Land acquisition for improvement trust land under modified general law upheld; special Bihar procedure was not exclusive

The majority held that section 71 of the Bihar Town Planning and Improvement Trust Act, 1951, read with the Schedule, did not exclude the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but applied it to acquisitions for the Trust subject to the specified modifications. The first publication of notice under section 46 of the Bihar Act was treated as equivalent to a section 4(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act, except where an earlier section 4 notification or section 6 declaration was already in force, and sections 33 and 69 were read as permitting compulsory acquisition by the State Government. On that basis, the section 4 notifications were valid. The dissenting view was that the Bihar Act was a self-contained special code requiring exclusive compliance with its own procedure.

---

---

Issues: Whether land required for the Patna Improvement Trust could be acquired by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, or only through the acquisition procedure incorporated in the Bihar Town Planning and Improvement Trust Act, 1951, and whether the notifications under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were valid.

Analysis: The majority read section 71 of the Bihar Town Planning and Improvement Trust Act, 1951 and the Schedule as showing that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not excluded but was made applicable to acquisitions for the Trust subject to specified modifications. The first publication of a notice under section 46 of the Bihar Act was treated as having the same effect as a notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, except where a prior notification under section 4 or a declaration under section 6 was already made and in force. The Court also relied on sections 33 and 69 to hold that the Act contemplated compulsory acquisition by the State Government and did not create an exclusive, self-contained bar against resort to the Land Acquisition Act as modified.

Conclusion: The notifications under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were valid and the appeals succeeded.

Dissenting Opinion: Subba Rao, J. held that the Bihar Act constituted a special and self-contained code for acquisition of land for the Trust, that the Trust had to follow the procedure laid down in that Act alone, and that the State could not bypass it by proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act. On that view, the notifications were invalid and the appeals should have been dismissed.

---