Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
PATNA IMPROVEMENT TRUST
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI & OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
07/12/1962
BENCH:
KAPUR, J.L.
BENCH:
KAPUR, J.L.
IMAM, SYED JAFFER
SUBBARAO, K.
MUDHOLKAR, J.R.
CITATION:
1963 AIR 1077 1963 SCR Supl. (2) 812
CITATOR INFO :
R 1965 SC1017 (9)
R 1974 SC2077 (23)
RF 1980 SC 326 (17)
ACT:
Land Acquisition-Acquisition for Trust--Notification under
ss. 4 and 6 after Bihar Act came into force-Validity-If
repealed by Bihar Town Planning and Improvement Trust Act,
1951 (35 of 1951)-Words "has been previously made"-
Construction of -ss. 33, 46, 71-Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(1 of 1894), ss. 6, 50.
HEADNOTE:
A common question of law arose in these appeals namely,
whether the Bihar Town Planning and Improvement Trust Act,
1951 (Act 35 1951), replaced the Land Acquisition Act (1 of
1894) in the matter of acquisition of land for the said
Trust and whether the notifications issued by the Government
of Bihar under ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were
valid, after the Bihar Act had come into force. The High
Court held the notifications of the State Government ultra
vires and illegal. On the principle of generalia
specialibus non derogant and also that if a statute directs
a thing to be done in a certain way that thing shall not,
even if there be no negative words be done in any other way.
Held, (per Imam, Kapur and Mudholkar, JJ.), that s.71 of the
Bihar Act which modified the Land Acquisition Act itself
contemplates the machinery of the Land Acquisition Act as
modified even for the purpose of acquiring land for the
Trust. It does not exclude the Land Acquisition Act; on the
contrary it makes it applicable but subject to its
modifications and exceptions. The first relevant
modification is by sub-cl. (1) of clause (2) of the
schedule. There the first notice under s. 46 of the Bihar)
Act is substituted for and has the same effect as a noti-
fication under s. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act but that
is subject to an important exception and that exception is a
notification under s. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act or a
declaration under s. 6 of that Act which "has been
previously made and is in force". The words "has been
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
previously made" did not merely connote the issuing of a
notification before the Bihar Act was passed, but include
all notifications made prior or anterior to the first
publication of a notice of an improvement scheme under s. 46
of the Bihar Act.
813
Mercer Henderson’s Trustees v. Dunferuline District
Committee, 37 Sc. L. R. 119, referred to.
Held, further, that the power of the State Government’ to
acquire land for the Trust was not taken away by the Bihar
Act was further shown by s. 33 of that Act which deals with
the preparation of a Master Plan by the Trust, which has to
designate the land subject to compulsory acquisition by the
various authorities mentioned therein including the State
Government.
Held, also, that s 50 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act would
be equally available for being put into force for the pur-
pose of a Trust, which shows that the intention of the
legislature was not to exclude the functions of the Land
Acquisition Act such as ss. 4, 6, 50 etc. in the matter of
acquisition of land for the purpose of a trust.
Per, Subba Rao, J. Under the Act, the Trust was authorised
to implement the improvement schemes in a particular way and
for the purposes of implementing, that to acquire land in a
prescribed manner. If that be so, the Trust was bound to
implement the scheme in the manner prescribed and could not
resort to any other method. The broad scheme of the Act
also supports the conclusion that the Trust could only
implement the scheme involving acquisition of land in the
manner provided by the Act, that is to say in accordance
with the land acquisition provisions incorporated in the Act
by reference and therefore the two principles noticed by the
High Court were apposite.
Secretary of State v. Hindustan Co-operative Insurance
Society Ltd. A. 1. R. 1931 P. C. 149 and EX-Parte Stephens,
(1876) 3 Ch. D. 659, relied on.
The saving of notification issued under s. 4 or s. 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act in para. 2 (1) of the schedule of the
Act applies to such notifications issued before or after
passing of the Act, but prior to the issue of the first
pubuliction or notice of implementation of the scheme under
s. 46 of the Act.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 683 to 686
of 1962.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment And order dated
January 5, 1962, of the Patna High Court in Miscellaneous
judicial Cases Nos. 335, 433, 434 and 450 of 1961.
