Land acquisition delegation under Article 258(1) survived reorganisation, and specially appointed Collector proceedings under Section 5A were upheld.

A presidential notification under Article 258(1) entrusting Union land acquisition functions to State Commissioners was treated by the majority as having the force of law and, read with the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960, as surviving the reorganisation of Bombay. The majority also held that Section 5A proceedings may be conducted by an officer specially appointed as Collector, and that the Commissioner could act on the Collector's report because the inquiry is administrative and advisory in nature. The acquisition notifications were therefore sustained, while the dissent considered the notification limited to executive functions and ineffective after reorganisation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a presidential notification issued under Article 258(1) entrusting Union functions under the Land Acquisition Act to Commissioners of Divisions in the State of Bombay had the force of law and continued to operate after the reorganisation of Bombay under the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960. (ii) Whether the proceedings under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act could be carried out by an officer specially appointed as Collector and whether the Commissioner could consider the report submitted under that section.

Issue (i): Whether a presidential notification issued under Article 258(1) entrusting Union functions under the Land Acquisition Act to Commissioners of Divisions in the State of Bombay had the force of law and continued to operate after the reorganisation of Bombay under the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960.

Analysis: The majority held that Article 258(1) enables the President, with State consent, to entrust executive functions of the Union to State Governments or their officers. The notification in question did not merely express an executive arrangement in form; it operated to substitute the Commissioner for the appropriate Government in relation to acquisition for Union purposes and therefore modified the statutory working of the Land Acquisition Act. Such a notification was treated as an instrument having the force of law within the inclusive definition of Section 2(d) of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960. On that footing, and read with Sections 82 and 87 of that Act, the notification continued in force after the formation of Gujarat, so the Commissioner could validly exercise the entrusted functions.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondent; the notification was held to have the force of law and to survive reorganisation.

Issue (ii): Whether the proceedings under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act could be carried out by an officer specially appointed as Collector and whether the Commissioner could consider the report submitted under that section.

Analysis: The majority held that the statutory power under Section 5A to hear objections is vested in the Collector as defined by the Act, which includes an officer specially appointed by the appropriate Government. The Commissioner, acting under the entrusted Union functions, could appoint the Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer as Collector for the purpose of Section 5A. The inquiry under Section 5A was treated as administrative rather than quasi-judicial, and the report submitted by the Collector was only a recommendation to assist the appropriate Government in taking the decision under Section 6.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent; the appointment and consideration of the report were held to be valid.

Final Conclusion: The majority upheld the acquisition process and sustained the impugned notifications, while the dissent would have struck them down as unauthorized after the reorganisation of the State.

Concurring Opinion: The bench majority concluded that the presidential notification remained effective after the reorganisation and that the Section 5A process was validly conducted through the specially appointed Collector. Justice Wanchoo dissented, holding that Article 258(1) covered only executive functions, that the notification had no force of law, and that the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were invalid.

---