Deshpande, J.@mdash[His Lordship narrated the facts of the various petitions and Proceeded.] Now, after Notifications are issued under
Sections 4 and 6, the land acquisition officer is under a statutory obligation to proceed with the inquiry as to the compensation on the date
indicated in the notice u/s 9 of the L.A. Act (Land Acquisition Act, 1894) ""or on any other day to which the inquiry has been adjourned"" and he
has to ""make an award under his hand"" thereafter u/s 12 and take possession of the land u/s 16 on which the title in the land ""vests absolutely in the
Government free from all encumbrances"". Mr. A. H. Desai, Mr. Agarwal, Mr. Mehta and Mr. Shah and Mr. Setalvad, the learned advocates
appearing for the petitioners, appear to us to be right in contending that suspending of such proceedings indefinitely, awaiting the sanction of the
department concerned for the amount required, or awaiting its acquisition under the U.L.C. Act (Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 at
a cheaper price, is not legal. Such delay, after conclusion of the enquiry u/s 11 of the Act is liable to be treated as inordinate and unjustified, and
this Court, on being approached under Article 226 of the Constitution, has to direct the land acquisition officer to discharge his statutory duties in
terms of the ratio of the Supreme Court case of Ambalal Purshottam etc. Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Others, .
2. The only defence, set up on behalf of the Government to this statutory obligation in all the above cases, is that with the enforcement of the
U.L.C. Act with effect from February 17, 1976, the proceedings under the L.A. Act stand automatically suspended till the contemplated
acquisition proceedings in respect of the available land under the U.L.C. Act are finalised in view of its overriding effect u/s 42 thereof. According
to Mr. C. J. Sawant, the learned Additional Government Pleader, and Mr. Rele and Mr. Kotwal and Mr. A. V. Savant, the learned advocates for
the State and the Union Governments, and the Poona Municipal Corporation, supporting him, any possible conflict between the provisions of the
two enactments or orders passed thereunder, can be avoided only by suspending the LA. Act proceedings and enabling the competent authority
under the U.L.C. Act to work out its provisions unfettered by any other consideration. Mr. Savant contends that out right withdrawal of
proceedings u/s 48 of the L.A. Act is, also not possible till the entire land, required for this public purpose already notified, is not found to have
been acquired under the U.L.C. Act. The proceedings shall have to be revived, so contends Mr. Sawant, if the land or any portion thereof is found
to have remained untouched by the acquisition under the U.L.C. Act.
3. It is not in dispute that the land sought to be acquired under the L.A. Act in all these proceedings are the ''vacant lands'' within the meaning of
Section 2(g) of the U.L.C. Act and are situated within the Urban agglomeration as defined u/s 2(n) of the said Act. It is also not disputed that the
petitioners in each one of these cases have submitted their statements to the competent Authority u/s 6 of the U.L.C. Act and, in fact, such
statements do include the lands covered by the land acquisition proceedings. It is therefore necessary to examine the provisions of the U.L.C. Act
relied on before us.
4. Section 42 of the U.L.C. Act reads as follows:
Act to override other laws. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in any other law for the time
being in force or any custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a court, tribunal or other authority.
There is no doubt that the Legislature intends to give overriding effect to the provisions of this Act. Finding of inconsistency, however, is the
condition precedent for attracting the overriding effect of the U.L.C. Act. Inconsistency can exist between any provision of one Act and that of any
other Act such as the L.A. Act or between the orders under one Act and the orders under the other Act. The section must be deemed to cover
inconsistency of both the kinds. It declares the provisions of the U.L.C. Act and order passed thereunder to have overriding effect. Omission to
expressly give overriding effect to such orders will not make them any the less overriding. Any provision of L.A. Act or an order thereunder thus
would be ineffective and inoperative, if it is shown to be inconsistent with any corresponding provision of the U.L.C. Act or any order passed
thereunder. The provisions of any Act after all are given effect to only through the order passed thereunder. We are not concerned in this case with
any question of inconsistency with any custom, decree or order of any Court.
5. The real question is : Is there any such inconsistency at all between the provisions of these two enactments ? Mr. Sawant, Mr. Rele and Mr.
