2004 (11) TMI 591 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Overturns Lower Court Rulings

The Supreme Court allowed both appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgments and the Additional Commissioner's orders. The Sub-Divisional Officer's ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.2. Legality of the Sub-Divisional Officer's order cancelling the Section 4 notification.3. Validity of the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.4. Conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural use.5. Applicability of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:The appellants contended that the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the Sub-Divisional Officer's order under the Land Acquisition Act. The court noted that the Additional Commissioner had no appellate or revisional jurisdiction under the Act. The Sub-Divisional Officer, acting under Section 5A of the Act, was not a Revenue Officer under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, but a designated authority under the Act. Therefore, the Additional Commissioner's order dated 14.2.1985, which set aside the Sub-Divisional Officer's order and restored the notification under Section 4(1), was without jurisdiction and hence invalid.2. Legality of the Sub-Divisional Officer's order cancelling the Section 4 notification:The court observed that the Sub-Divisional Officer's power under Section 5A of the Act was limited to making a report after hearing objections, and he did not possess adjudicatory powers regarding the legality of the preliminary notification under Section 4. Consequently, the Sub-Divisional Officer's order cancelling the Section 4 notification was beyond his jurisdiction. However, this order could be treated as a report under Section 5A, recommending acceptance of the objections to the proposed acquisition.3. Validity of the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act:The court found that once the Section 4 notification was cancelled, the Commissioner had no authority to make a declaration under Section 6. The declaration made by the Commissioner was deemed wholly impermissible under the Act. The court rejected the respondents' argument that the Commissioner's order set right a wrong, emphasizing that the Commissioner lacked the jurisdiction to make such a declaration.4. Conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural use:The appellants had sought permission to convert 75 acres of land for non-agricultural use, which was initially granted by the Tehsildar and subsequently upheld by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Additional Collector (Appeals), and the Additional Commissioner. The High Court's decision to interfere with these orders was based solely on its judgment in Writ Petition No. 2768 of 1992. Since the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment in that writ petition, it also found no grounds to interfere with the orders permitting the land conversion.5. Applicability of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966:The court acknowledged the High Court's observations regarding the land being subject to reservation under the development plan, which could invoke consequences under Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. However, the Supreme Court left this issue open for future litigation if necessary, given the resolution of the primary issues in the judgment.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed both appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgments and the Additional Commissioner's orders. The Sub-Divisional Officer's order dated 24.6.1983 stood until lawfully set aside by the appropriate authorities. The court also upheld the orders permitting the conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural use. No costs were awarded in either appeal.