814
Mahabir Prasad, Advocate-General for Bihar, M K. Ramamurthi,
D. P. Singh, S. C. Agarwala and B. K. Garg, for the
appellant.
Basudeo Prasad, Sushil Kumar Jha, Yogeswar Prasad and U. P.
Singh, for respondent No. 1.
1962. December 7.The ..Judgment of Imam, Kapur
and Mudholkar,JJ. was delivered by Kapur, J. Subba Ras,
J.delivered a separate judgment.
KAPUR J.-In these appeals by special leave against the
judgment and order of the High Court of Patna a common
question of law arose as to the interpretation of the
provisions relating to acquisition under the Bihar Town
Planning & Improvement Trust Act 1951, Act 35 of 1951,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
hereinafter called the "Bihar Act" and whether the
notifications issued by the State Government under s. 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act were valid. The appellant in all
the appeals is the Patna Improvement Trust but in all the
four appeals the respondents are different persons.
On January 19, 1961, the Government of Bihar issued a
notification under s. 4 of the. Land Acquisition Act of
1894 proposing to acquire an area of 407.85 acres of land
-in the city of Patna at the expense of the Patna
Improvement Trust for a public purpose viz., for development
of residential neighbourhood, to provide for housing
facilities for various income groups and to facilitate the
planned growth of the city of Patna. By another similar
notification of the same date the State of Bihar proposed to
acquire 54.08 acres of land. The respondents challenged
the legality of the notices under s. 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act by their respective applications or writs
under Art. 226 of the Constitution. These notifications
were quashed by a writ in the nature
815
of certiorari by the High Court of Patna and against that
judgment and order the Patna Improvement, Trust has brought
these appeals by special leave.
In order to determine the legality of the notifications in
dispute it is necessary to examine the various provisions of
the Bihar Act. Chapter II of that Act provides for the
constitution of Improvement Trust and other matters
connected therewith and s. 3 therein vests in the
Improvement Trust the duty of carrying out the provisions of
the Bihar Act in any local area. Chapter III deals with
improvement schemes. Section 46 in that chapter provides
for the preparation, publication and transmission of notices
as to improvement schemes. Under that section when an
improvement scheme has been framed the trust is required to
prepare a notice stating the framing of the scheme, the
boundaries of the areas comprised in the scheme and certain
other particulars in regard to land which it is proposed to
acquire and that notice has to be published in the manner
therein provided. Under s. 48, within 30 days following the
publication of the notice under s. 46 the Trust has to serve
a notice on various persons mentioned therein including
persons whose Ian is proposed to be acquired. Such notice
shall require any person to whom- a notice is issued if he
objects to the acquisition to state his reasons within sixty
days. By s. 71 of the Bihar Act for the purpose of
acquiring land for the Trust under the Land Acquisition Act
certain provisions of the Land Acquisition Act have been
modified, That section reads :
s. 71. "Modification of the Land
Acquisition Act 1894.
For the purpose of acquiring land for the
Trust under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (I of 1894)-
(a) the said Act shall be subject to the
modifications specified in the Schedule,"
816
The Schedule referred to in s. 71 (a) sets out the
modifications made in the Land Acquisition Act and we shall
only refer to those which are relevant. for the purposes of
this case. Clause 2 (1) provides :
C. 2 (1) "The first publication of a notice of an
improvement scheme under section 46 of the Bihar Town
Planning and Improvement Trust Act, 1951 (Bihar Act XXXV of
1951) shall be substituted for and have the same effect as
publication in the official Gazette and in the locality of a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
notification under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the said
Act, except where a notification under sub-
section (1) of section 4 or a declaration
under section 6 of the said Act has been
previously made and is in force".
(2) "Proceedings under section 48 and subsection (1) of
section 50 of the Bihar Town Planning and Improvement Trust
Act, 1951, (Bihar Act XXXV of 1951) shall be substituted for
and have the same effect as proceedings under section 5-A of
the said Act."