Kotwal, could not put their finger on any section of the L.A. Act and claim, the same to be inconsistent with any section of the U.L.C. Act directly,
excepting in the matter of compensation for the land acquired. The two enactments have quite different objects, scopes and areas of operations.
As indicated by the preamble of the U.L.C. Act, it is aimed at providing for the imposition of a ceiling on ''vacant land'' in ''urban agglomeration''
and for the acquisition of such land in excess of the ceiling limit, with a view to prevent the concentration of urban land in the hands of a few
persons and speculation and profiteering therein and also with a view to bringing about an equitable distribution of land in urban agglomerations to
subserve the common good. In other words, the Act is only confined to lands situated in ''urban agglomerations'' as specified in Schedule I of the
Act. Secondly, it is confined only to the vacant lands. Thirdly, buildings and agricultural lands are totally excluded therefrom. Fourthly, the
contemplated acquisition of holding in excess of the ceiling limit is not the main aim but merely a consequence of such excess holding. Fifthly,
though the State Government also is competent to reserve any such vacant land for the benefit of the public u/s 23 (5) of the U.L.C. Act, the
acquisition under this Act is mainly intended for the equitable distribution thereof in the urban agglomerations. Sixthly, once the land is found to be
in excess of the ceiling limit, the same is liable to be acquired leaving no option to the holder or the officer.
6. The L.A. Act, on the other hand, deals with the acquisition of land for public purposes and covers lands and buildings situated in any part of the
country, land acquisition officer can withdraw the proceedings at any time even after passing award but before taking possession u/s 48. The
possibility of there being any inconsistency between the provisions of these two enactments or the orders passed thereunder thus cannot be taken
for granted, without something more. In fact, no order under the L.A. Act can be assumed to be ineffective merely on account of some remote
possible inconsistency with any order under the U.L.C. Act.
7. It is true, the provision in the two Acts as to the quantum and mode of compensation for the lands acquired are irreconcilable. While L.A. Act
contemplates assessing compensation at the market rate on the date of notification u/s 4 read with Section 23 thereof, such market rate is irrelevant
in terms of Section 11 of the U.L.C. Act and its quantum so assessed cannot exceed the ceiling limit of rupees two lacs and is also not payable in
cash in its entirety. Such an inconsistency cannot, however, have its impact till the same land is sought to be acquired under both the enactments,
and in that case such an overriding effect shall have to be restricted to the area covered by the acquisition under the U.L.C. Act. The proceedings
under the L.A. Act would still continue and remain unaffected by any such inconsistency in respect of land or any portion thereof not covered by
such acquisition proceedings under the U.LC, Act.
8. Mr. C. J. Sawant however contends that with the inclusion of any land in the statement u/s 6 of the U.L.C. Act by the holder, the operation of
the provisions of the L.A. Act with respect to such land becomes inconsistent with the provisions of the U-L.C. Act rendering the powers under
the former ineffective.
9. Now, Section 6 does require every person ""holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit at the commencement of this Act"" to tile a
statement, in the prescribed form, before the competent authority concerned, of all the vacant lands held by him on that date. The rules framed u/s
6(7) of the Act and Form 1 prescribed for the same, requires the holder to furnish particulars of any litigation pending in respect of any such land.
Section 8 then requires the competent officer to prepare a draft statement in respect of all such holdings in terms of the details enumerated in Sub-
section (2) after making inquiry and prepare a final statement after hearing every person concerned and serve a copy thereof on such person
including mortgagees and lessees. This statement is to include all the vacant lands held by the holder. In this final statement he has to ""determine the
vacant land held by the person concerned in excess of the ceiling limit"". Then follows Section 10(1) as to ""acquisition of vacant land in excess of
ceiling limit"". Section 10(1) reads as follows :
10. (7) As soon as may be after the service of the statement u/s 9 on the person concerned, the competent authority shall cause a notification giving
the particulars of the vacant land held by such person in excess of the ceiling limit and stating that-
(i) such vacant land is to be acquired by the concerned State Government; and
(ii) the claims of all persons interested in such vacant land may be made by them personally or by their agents giving particulars of the nature of
their interests in such land,
to be published for the information of the general public in the Official Gazette of the State concerned and in such other manner as may be
prescribed.
