TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notification under Section 48 withdrawing the acquisition within a period of six weeks from that date. In furtherance thereof, the LAO by his award dated August 6, 1983 determined the compensation @ ₹ 10,000/- per acre. On reference under Section 18, the District Judge by his award and decree dated March 31, 1986 determined the compensation @ ₹ 30/- per square yard. On appeal it was confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence this appeal by special leave. It may be relevant to notice at this stage that the lands are within the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration covered by Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 (for short, the 'Ceiling Act') which came into force on February 17, 1976. The respondent filed the statement under Section 6 thereof By notification dated November 27, 1982, the competent authority under the Ceiling Act issued notice under Section 9 of the Act determining excess vacant land to be acquired by the Government. By further State Gazette notification dated February 23, 1983 published under Section 10(3) of the Ceiling Act the competent authority declared the acquired land notified on November 4, 1982 in the State Gazette under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subject of the acquisition is deemed to have been vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The respondent/claimants are entitled only to the payment of compensation as provided in Section 11 of the Ceiling Act. The Civil Court, therefore, is devoid of jurisdiction to determine the compensation under the Act, since the field is already occupied by the Ceiling Act. Determination of compensation at the enhanced rate by the Civil Court, therefore, is clearly an error apparent on the face of the record. The Government, therefore, does not have to acquire land since the land already vested in it under Section 10 [3] free from all encumbrances. The vesting shall be deemed to have taken place from February 17, 1976, the date on which the Urban Ceiling Act came into force. Sri Sitamaraiah also contended that the District Court and the High Court committed grave error in determining the market value @ ₹ 35/- per square yard. In Ex.A1 to A4, the market rate of the lands sold was ₹ 6/- per square yard only and the remaining price of ₹ 29/- was for development. The courts below, therefore, were in error in awarding the compensation @ ₹ 30/- per square yard. Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 6 and by operation of Section 3, he ceases to hold the said vacant land subject to the operation of the provisions of the Ceiling Act. Section 5 prohibits transfer of vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit at any time between commencement of the appointed day and the commencement of the Act. Section 6 enjoins the holder of the vacant land in excess of ceiling limit to file a statement within the prescribed time in the manner laid under the Act the rules and in the form prescribed therefor. Section 8 enjoins the competent authority to prepare a draft statement as regards vacant land held in excess of the ceiling limit. Section 9 envisages final statement after disposal of objections, if any, received in that behalf and service of the notice in that behalf on the person concerned as envisaged therein. Under Section 10(1), after service of the statement under Section 9 on the concerned person, the competent authority should cause publication of a notification in the State Gazette with particulars of the vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit, for information of the general public. After considering claims, if any laid under sub-Section (2) and disposal thereof, the com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the notification. The vesting under Section 10 [3] takes effect from the date of publication of the notification under sub-Section (3) of Section 10 in the State Gazette with effect from the date specified therein. It would thus be apparent that the State acquired absolute right, title and interest in the excess urban vacant land in the State from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 10 [3] of the Ceiling Act and from February 28, 1983 that date the State Government became absolute owner of the excess vacant land free from all encumbrances. The question, therefore, is: whether it is necessary for the Government to determine compensation under Section 23 of the Ceiling Act for the land which already vested in it under the Ceiling Act. In Maharao Sahib Sri Bhim Singhli etc. etc. vs. Union of India Ors. etc. etc. [(1985) Supp.1 SCR 862], where the constitutionality of the Ceiling Act was questioned, the Constitution Bench had held that the primary object and purpose of the Ceiling Act is to acquire such land as may be in excess of the ceiling limit with a view to prevent concentration of urban land in the hands of a few persons and speculation and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te to purchase the property though the declaration was not finalized. It would, thus, be clear that when the vacant land is declared under the Ceiling Act, it is not necessary for the State to acquire the excess vacant land vested in it under the Act. But unfortunate to the appellant that benefit of the declaration was unavailable for the reason that the Government in GOMs No.1552/MA dated May 20, 1981 had permitted HUDA to acquire the surplus land under the provisions of the Act. In consequence, having exempted the excess vacant lands from the purview of the Ceiling Act, the appellant had denied itself of the benefit of Section 11 of the Ceiling Act to pay compensation as prescribed thereunder. The result is that the appellant would determine the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. The next question is: whether determination of market value at ₹ 30/- per sq. yd. is valid in law? The District Judge had proceeded on the premise that the HUDA had acquired adjacent land under the Act and had sold @ ₹ 35/- per sq. yd. and that, therefore, the compensation claimed at ₹ 30 per square yard should be paid to the respondents. That found favour with the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