(3) "Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 of
this Schedule, the issue of a notice under clause (c) of
sub-section (3) of section 39 of the Bihar Town Planning and
Improvement Trust Act.- 1951 (Bihar Act XXXXV of 1951) in
the case of land proposed to be acquired in pursuance of
that clause, and in any other case the publication of a
notification under section 52 of that Act shall be
substituted for and have the same effect as a declaration
under section 6 of the said Act, except where a declaration
under the last mentioned
817
section has been previously made and is in force."
Clause 2 (2) provides that proceedings under s. 48 and s. 50
(1) of the Bihar Act shall be substituted for and have the
same effect as proceedings under s. 5A of that Act. Clause
2 (3) makes a notice under cl. (C) of sub-s. (3) of s. 39 of
the Bihar Act a substitute for s. 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act in the case of lands proposed to be acquired under that
section and in any other case publication of a notice under
s. 52 to be such a substitute. By other clauses in the
Schedule certain additional sections are deemed to have been
added to the Land Acquisition Act.
The argument on behalf of the respondents in the High Court
was, as it is in this Court, that if land is sought to be
acquired for the purpose of the Patna Improvement Trust then
it can be acquired in accordance with the provisions of the
Bihar Act and not under the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act because the former Act completely replaces
the Land Acquisition Act in regard to the acquisition of
land for the purpose of the Improvement Trust. It was also
argued before us that the purpose of the Bihar Act was to
provide a complete code for acquisition of land for the
purpose of the Trust and that the Bihar Act and the Land
Acquisition Act were inconsistent Acts and could not operate
in the same field. The High Court decided the petition on
the principle, generalia specialibus non derogant and
because both the Bihar Act and the Land Acquisition Act were
concerned with acquisition of land, the former being a
special Act relating to acquisitions for the purpose of
Improvement Trusts, it applied to the exclusion of the
latter Act which was an-Act dealing with acquisition of
lands in general. Therefore the State Government had no
authority to take steps for acquisition of’ land for the
purpose of the Improvement Trust under the general
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act
818
after the Bihar Act had come into force and the Improvement
Trust had been constituted, and consequently the
notifications of the State Government were ultra uires and
illegal. It also held that the Improvement Trust was bound
to follow the procedure expressly laid down in the Bihar Act
for the object of carrying out its duties and it was not
open. to it to adopt any other machinery for the carrying
out of those duties, the principle being that if a statute
directs a statutory authority to exercise its power in a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
particular manner it must be exercised only in that manner
and none other. The High Court also held that as under the
Bihar Act the Improvement Trust is entitled to carry out its
duties for which it has been constituted it cannot carry out
development or expansion without preparing a matter -plan
under s. 33 of the Act or without following the procedure
under s. 42A of the Act, this last section having been
introduced into the Bihar Act by an Amending, Act of 1956.
It is not necessary to go into the argument of inconsistency
between the Bihar Act and the Land Acquisition Act or the
special Act excluding the general because it appears to us
that the various provisions of the Bihar Act themselves
afford the key to the solution of the problem before us
which is one of construction. Section 71 of the Bihar Act
which modifies the Land Acquisition Act, itself states that
for the purpose of acquisition of land for the Trust under
the Land Acquisition Act that Act (Land Acquisition Act)
shall be subject to the modifications specified in the
Schedule. Therefore even for the purpose of acquiring land
for the Trust the machinery of the Land Acquisition Act as
modified is contemplated. It does not exclude the Land
Acquisition Act, on the contrary it makes it applicable but
subject to its modifications and exceptions. Now the first
relevant modification is by sub-cl. (1) of clause 2 of the
Schedule, There a first notice under s. 46 of the Bihar
819
Act is substituted for and has the same effect as a
notification under s. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act but
that is subject to an important exception and that exeption
is a notification under s. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act
or a declaration under s. 6 of that Act which "’has been
previously made and is in force". Thus when the exception
applies the first notice under s. 46 of the Bihar Act has
not that effect. The words "has been previously made" do
not merely connote the issuing of a notification before the
Bihar Act was passed but include all notifications made
prior or anterior to the first publication of a notice of an
improvement scheme under s. 46. In other words if, before a
notice under s. 46 has been published a notification under
s. 4(l) or a declaration under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act is made ’and is in force then the first publication of a
notice under s. 46 would not be substituted for or have the
same effect as a notification under s. 4(l). This
construction is in accord with the construction placed by
the Scottish courts in Mercer Henderson’s Trustees v.