10. Sub-section (3) reads as follows :
(3) At any time after the publication of the notification under Sub-section (1), the competent authority may, by notification published in the Official
Gazette of the State concerned, declare that the excess vacant land referred to in the notification published under Sub-section (1) shall, with effect
from such date as may be specified in the declaration, be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and upon the publication of
such declaration, such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the
date so specified.
11. It will thus be seen that the possibility of the acquisition of any vacant land situated in urban agglomeration u/s 10(1) and its consequential
vesting in the State u/s 10(3) is not crystalised and does not become a certainty till (1) the statement u/s 9 is finalised after enquiry u/s 8 of the Act
and (2) a notification u/s 10(7) indicating such consequential acquisition with particulars is published, and (3) claims of the interested persons are
invited. Liability of any land of being included in the statement u/s 6 of the Act cannot be equated with the liability of its being included in the final
statement u/s 9 and consequential acquisition u/s 10. Mere inclusion of any land in the statement u/s 6 may not necessarily result in its inclusion in
the statement u/s 9 and acquisition u/s 10{1) of the U.L.C. Act. The possibilities of some addition and detraction as a result of two summary
inquiries contemplated u/s 8 can never be ruled out. The statement prepared by the competent authority u/s 9, preceding the notification u/s 10,
alone, can indicate if the land included in Section 6 statement also is liable to be acquired under the U.L.C. Act. The very provision of enquiry
assumes the possibility of deletion of any land included in the statement u/s 6. When any land being acquired under the L.A. Act also gets included
in such final statement intended for acquisition u/s 10(7) of the U.L.C. Act, actual inconsistency can be said to have arisen and it is at this point of
time that the U.L.C. Act would alone apply and LA. Act would cease to apply to the land or any portion thereof so included in the final statement
u/s 9. This finds support in the following two passages from Crawford on Statutory Construction :
''As laws are presumed to be passed with deliberation, and with full knowledge of all existing ones on the same subject, it is but reasonable to
conclude that the Legislature, in passing a statute, did not intend to interfere with or abrogate any former law relating to the same matter, unless the
repugnancy between the two is irreconcilable''"" (p. 633) ""and, as we have already suggested, it is essential that the new statute cover the entire
subject matter of the old; otherwise there is no indication of the intent of the legislature to abrogate the old law. Consequently, the later enactment
will be construed as a continuation of the old one(p. 634).
12. It is true that adequate precautions have been taken by the Legislature by preventing the holders from transferring these lands during the period
from February 17, 1975 to the date of declaration as to acquisition thereof under the U.L.C. Act to ensure that holders do not of their own seek to
defeat the provisions of the U.L.C. Act by indulging in transfers thereof in anticipation, either of the enforcement of the Act or of the acquisition of
their land u/s 10(1) of the Act. Sections 4(4), (5) and 10(4) are aimed at achieving this purpose. This, no doubt, eliminates the possibility of
deleting any land on account of such voluntary transfers.
13. The Act, however, does not seek to prevent the transfer of land by operation of law. At any rate, there is no express provision to that effect. It
is not difficult to conceive of variety of instances of such bonafide genuine transfers. A land''s being a subject of a litigation at different stages at the
commencement of the Act, or it being subject of sale proceedings in execution of a decree or award or order of any Court, or its liability to
partition, or its standing in the name of any benami, are ordinarily incidents of properties, including the vacant lands. Their transfer without the
volition, between February 17, 1975 and the date of declaration u/s 10 (3) of the U.L.C. Act when title stands vested in the State, can never be
ruled out. Prohibition against transfer inter vivos cannot be effective against such sheer transfer by operation of law. Effective transfers in all such
instances before the date of such declaration cannot be legally ignored and effectively resisted in the absence of any express provision.
14. Mr. Kotwal, appearing for the Union, contends that the word ''transfer'' in Sections 4(4), 5 and 10(4) includes statutory transfer or transfer by
operation of law. In support, he relied on the judgment in The Mangalore Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, West
Bengal, . The ratio of this case can have no relevance here. Firstly it is difficult to eliminate the element of volition ingrained in the words ""has made
any transfer"" or ""has been transferred"" or ""shall transfer"" occurring in these sections, as against the mere word ""effected"" in Section 12B of the T.T.
