1984 (8) TMI 360

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espect of the lands involved in these three cases on account of those lands having been notified under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition. The learned District Judge answered this question in the negative holding that as the land was intended to be acquired by the State Government for making constructions, the entire land would be excluded from the total holding of the respondents for the purposes of computing the excess vacant land under the Ceiling Act. 3. It may suffice to notice the facts of Writ Petition No. 5106 of 1982 for deciding these three petitions inasmuch as the facts of this case would be sufficient for appreciating the point of law involved in all the three cases. Ram Singh, respondent 2 filed a stateme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ge, the respondent relied upon the aforesaid notification and contended that as the lands in respect of which proceedings under the Act had been taken, had been notified under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the same could not be declared surplus treating it to be that of the respondent. The learned District Judge accepted the contention of the respondent and allowed the three appeals. Against these three judgments in the three appeals, the present writ petitions have been filed. 6. The submission made on behalf of the State was that after the judgment of the Competent Authority given on 12-6-1980, the Competent Authority took possession of the land declared surplus under Section 10(3) of the Act, and upon the possession being tak....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case that as a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued in respect of a plot involved in that case, the same should be treated as covered by Section 2(q)(i) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. 1976. It held that for all intents and purposes, the effect of Section 4 notification would be that the building activity on the land notified for acquisition would not be permissible. With great respect to the Hon'ble Judges. I am unable to subscribe with the view taken in this case. Section 2(q)(i) has a different object and purpose behind it. The language employed in this section does not support the view of the Delhi High Court. Section 2(q)(i) does not include a vacant land on which construction of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Bench of the Bombay High Court in Prabhakar Narhar Pawar v. State (supra), which approved the observations of the Division Bench in D.P. Dani v. State of Maharashtra (supra). "What is necessary is the impermissibility and not prudently restraining from constructing on the land." 10. Section 42 of the Act was also not brought to the notice of the learned District Judge. Section 42 has an overriding effect. It lays down that notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, the Act will prevail in respect of a matter covered by it. The expression "notwithstanding" used in Section 42 has a wide meaning. It overrides all other provisions inconsistent with those which are contained in this Act. In my opinion, there is no inconsistency in the....