act for acquisition of the vacant land, when that vacant land was available for acquisition under the UL (C & R) Act because of the provision in Section 42 thereof. Support for such contention was sought to be obtained by him from the Decision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. v. PARSHOTTAMDAS RAMDAS PATEL AND ORS., and of the Bombay High Court in Roosi K. Modi and Anr. v. Union of India and ors., The contention so raised by Sri Tarakaram, in our view, cannot merit acceptance for the reasons which we shall presently state.
4. Section 42 of the UL (C & R) Act reads:
"42. Act to over-ride other laws:-
The provisions of this Act shall have an effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in any other law for the time being in force or any custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a Court, Tribunal or other Authority."
As there is a provision in Section 10 of the UL (C & R) Act providing for acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit by the concerned State Government, it has the over-riding effect on other laws providing for acquisition of such land, as is declared under Section 42 of UL (C & R) Act, which we have excerpted above. If that be so, the provision in Section 10 of the UL (C & R) Act providing for acquisition of vacant land has overriding effect on the provisions in the BDA Act providing for acquisition of such vacant land. Such over-riding effect of the provision in Section 10 of the UL (C & R) Act providing for acquisition of the vacant land given by the declaration contained in Section 42 thereof, in our view, enables the State Government concerned to acquire the vacant land under that provision notwithstanding the fact that such vacant land could be acquired by it under any other law including the LA Act, BDA Act and the like (other laws). The over-riding effect given to Section 10 of UL (C & R) Act by Section 42 thereof, in our view, cannot, however, be understood as disabling the State Government from acquiring the vacant land for public purpose under other laws, such as LA Act or the BDA Act, even where vacant land is not at all acquired under the provision of UL (C & R) Act.
5. In State of Gujarath v. Parshottamdas Ramdas Patel (supra), the Supreme Court rejected the prayer of the owners of certain vacant land to direct the State Government to proceed to complete the acquisition of such vacant land under the provisions of the LA Act without dropping such proceedings, instead of such land being allowed to be acquired under the UL (C & R) Act. In that context, it has been observed by the Supreme Court thus:
"It is open to the State Government to drop the land acquisition proceedings and to withdraw the lands from acquisition under Section 48, Land Acquisition Act, 1894. We are informed that the State Government has in fact subsequently withdrawn these lands from acquisition. The proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot therefore have any bearing on the question whether the lands in question are vacant lands or not for purposes of the ceiling law contained in the Act. When the lands in question or bulk of them are likely to be acquired under the ceiling law by paying compensation as provided therein, it would not be proper to compel the Government to acquire them under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As already stated the Act has the over-riding effect on all other laws."
6. According to the submission of Sri Tarakaram, the above observation of the Supreme Court that the UL (C & R) Act has the over-riding effect on all other laws, has to be understood as the Supreme Court having laid down that wherever there is vacant land, such vacant land, if at all acquired, could be acquired only under the UL (C & R) Act and not under any other law providing for acquisition of such land. The submission cannot derive sustenance, in our view, from what is stated on the matter even in the earlier portion of the same Decision, which reads:
"3. Section 6 of the Act required every person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit at the commencement of the Act to file a statement before the Competent Authority having jurisdiction on the area in which the land is situated. Section 7 of the Act is ancillary to Section 6 of the Act. Section 8 of the Act provides for the preparation of the draft statement as regards the vacant land held by any person in excess of the ceiling limit and for calling for objections from the owner to the said statement. It also empowers the Competent Authority to consider the objections raised by the owner of the land and to pass such order as it deems fit. After the disposal of the objections the Competent Authority is required by Section 9 of the Act to make the necessary alterations in the draft statement in accordance with the orders passed on the objections aforesaid and to determine the vacant land held by the person concerned in excess of the ceiling limit. A copy of the draft statement as so altered is the final statement under Section 9 of the Act. After the service of the final statement prepared under Section 9 of the Act on the person concerned the Competent Authority is required to acquire the land held by the person concerned in excess of the ceiling limit in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. Section 11 of the Act provides for payment of compensation in accordance with the principles contained therein. The Act contains provisions regarding the constitution of the Urban Land Tribunal and makes provisions for appeal to the Urban Land Tribunal and also a second appeal to the High Court. Section 19 of the Act provides that subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2) thereof nothing in Chapter III of the Act would apply to vacant lands held by the Central Government or any State Government or any local authority or corporation or other institution specified therein. Section 15 of the Act imposes ceiling limit on future acquisition of vacant lands also. It is not necessary to refer to the several other provisions in the Act except Section 42 thereof. Section 42 of the Act provides that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in any other law for the time being in force or any custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a Court, tribunal or other authority. Thus the Act is given overriding effect."
Further, to say that a vacant land under the UL (C & R) Act, to be acquired, if not acquired thereunder, cannot at all be acquired by any other law, as suggested by Sri Tarakaram, would be to hold that a vacant land, which could be acquired under the UL (C & R) Act, if not acquired, becomes immune from acquisition for ever under any other law. We cannot so hold since the over-riding effect sought to be given under Section 42 of the UL (C & R) Act to the provisions thereunder, can never be construed as being so intended.
7. Coming to the Decision in Roosi K. Modi v. Union of India (supra), if anything, it goes against the contention raised by Sri Tarakaram regarding the over-riding effect of the provision in Section 42 of the UL (C & R) Act on any other laws relating to acquisition because of the clear statement made therein that Section 10 of the UL (C & R) Act, when enables the Authorities to acquire land, the Authorities cannot be prevented from acquiring the land under that Act and cannot be directed to acquire the land under the LA Act.
8. Hence, our answer to the question arising for consideration is that a land, which could be acquired under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, if not acquired thereunder can be acquired under any other laws or enactments providing for acquisition of such land.
9. If we have regard to the answer given to the question which arose for our consideration, it has to be held that the notifications (Annexures-D and E), by which 2 acres 8 guntas of land in Survey No. 14/16 of Tavarekere is sought to be acquired under the BDA Act, are validly issued and acquisition is validly made thereunder.
10. In the result, we discharge the Rule issued in the Writ Petition and dismiss the Writ Petition.