Dunferuline District Committee (1) on similar words viz
"’previously in use". Lord justice-Clerk construed those
words as not being equivalent to prior to the passing of a
statute. That the power of the State Government to acquire
land for the Trust is not taken away by the Bihar Act is
further shown by s. 33 of that Act which deals with the
preparation of a master plan by the Trust. Its relevant
part is as follows :-
S. 33(3) "’Subject to rules as may be prescribed for
regulating the form and contents of master plan, a master
plan shall include such maps and such descriptive matters as
may be necessary to illustrate any proposal of schemes with
such degree of details as may be appropriate to different
parts of the area, and any such master plan may in
(1) 37 Sc L.R. 119,
820
particular-
(a).......................................................
(b) designate as land subject to compulsory acquisition by
the State Government, the Trust, the planning authority
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
appointed under section 138 or any public utility agency any
land allocated by the plan for the purpose of any of their
functions"
Thus the master plan has to designate the land which will be
subject to compulsory acquisition by the various authorities
therein mentioned including the State Government.
Again by clause I of the Schedule of the Bihar Act sub-
s. (ee) is deemed to be inserted in s. 3 of the Land
Acquisition Act and by that modification the expression
"local authority" will include the Board of Trustees for the
improvement of a town constituted under s. 8 of the Bihar
Act which means the Trust. ’Section 50(l) of the Land
Acquisition Act relates to the employment of the provisions
of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of acquiring
land at the costs of any fund managed or controlled by a
local authority or any company. Therefore s. 50(1) would be
equally available for being put into force for the purpose
of a trust. This again shows that the intention of the
legislature was not to exclude the functions of the Land
Acquisition Act such as ss. 4, 6, 50 etc. in the matter of
acquisition of land for the purpose of a Trust.
The notification issued by the State Government is
not therefore invalid and the High Court was in error in
holding it otherwise.
We therefore allow these appeals, set aside the
judgment and order of the High Court and remit the
821
case to the High Court to decide the question whether the
order of the State Government is hit by Art. 14-a point
which was argued before the High Court but has not been
decided. The costs will abide the event. One hearing fee
in this Court.
SUBBA RAO, J.-I have had the advantage of reading the
judgment prepared by my learned brother, Kapur, J. I regret
my inability to agree with him. The facts are fully stated
in his judgment and I need not restate them.
The question that falls to be considered is whether
the Government of Bihar can issue a notification under ss. 4
and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act to acquire land at the
expense of the Patna Improvement Trust for development of
residential neighbourhood, for providing for housing
facilities for various income groups and for facilitating
the planned growth of the City of Patna, after the Bihar
Town Planning and Improvement Trust Act, 1951 (Act 35 of
1951), hereinafter called the Act, came into force. To
state it differently, the question is whether the Act
replaces the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) in the matter
of acquisition of land for the said Trust.
The material provisions of the Act relevant to this
part of the enquiry may now be read. The long title of the
Act is "’to provide for the improvement, development and
expansion of towns in the State of Bihar". The preamble to
the Act reads
"Whereas it is expedient to make provision for the
improvement, development and expansion of towns in the State
of Bihar so as to secure to their present and future
inhabitants sanitary conditions, amenity and conveni-
ence .........
822
Section 2 (16) : "Trust" means the Board of Trustees
constituted under section 3.
Section 3 : The duty of carrying out the provisions of this
Act in any local area shall, subject to the conditions and
limitations hereinafter contained, be vested in a Board to
be called "The (name of the town) Improvement Trust",
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
hereinafter called "the Trust": and every such Trust shall
be a body corporate and have perpetual succession and a
common seal, and shall by the said name sue and be sued.
