Land acquisition notification alone does not divest title or exclude land from urban ceiling proceedings until possession is taken.

A mere notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act does not extinguish the owner's title; title passes only when possession is taken under Sections 16 or 17. Until possession is actually taken, the land may still be considered under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, and Section 2(q)(i) was not read as excluding land solely because acquisition proceedings had begun. The article also notes that Section 42 gives the ceiling law overriding effect where there is no real inconsistency with the acquisition law, and the contrary view of the District Judge was held erroneous, with the ceiling proceedings restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 could continue in respect of land merely because it had been notified under the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition, and whether such notification excluded the land from computation of excess vacant land.

Analysis: A notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act does not by itself extinguish the owner's right, title and interest in the land. Title is extinguished only when possession is taken under Sections 16 and 17 of that Act. The land remained available for consideration under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act until possession had actually been taken under the acquisition proceedings. Section 2(q)(i) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act was not construed as covering land merely because acquisition had been notified, and Section 42 gave the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act overriding effect where there was inconsistency.

Conclusion: The notification under the Land Acquisition Act did not prevent the land from being taken into account under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, and the District Judge's contrary view was erroneous.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were allowed and the orders of the District Judge were quashed, restoring the ceiling proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere notification for acquisition does not divest title or exclude the land from ceiling proceedings unless possession has been taken, and the ceiling law operates according to its overriding provision where no real inconsistency exists with the Land Acquisition Act.

---