LexTHE GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus H.E.H., THE NIZAM, HYDERABAD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' ! I A THE GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. H.E.H., THE NJZAM, HYDERABAD. MARCH 22, 1996 B [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.J La11d Acquisitio11 Act, 1894: Ss. 4, 6, 23( 1-A)-La111is falli11g withi11 Hyderabad Urban Agglomera- C tion under Urban Land Ceiling a11d Regulation Act-Declared excess-Ac- ~ quisition of-Held, vacant land whe11 declared excess and vesti11g in State under Ceiling Act 11eed not be acquired-However, having exempted excess la11d from purview of Ceiling Act, State de11ied itself benefit of s.11 of Ceili11g Act--Compensati011 to be detennined u11der Land Acquisition Act-La11d owner himself havi11g delayed award of compe11sation 1101 elltitled to be11efit D of s.23( 1-A) Urba11 La11d Ceiling and Regulatio11 Act, 1978 : S.3, 10(3)-La11ds falling within Hyderabad Urban Agglomeratio11-Ac- E quisitio11 of u11der Land Acquisitio11 Act-Held, vacant land declared excess ·11eed 11ot be acquired by State--co111pe11satio11 to be awarded under s.11. Certain urban lands belonging to the respondent were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act in 1978. The respondent challenged the acquisition by filing a writ petition in the High Court, and ultimately the F Land Acquisition Officer made the award in June 1983 determining the compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per acre. The Reference Court determined the compensation @ Rs. 30 per square yard which was con- firmed by the High Court. Aggrieved, the State Government filed the present appeal. G It was contended for the appellant that the land in dispute fell within the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration covered by Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act 1976, and by operation of Section 3 and of the Ceiling Act which came into force in respect of the land in dispute on February 17, 1976. The land would be deemed to have been vested in the State and as H such the courts below had no jurisdiction to determine the compensation 772 \ GOVT. OF AP. v. H.E.H. THE NIZAM, HYDERABAD 773 under the Land Acquisition Act. It was also contended that the Reference A Court and the High Court erred in determining the value of the land @ 35 per sq. yard and in awarding the compensation at the rate of Rs. 30 per sq. yard inasmuch as the market rate of the lands sold at the relevant time was Rs. 6 per square yard only and the remaining price of Rs. 29 was for development. B Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. When the vacant land is declared excess under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 it is not necessary for the State to acquire under the Land Acquisition Act, the excess vacant land C vested in it. [780-F] Maharao Sahib Sri Bhim Singhji etc. etc. v. Union of India & Ors. etc. etc., [1985] Supp. 1 SCR 862, Union of India v. Va//uri Basavaiah Chaud- ha1y, [1979] 3 SCR 892, State of Gujarat v. Parashottamdas Ramdas, [1988] 1 SCR 997 and Dattatraya Shankarbhat Ambalgi & Ors. v. State of D Maharashtra & Ors., AIR (1989) SC 1796 relied on. y 1.2. The vesting of excess land in the State takes effect from the date of publication of notification under sub-section (3) of s. 10 of the Ceiling Act in the State Gazette' with effect from the date specified therein. The competent authority by notification under Section 10(3) of the Ceiling Act E published in the State Gazette may declare that the excess land published under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government with effect from the date specified in the declaration and such land shall 'be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so specified". The F word "deemed" is used to give effect to the operation of Section 3 from the date the Act was brought into force. The deemed vesting under Section , 10(3) would date back to 7.2.1976 and the date specified under Section 10(3). [779-C; 778-E-F] Vattichernkurn Village Panchayat v. Nori Venkatarama Deekshithulu & 01~., [1991] Supp. 2 SCC 228 and Consolidate Coffee Ltd. & Anr. etc. v. Coffee Board Bangalore etc. etc., [1980] 3 SCR 625, referred to. G 1.3. Ju the instant case the State acquired absolute right, title and interest in the excess urban vacant land from the date of the publication H 774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R. A of the notification under Section 10(3) of the Ceiling Act and from that date viz February 28, 1983 the State Government became absolute owner of the excess vacant land fr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.