1963 (11) TMI 86 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of Land Acquisition Act notifications upheld; delegation of authority under Section 5A deemed valid

Jayantilal Amrit Lal Shodhan Versus F.N. Rana And Others

Jayantilal Amrit Lal Shodhan Versus F.N. Rana And Others - 1964 AIR 648, 1964 (5) SCR 294 Issues Involved:1. Authority of the Commissioner to issue notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.2. Delegation of authority under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Authority of the Commissioner to Issue Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition ActThe appellant contended that the Commissioner had no power to issue notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, after the reorganization of the State of Bombay into the States of Maharashtra and Gujarat. The argument was based on the premise that the functions of the Union Government relating to land acquisition could not be performed by the Commissioner of Gujarat without the consent of the Government of Gujarat, as required under Article 258(1) of the Constitution.The Court analyzed the statutory provisions and constitutional framework, noting that the President of India had issued a notification on July 24, 1959, under Article 258(1), entrusting the functions of the Union Government under the Land Acquisition Act to the Commissioners of Divisions in the State of Bombay. This notification was issued with the consent of the State Government of Bombay. However, after the reorganization of the State of Bombay, the territory covering the Baroda Division was allotted to the State of Gujarat.The Court held that the notification issued by the President under Article 258(1) had the force of law and was saved under Sections 82 and 87 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960. Consequently, the Commissioner of Baroda Division, now functioning as an officer of the State of Gujarat, retained the authority to issue notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court emphasized that the entrustment of functions under Article 258(1) was an executive function, and such entrustment had the force of law, enabling the Commissioner to act within the scope of the authority given.2. Delegation of Authority under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition ActThe appellant argued that the proceedings under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act were quasi-judicial and that the authority to make a report under this section could not be delegated by the Commissioner. The appellant contended that the report made by the Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer was invalid and could not be considered by the Commissioner.The Court examined the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, noting that the expression 'Collector' under Section 3(c) of the Act includes any officer specially appointed by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Collector. The Court held that the Commissioner, acting under the powers conferred by Article 258(1), had the authority to appoint the Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer as the Collector for the purposes of Section 5A.The Court further held that the inquiry under Section 5A was administrative in nature, and the Collector was required to submit a report containing recommendations on the objections to the appropriate Government. The decision to notify the land for acquisition under Section 6 was an administrative decision, and the inquiry conducted by the Collector did not constitute a judicial or quasi-judicial inquiry. Therefore, the delegation of authority to the Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer was valid, and the report submitted by him could be considered by the Commissioner.Separate Judgment by Wanchhoo J.Wanchhoo J. delivered a dissenting opinion, emphasizing that the notification issued under Article 258(1) was an executive order and did not have the force of law. He argued that the entrustment of functions under Article 258(1) was limited to executive functions and could not include legislative or quasi-judicial functions. Consequently, the notification could not be saved under Section 87 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, and the Commissioner of Baroda Division had no authority to act under the notification after the reorganization of the State of Bombay.Wanchhoo J. concluded that the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Commissioner were invalid and should be struck down. He allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court, striking down the notifications for the acquisition of the appellant's property.ConclusionIn accordance with the majority opinion, the appeal was dismissed with costs. The Court upheld the validity of the notifications issued by the Commissioner under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, holding that the entrustment of functions under Article 258(1) had the force of law and that the delegation of authority under Section 5A was valid.