LexTULSI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, HYDERABAD ETC. versus STATE OF A.P. AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A TULSI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, HYDERABAD ETC. v. STATE OF A.P. AND ORS. ETC. ETC. SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 B [A.S. ANAND C.J., K.T. THOMAS AND M. SRINIVASAN JJ.] Land Acquisition-Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 4 (1), 6, 17(4)-Agreement fo'"r purchase of 24 acres of land by appellant society- Notification u/s. 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act for acquiring 18 acres out of C subject matter for a Housing Project-Proceedings under acquisition for benefit of a Welfare Society-Writ Petitions filed by landowner and appellant soc'iety dismissed-Suggestions made by this Court during pendency of SLP for effecting a settlement between parties-No concluded compromise-High court on remand dismissing the petitions-Validity of acquisition proceedings D upheld-Lands to be utilised for the purposes for which they were acquired- Government may nominate a suitable committee comprising at least Secretaries to the Government for carrying out objects of the acquisition in an appropriate manner-Directions issued. Acquisition proceedings-Writ Petitions-Acquisition proceedings E upheld-Whether High Court hadjurisdiction tofzx: the compensation merely because proceedings had been pending for long-Held, No-High Court could not usurp the functions of hierarchy of authorities constituted under the Act-Once acquisition proceedings have been held to be valid, prescribed procedure in the Act for fuing compensation payable to land owners should F have been followed-The fact that proceedings have been for long would not justify the court to exceed its jurisdiction. / Land Ceiling-Urban land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976- Section 20-Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4(1), 6-Acquisition of land in June 1975 by Notification issued uls.4 (1)-Land Ceiling Act came G into force !Jn 17.2.1976-Provisions of Ceiling Act not inv<?ked as the compensation was decided to be paid under provisions of Acquisition Act- Held, High Court was not justified in holding that provisions of Ceiling Act were overriding-Question of right of Government to proceed under provisions of the Ceiling Act, once the land had vested in the Government under the H Acquisition Act, left open. 354 - - ... . TULSI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY v. ST-A TE 355 The Appellant-Society entered into an agreement with the Appellattt- A land owner for purchase of 24 acres of land for construction of house and paid in advance as well, in April 1975. In June 1975, the State issued a 4 (1) Notification for acquiring an extent of 18.03 acres of the subject area for HUDCO under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(4) and dispensed with the enquiry under Section SA. The B land was acquired at the instance of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. The Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 came into force in February 1976. The Appellant-Society and he land owner filed applications in May 1976 and June 1977 for exemption from the provisions of the Act of 1976. The Government issued a Notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 in April 1978. The application for exemption under the Act of 1976 was rejected in October C 1978 and a fresh application filed in December 1978. While it was pending proceedings under Sec. 9 of the Act of 1894 were taken by the Government. A partial exemption was granted to the Appellant under the Act of 1976 after which another application was moved and all the lands were exempted in September 1980. The Appellant-Society and the land owner challenged the notifications D by filing two writ petitions. The Writ Petitions were dismissed and writ appeals were filed in High Court. The Government took possession of the lands. The beneficiary of the acquisition also got impleaded in the writ proceedings. The writ appeals were heard by a Full Bench which allowed the E same and acquisition was quashed. The beneficiary BA W society filed appeals before Supreme Court. The exemption granted under the Ceiling Act was cancelled in June 1983 and writ petitions were filed by the land owner and the society. While hearing the appeals filed by the beneficiary, the Court adjourned the matter for exploring the possibilities of settlement by way of sharing the land. Later, the Court held that the acquisition proceedings were valid and that the decision of the full Bench cannot be sustained . In the same order, the Court took notice of the terms of settlement between the two societies and deferred the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.