Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Sri Parag Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant, urged the following contentions:

(a) that once a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued with respect to C.T.S.No. 218 as well as C.T.S.No. 211, the Land Acquisition Officer was bound to pass an award with respect to both the pieces of land. He had no jurisdiction or authority not to pass the award in respect of C.T.S.No. 218 on the ground of an alleged settlement reported to him by the person for whose benefit it was being acquired. Until and unless a notification was issued under Section 48 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer had no option but to pass an award with respect to both the lands notified. The illegality committed by the Land Acquisition officer in not passing an award with respect to C.T.S.No. 218 vitiates the award as a whole; it is liable to be struck down even with respect to C.T.S. No.

Coming to the first contention of Sri Parag Tripathi, we agree with the proposition of law that once a notification under Section 4 and a declaration under Section 6 of the Act is made, the Land Acquisition Officer has no power to decline to pass the award in respect of the land(s) notified, either partly or wholly. Unless and until the land

(s) are denotified under and in accordance with Section 48, the Land Acquisition Officer has to pass an award with respect to the lands notified. Sri Tripathi may also he right in saying that Land Acquisition Officer had no jurisdiction to take notice of a private settlement and making it a basis for not passing the award with respect to C.T.S.No. 218. But the question is whether it can be said in the facts and circumstances of this case, that the acquisition of C.T.S.No. 211 is liable to be quashed on the said ground. We think not. We have already held that in the absence of any material to the contrary, we must assume that the said settlement was arrived at keeping in view the best interests of BEST. Even the 906 sq.mtrs. of land obtained on perpetual lease under the settlement is meant for being used for the purpose stated in the notification under Section 4. There is also no material to show that the purpose stated in the said notification is not true or real. The fact that instead of 1759 sq.mtrs., BEST got only 906 sq.mtrs. under the settlement does not establish the absence of the need. It may well be a case of adjusting to the realities of the situation. In such a situation, it is difficult to say that the acquisition of C.T.S.No.211 is either unnecessary or that it is neither be consistent with law nor with public interest. It should also be remembered in this context that the appellant is not disputing the purpose of acquisition. His only contention is that since the award has "deleted" C.T.S.No. 218, the land C.T.S.No. 211 should also be deleted