Act, 1922, which was required to be interpreted by the Supreme Court in this case. Secondly, the ratio of the Supreme Court is based on the
legislative history of said Section 12B. The ratio cannot be of any assistance. Looked at from any point of view, transfer by operation of law
cannot be said to have been prohibited or inconsistent with the U.L.C. Act.
15. It is true that Section 3 prevents holding of vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit, and Section 6 requires holder to submit statement of all his
holdings to the competent authority to enable him to verify to what extent his holding is in excess of the ceiling limit. Prima facie holding of every
holder on the commencement day is material for this purpose. But this by itself cannot prevent the operation of the process of other laws against
such land.
16. Mr. Sawant could not draw our attention to any provision in the U.L.C. Act seeking to freeze the entire excess land so held by the holder
required to make a statement u/s 6 till the final statement is prepared by the competent officer u/s 9 or notification with regard to its acquisition is
made by him u/s 10(1) of the Act. Mr. Sawant could also not draw our attention to any provision, indicating even such constructive seizure or
restraining the land acquisition officer under the L.A. Act from proceeding with the land acquisition proceedings initiated by him long before the
enforcement of this Act on February 17, 1976.
17. Omission of such a prohibitive proviso is reflective of legislative intent to allow the process of all other laws, against the land covered by the
statement u/s 6 of the under the U.L.C Act. In other words, continuance of such process against the land covered by Section 6 statement,
including the one under L.A. Act, is not rendered inconsistent. There are several factors which support this conclusion.
18. Firstly, absence of any express prohibition against such transfer by operation of law in spite of such positive prohibition against transfer inter
vivos itself is an important factor leading to this conclusion.
19. Secondly, Rule 8 of the rules framed under the Act and the form ''A'' and its annexures prescribed thereunder require the holder to give
particulars of the pending litigation about lands covered by such statements u/s 6 of the U.L.C. Act The enquiries contemplated u/s 8, preceding
the draft and final statements, are to be initiated on the basis of the data so furnished, and are obviously aimed at ensuring that only the land of the
holder and nobody else is acquired on the very hypothesis of being his. The competent authority shall have to verify the true position about such
litigation and proceedings which indeed is implicit in the contemplated enquiry u/s 8. It should be difficult for any authority to include any land in the
final statement for acquisition which was held by any holder but went out of his holding thereafter during the pendency of his enquiry, in execution
of any decree or on account of Court or revenue or any other statutory sale. Such inclusion and consequential acquisition u/s 10{1) and (3) would
be destructive of the rights of the third parties earned by them by sheer operation of law independently of the holders'' volition. It will be arbitrary
and irrational on his part to do so in the absence of any positive legal authority of the U.L.C. Act to support, and may expose it to the interference
by any Court of superior jurisdiction. He will also have to stay his hands in matters pending litigation in Courts and tribunals holding out threat to
the holders'' title, as till then it will not be possible for him to decide, if the land is held or not, by the holder. The same would be true of the effect of
loss of such land to the holder by operation of any law, including the Land Acquisition Act. He has no jurisdiction to acquire the land, which stood
in the name of the holder on February 17, 1976 but really belonged to somebody else or ceased to be in his holding due to operation of any law.
Implications of this contemplated enquiry also is indicative of the same legislative intent.
20. Thirdly, even the provisions prohibiting contractual transfers between February 17, 1975 and declaration u/s 10 (3) of the Act display
legislative anxiety to ''protect the transferees as far as possible. Thus u/s 4(4) the lands transferred to bona fide transferees for value are not liable
to be counted at all and of other transfers are to be calculated without prejudice to their interest. Lands transferred between January 28, 1976 and
February 17, 1976 are to be included in the holders'' total holding only if the other land held is found insufficient for acquisition. Only transfers after
February 27, 1976 are declared to be void. The Act thus ensures as little adverse effect on third parties'' interests, as is possible.