Section 69: The Trust may, with the previous sanction of the
State Government, a ire land under the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894) for carrying out any
of the purposes of this Act.
Section 71 : For the purpose of acquiring land for the Trust
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894)-
(a) The said Act shall be subject to the modifications
specified in the Schedule.
The Schedule gives the modifications made in the various
sections of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894). It
is, therefore, manifest that the Act was passed with a view
to provide for the improvement., development and expansion
of towns in the State of Bihar, that a statutory corporate
body, called the Improvement Trust, was created thereunder,
that certain powers were entrusted to it for the purpose of
implementing the object of the Act,and that the provisions
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as modified, were
incorporatedthrein by reference to enable the Trust to
acquire Lands necessary for implementing its schemes of
improvement.That Act is a special and also a self-contained
one.
823
It the Trust intends to acquire any land for its purpose, it
can only do so in ’the manner provided by the Act. Can it
ignore the provisions of the Act and approach the State
Government to acquire lands for the purposes of the Act
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ? That is the simple
question that arises in this case.
The law on the subject is very well settled and, in my view,
the learned judges of the High Court have correctly
appreciated it and applied it to the facts of the case. Two
principles noticed by the High Court are apposite. The
first principle is generalia specialibus non derogant. This
principle is exemplified by the decision of the Privy
Council in Secretary of State v. Hindustan Co-operative
Insurance Society Ltd. (1). The second principle is that if
a statute directs a thing be done in a certain wax that
thing shall not, even if there be no negative words,, be
done in-any other way. This principle is illustrated by the
decision in Ex parte Stephens (2). A combined effect of the
said two principles may be stated thus : a general Act must
yield to a special Act dealing with a specific subject-
matter and that if an Act directs a thing to be done in a
particular way, it shall be deemed to have prohibited the
doing of that thing in any other way. Under the Act, the
Trust is authorized to implement the improvement schemes in
a particular way and for the purposes of implementing them
to acquire land in a prescribed manner. If that be so, the
Trust is bound to implement the scheme in the manner
prescribed and cannot resort to any other method, that is to
say it can acquire land for trust purposes only by resorting
to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as modified
and incorporated by reference in the Act.
A perusal of the relevant provisions of the Act also
indicates an integrated design for drawing
(1) A.I.R. 1931 P.C. 149.
(2) (1876) 3 Ch. D. 659.
824
schemes of improvement and implementing them by acquisition
or otherwise. Under the Act many statutory powers and
duties are given to the Trust for evolving different schemes
and implementing them. Section 33 empowers the Trust to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
prepare a master plan. Sections 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41 and
42 authorize the Trust to make various schemes within the
framework of the master plan. Section 42A enables the Trust
to make a scheme for improvement in respect of an area not
included in the master plan. Sections 43 to 47 provide for
issue of requisite notices to persons affected by the scheme
and for consideration of representations and objections that
may be made to the Trust. Section 48 provides for notice of
the proposed acquisition of land. Section 50 enjoins on the
Trust to consider objections or representations received and
to hear the parties if they so desire. On hearing
objections and representations, the Trust may either
abandone the scheme or apply to the State Government for the
sanction of the scheme with modifications, if any, which the
Trust may consider to be necessary; thereafter, the
Government either gives its sanction or refuses to do so.
It is, therefore, clear that under the Act before a land is
acquired by the Trust for its purposes, it has got to go
through a quasi-judicial procedure for finalizing the
scheme. The parties affected have every opportunity to
object to the scheme proposed generally or in so far as it
affected their land and even thereafter to file objections
to the acquisition of their land. This complicated
procedure conceived to reconcile individual rights and
social purposes cannot be short circuited by the Trust
ignoring the Act altogether and approaching the State
Government for acquiring land for its purposes which it can
only implement in the manner provided by the Act. The broad
scheme of the Act also, therefore, supports the conclusion
that the Trust can only implement the scheme involving
acquisition of land in the manner provided by the Act.
825
But strong reliance is placed on the provisions of the
Schedule, particularly on para. 2 thereof in SU port of the
contention that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act
are open to the Trust for acquiring lands for its purposes.
