Deo Karan Jhunjhunwala Memorial Public ... vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 12 October, 1993
In support of this contention, the learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Mohammed Yousef, AIR 1992 SC 1827 : (1992 AIR SCW 1674), as well as on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Gajanan Maganlal Parikh v. Municipal Corporation, Dana Pith, AIR 1993 Guj 53. In the former case, the apex Court was considering the question of an acquisition in Tamil Nadu, where the Madras State Housing Board Act was in force. The Supreme Court after noticing the different provisions of the Madras State Housing Board Act as well as the Land Acquisition Act came to the conclusion that an acquisition of land is a part and parcel of the scheme under the Madras Housing Board Act and under the Scheme, the process of execution starts immediately when steps for acquisition are taken and, therefore, proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 70 of the Madras Housing Board Act can be commenced only after framing the Scheme for which the land is required. The aforesaid decision undoubtedly supports Mr. Mohanty's contention fully. The other decision of the Gujarat High Court on which reliance was also placed considered the legality of an acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act while the Bombay Town Planning Act was in force. After examining the provisions of both Acts, the learned Judges held that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act should be withheld until completion of the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. Though this decision is not directly on the point in issue, yet indirectly it also supports the contention of Mr. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioners.