9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the provisions relating to acquisition under the Bihar Town Planning & Improvement Trust Act, 1951. 2. Validity of notifications issued by the State Government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 3. Whether the Bihar Act replaces the Land Acquisition Act for acquisitions related to the Improvement Trust. 4. Consistency between the Bihar Act and the Land Acquisition Act. 5. Applicability of the principle "generalia specialibus non derogant". 6. Procedural requirements for land acquisition under the Bihar Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of the Provisions Relating to Acquisition Under the Bihar Town Planning & Improvement Trust Act, 1951: The judgment discusses the necessity to examine various provisions of the Bihar Act to determine the legality of the notifications in dispute. Chapter II of the Bihar Act provides for the constitution of the Improvement Trust and vests in it the duty of carrying out the provisions of the Act. Chapter III deals with improvement schemes and specifies the procedures for preparing, publishing, and transmitting notices regarding these schemes. Section 71 of the Bihar Act modifies the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring land for the Trust, incorporating specific modifications outlined in the Schedule. 2. Validity of Notifications Issued by the State Government Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: The appellant argued that the notifications issued by the State Government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were valid. The High Court had quashed these notifications, but the Supreme Court found that Section 71 of the Bihar Act does not exclude the Land Acquisition Act but makes it applicable with modifications. The notification issued by the State Government was thus deemed valid. 3. Whether the Bihar Act Replaces the Land Acquisition Act for Acquisitions Related to the Improvement Trust: The respondents contended that land for the Improvement Trust could only be acquired under the Bihar Act and not the Land Acquisition Act, arguing that the former Act replaces the latter. The High Court supported this view, applying the principle "generalia specialibus non derogant," indicating that the specific provisions of the Bihar Act should prevail over the general provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. However, the Supreme Court held that the Bihar Act does not replace the Land Acquisition Act but modifies it for the purpose of acquiring land for the Trust. 4. Consistency Between the Bihar Act and the Land Acquisition Act: The respondents argued that the Bihar Act and the Land Acquisition Act were inconsistent and could not operate in the same field. The Supreme Court found that the Bihar Act modifies the Land Acquisition Act for acquisitions related to the Trust, indicating that both Acts can operate concurrently with the specified modifications. 5. Applicability of the Principle "Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant": The High Court applied the principle "generalia specialibus non derogant," which means that general laws do not derogate from special laws. It concluded that the Bihar Act, being a special Act, applied to the exclusion of the general Land Acquisition Act. However, the Supreme Court interpreted that the Bihar Act modifies rather than excludes the Land Acquisition Act, allowing both to operate together with the specified modifications. 6. Procedural Requirements for Land Acquisition Under the Bihar Act: The Supreme Court emphasized that the Bihar Act provides a detailed procedure for land acquisition, including the preparation of improvement schemes, publication of notices, and consideration of objections. The High Court had held that the Trust must follow this procedure and cannot adopt any other machinery for land acquisition. The Supreme Court acknowledged this but clarified that the modifications to the Land Acquisition Act provided in the Bihar Act should be followed. Separate Judgments: The majority judgment allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remitted the case to the High Court to decide whether the State Government's order was hit by Article 14. The dissenting judgment by Subba Rao, J., disagreed, holding that the Trust could only acquire land in the manner prescribed by the Bihar Act, and the notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were void. Conclusion: The Supreme Court's majority view allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remitted the case for further consideration on the issue of Article 14. The costs were to abide the event, with one hearing fee in the Supreme Court.
|