Paragraph 2 of the Schedule reads :
(1) The first publication of a notice of an improvement
scheme under section 46 of the Bihar Town Planning and
Improvement Trust Act 1951 (Bihar Act XXXVI of 1951) shall
be substituted for and have the same effect as publication
in the Official Gazette and in the locality of a
notification under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the said
Act, except where a notification under sub-section (1) of
section 4 or a declaration under section 6 of the said Act
has been previously made and is in force.
(2) Proceedings under section 48 and subsection (1) of
section 50 of the Bihar Town Planning and Improvement Trust
Act, 1951 (Bihar Act XXXV of 1951) shall be substituted for
and have the same effect as proceedings under section 5-A of
the said Act.
(3) Subject to the provisions of paragraph 6
and 7 of the Schedule’, the issue of a notice
under clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section
39 of the Bihar Town Planning and Improvement
Trust Act, 1951 (Bihar Act XXXV of 1951) in
the case of land proposed to be acquired in
pursuance of that clause, and in any other
case the publication of a notification under
section 52 of that Act shall be substituted
for and have the same effect as a declaration
under
826
section 6 of the said Act, except where a declaration under
the last mentioned section has been previously made and is
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
in force.
The saving of notifications under ss. 4 and 6 in para. 2 (1)
of the Schedule, the argument proceeds, discloses an
intention of the Legislature to preserve the Land
Acquisition Act of 1894 without any modification as an
alternative for the Trust acquiring land to implement its
scheme. This argument, if accepted, is destructive of the
entire scheme of the Act. If the land Acquisition Act of
1894, without modification was preserved, what was the
necessity for modifying the said Act and incorporating the
modified provisions by reference in the Act ? The
Legislature could as well have made a provision that
whenever the Trust wanted to acquire land to implement its
scheme it should apply to the Government for taking steps
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. An incongruity shall
not be attributed to the Legislature unless it is
unavoidable. In this case the exception in para. 2 (1) of
the Schedule can easily be given a meaning without doing
violence to the intention of the Legislature. Learned
counsel for the appellant suggests that the notification
under s. 4 or s. 6 of the Act refers to that made by the
Government under the said sections before the Act came into
force. But the words "previously made" are comprehensive
enough to take in the notification under s. 4 or s. 6 of the
Act made after the passing of the Act, but prior to the
issue of the first publication of notice of implementation
of the scheme under s. 46 of the Act. The exception will
cover such notifications issued before or after the Act.
Section 33 (3) of the Act contemplates such a notification.
Under that section a master plan prepared by the Trust may
designate a particular land as subject to compulsory
acquisition by the State Government. If’ a particular land
was
827
designated as land subject to compulsory acquisition by the
State Government, the State Government can compulsorily
acquire that land. The Government might have issued a
notification under s. 4 or s. 6 of tile Land Acquisition
’Act in respect of such land; in such a case the exception
is attracted and the notice under S. 46 of the Act cannot be
substituted for it. It is not suggested that the
notification in question was issued by the Government in
respect of a land designated under the master plan, as land
subject to compulsory acquisition by the State Government.
On this interpretation the exception does not become otiose
and it fits in squarely with the scheme of the Act. So, the
exception in cl. (3) dealing with deferred street schemes
under s. 39 of the Act can be made to refer only to such
notification issued by the Government under s. 4 or 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act. I would, therefere, hold that when-
ever the Trust seeks to acquire land for the purpose of the
implementation of the scheme for which it was constituted,
it can only acquire land in the manner prescribed by the
Act, that is to say, in accordance with the land acquisition
provisions incorporated in the Act by reference. As in the
present case the notifications issued by the Government
under s. 4 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894, for the
acquisition of the land in question for trust purposes
’do not fall under the exemption, the said notifications
were void. The High Court was right in quashing the
said notificatonsunder Art. 226 of the Constitution.The
appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.
By COURT : In accordance with the majority view the appeals
are allowed and the case remitted to the High Court. The
costs will abide the event. One hearing fee in this court.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
828