21. Fourthly, though the Legislature is always competent to destroy the vested rights, it does not do so, unless it becomes indispensible to the
achievement of the object for which the Act is enforced. It is all the more so when innocent third person or persons happen to be its victims. The
land under the scheme of the Act is liable to be acquired only if the holder is found to be having land in excess of the ceiling limit. The acquisition is
thus not the aim of the Act. It is a consequence of its holder having land in excess of ceiling limit. The destruction of rights accrued to third persons
in the ordinary course by operation of law is beyond the scope of the object and wholly unnecessary. Thus the omission to prevent transfers by
operation of law appears to be deliberate and not accidental.
22. Fifthly in interpreting the provisions of any Act, the Court has to proceed with assumption that the Legislature acts reasonably and justly. The
following passage from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhudan Singh and Another Vs. Nabi Bux and Another, is illuminating (p.
1883):
...The object of every legislation is to advance public welfare. In other words, as observed by Crawford in his book on Statutory Constructions
that the entire legislative process is influenced by considerations of justice and reason. Justice and reason constitute the great general legislative
intent in every piece of legislation. Consequently, where the suggested construction operates harshly, ridiculously or in any other manner contrary to
prevailing conceptions of justice and reason, in most instances, it would seem that the apparent or suggested meaning of the statute was not the one
intended by the law-makers.
23. Mr. Sawant then contends that the language of Section 42 of the U.L.C. Act is wide enough to include within its sweep, such transfers by
operation of law. Any such law, so contends Mr. Sawant, resulting in the extinction of the title of the holder in the land included, or liable to be so
included, in the statement u/s 6, contrary to its contemplated disposal under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act, shall have to be held as overridden by
Sections 6 to 11 of the U.L.C. Act and so made ineffective. Now, there cannot be any doubt that such transfers of land by operation of law after
the commencement day may affect not only the choice or selection of competent authority but also his acquisition power in the event of no, or
lesser area of land, being left with the holder consequent to transfers. This contention though attractively plausible cannot stand scrutiny in the light
of the factors discussed above. Now, there is no dispute that the provisions of this Act and the order passed, do have overriding effect so as to
nullify the orders passed under other enactments. Before however any section of any other law or order thereunder is sought to be over borne and
consequently rendered ineffective, inconsistency of the said section with some section of the U.L.C. Act must be established. Without the existence
of such inconsistency the contemplated overriding and nullifying effect u/s 42 cannot be attracted. It is not suggested that operation of other laws
giving rise to such decrees or orders, discussed earlier would be in any manner inconsistent and ineffective till the commencement day. It is difficult
to see how enforcement of the U.L.C. Act or mere inclusion of any land in the statement u/s 6 or its liability of such inclusion by itself can create
such inconsistency as to attract Section 42 and prevent the operation of such laws to wit, Transfer of Property Act, Contract Act, Land Revenue
Code, Co-operative Societies Act or the Civil Procedure Code, in the absence of any positive inconsistent provision to that effect. Section 42
itself does not create inconsistency. It only gives overriding effect to every provision of the U.L.C. Act on such other law being found to be
inconsistent therewith. Mr. Sawant, Mr. Rele and Mr. Kotwal could not demonstrate any such inconsistency. Absence of such inconsistent
provisions in the U.L.G. Act only shows, as discussed earlier, how preventing operation of other laws on the land is not within the legislative
intendment and scope of the Act. Without the existence of such inconsistency in the U.L.C. Act and other laws operating on. the land giving rise to
decrees, orders and proceedings, Section 42 cannot be assumed to have any operation. The competent authority is as such bound by such
decrees, orders and proceedings as the holder himself. He will have to eliminate the lands from statement u/s 9 if it becomes necessary to give
effect to such other laws as a result of his enquiries.
24. Section 6, no doubt, makes holder of the land liable to give account of his holding. Every land held by the holder on the commencement day is
thus liable to be accounted. Such liability of the land to be accounted by itself does not create any immunity from the operation of other laws
thereon till the title of the holder therein becomes extinct u/s 10(3) of the U.L.C. Act. There is nothing in Section 6 to prevent it being extinguished
earlier by operation of other laws. Reliance by Mr. Sawant on Section 42 read with Section 6 of the Act in this behalf is thus misconceived.
25. Mr. Sawant relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Raghunath Laxman Wani and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
and Others, . It cannot be of any help to him. The question before the Supreme Court was whether, addition in the strength of the family after the
appointed day can enable the holder of the agricultural lands to retain larger ceiling area so permissible u/s 6 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands
(Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. The Supreme Court examined the scope of Sections 6, 8, 10, 18 and 21 of the said Act and answered the
question in the negative holding that ceiling area under the scheme of the Act has to be determined by reference to ''state of affairs'' as on the
appointed day. It is true that provisions of Sections 3, 3 (4), 5 (3) and 6 of the U.L.C. Act are substantially analogous and the ratio of the case
would equally apply to the identical situation in the U.L.C, Act corresponding to Section 6 of the said Act to justify application of this ratio to any
case under the U.L.C. Act. However, firstly there is no section in the U.L.C. Act corresponding to Section 6 of the said Act to justify application
of this ratio to any case under the U.L.C. Act. Secondly, the Supreme Court had no occasion to consider the effect of transfers by operation of
law in that case. The case cannot be said to be an authority for the point that arises before us. The words ''state of affairs'' in the judgment cannot
be torn out of context, and construed as if to cover cessation of the operation of all the valid laws on the land. It is pertinent to note that Section 8
of the said Act is now amended in 1975 to include statutory transfer also. Absence of any identical provision in the U.L.C. Act should militate
against the contention of Mr. Sawant. Reference in this context can usefully be made to the Supreme Court judgment in Gurdit Singh and Others
Vs. State of Punjab and Others, . Section 32DD(b) of the Pepsu Tenancy Act of 1955 as amended in 1962 required ignoring of the past decrees
diminishing area of the holding of the person liable to be declared as surplus. The Supreme Court, however, held that it cannot apply to the decrees
which merely indicate who the real owner or holder of the land was.
26. Raghunath''s case, at the most, may be an authority for the proposition that, every piece of land held by the holder on the commencement day
is liable to be accounted for determination of the area held by him) in excess of the ceiling limit. This is no authority on the question of the effect of
other laws and pending legal valid proceedings on his such holding of that day. Section 4 (4), 5 (3) and 10 (4) prevent transfer inter vivos from
having any effect on his such holdings of the said day. But to the extent to which the Act does not prevent the operation of the other laws on such
land, ratio of this case cannot empower the competent authority to ignore their effect. Further question whether excess area is to be determined by
reference to the actual holdings on the commencement day or the date of final statement u/s 9, does not arise in the present case.
27. Mr. Sawant relied on certain authorities to support his contention. None of these cases appear to us to have any bearing on the point that really
arises for consideration. The case of State of Orissa Vs. M.A. Tulloch and Co., , was dealing with the question of repugnancy between a State
enactment on Minerals, etc. covered by Entry 23 List II and the Central Act on the same topic under Entry 54, List I, on its being withdrawn by
Parliament for such legislation. The following observations from para. 15 were relied on by Mr. Sawant (p. 1292) :
...The test of two legislations containing contradictory provisions is not, however, the only criterion of repugnancy, for, if a competent, legislature
with a superior efficacy expressly or impliedly evinces by its legislation an intention to cover the whole field, the enactments of the other legislature
whether passed before or after would be overborne on the ground of repugnance. Where such is the position, the inconsistency is demonstrated
not by a detailed comparison of provisions of the two statutes but by the mere existence of the two pieces of legislation.
28. This case and the cases cited by Mr. Setalvad in reply, including the latest one State of Haryana and Another Vs. Chanan Mal and Others, ,
dealing with competency of the State Legislatures as ""to the topic of mines"" and its repugnancy with the Central Act, appear to us to be wholly
irrelevant. Secondly, even if the word ''field'' is to be equated with ''the topic of acquisition'', the same cannot be said to have been ''occupied'' by
the U.L.C. Act till occasion to make recourse to Sections 9 and 10 of the U.L.C. Act for acquisition naturally arises.
29. Reference to para. 24 of the case of Aswini Kumar Ghosh and Another Vs. Arabinda Bose and Another, , at p. 376 relied on by Mr. Sawant
is equally irrelevant as there can be no dispute that the non obstante clause of Section 42 of the U.L.C. Act, would have the effect of nullifying
whatever contrary is indicated in any other Act or in the order of any other authority. Before, however, the question of giving effect to any such
overriding provision arises, one has to find out where exactly the inconsistency exists.
30. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Northern India Caterers Private Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , relied
on by Mr. Sawant enumerates the contingencies in which repeal by implication can be inferred. Section 42 contemplates overriding of the
inconsistent provisions, and not repeal thereof. The ratio of this case has no relevance.
31. Reliance then by Mr. Sawant on the case of Kanubhai Sankalchand Patel Vs. Nayankunj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Ahmedabad
and Others, , is also misconceived. The division Bench refused to confirm a decree in appeal for specific performance of the contract of pre-1963
period with regard to a land, in view of such transfers being prohibited by Section 5(5) of the U.L.C. Act. Actual transfer takes place in such a
case not on the date of agreement, or the suit or decree, but on the date of execution of the sale deed in execution of the decree. A direction to the
defendant to execute the sale deed is indispensible ingredient of such a decree. The defendant cannot carry it out without committing breach of
Section 5 or 10 (4) of the U.L.C. Act, The Court cannot pass such a decree. This is the basis of the ratio of this case, which can have no
application hers.
32. Mr. Sawant then relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kumaon Motor Owners'' Union Ltd. and Another Vs. The State of Uttar
Pradesh, . The order passed under Rule 131(2) under the Defence of India Rules, preventing the plying of the vehicles on a certain road, is held to
have overriding effect on chap. IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act so as to disentitle any owner of the vehicles from claiming any compensation which
he could have claimed under the latter for such closure of the road. This judgment can support the view that inconsistency attracting overriding
effect can arise on passing order u/s 9 of the U.L.C. Act and not before such an order.
33. To sum up, transfer of land by operation of laws, is not prohibited under the U.L.C. Act, till the title of the holder in the land becomes extinct
u/s 10(5) thereof. The competent authority is bound to take notice of the same in his enquiries u/s 8 before he passes the final statement.
34. This is true in regard to the proceedings under the L.A. Act initiated prior to the date of the enforcement of the U.L.C. Act. Mere
commencement of the U.L.C. Act, or inclusion of the very same land in the statement u/s 6, cannot affect the proceedings under the L.A. Act.
Thus the enquiry u/s 11, declaration of award u/s 12, and taking possession thereunder cannot be said to have been prevented by any section of
the U.L.C. Act till the final statement u/s 9 is prepared and the same land is included therein. It is difficult to conceive of any inconsistency between
any provision of the L.A. Act and U.L.C. Act till then. Nothing can prevent the land acquisition officer from taking possession and consequently
getting the title in the land vested in the State under the said Act. Result of such title vesting in the State u/s 16 of the L.A. Act will be that the said
land will not be available for inclusion in the final statement contemplated to be prepared u/s 9 of the U.L.C. Act. If the lands covered by the
statement u/s 6 of the U.L.C. Act are liable to be lost to the competent authority because of the operation of other laws before its inclusion u/s 9,
the land proceeded under the L.A. Act should also be subject to the same result. In the event of the holder losing the title in the land in favour of
the Government u/s 16 thereof before the statement u/s 9 of the U.L.C. Act is finalised, the competent authority will be statutorily bound to take
notice of the same, and exclude such land from; such final statement consequentially from acquisition u/s 10 of the Act.
35. Mr. Kotwal relied on Section 31(2) of the L.A. Act in an attempt to show how continuation of proceedings under the L.A. Act becomes
inconsistent with the U.L.C. Act immediately after its enforcement. Section 31 deals with the liability of the Collector to render the amount of
compensation, for the acquired land, to the persons interested and entitled thereto. Sub-section (2), however, authorises him to deposit the said
amount in the Court, where there is ""no person entitled to alienate the land"". Mr. Kotwal contends that prohibition against transfers of lands under
Sections 4 (4), 5(1), 5 (3) and 10 (4) of the U.L.C. Act makes the owner thereof, such person not ""entitled to alienate the land"" within the meaning
of Sub-section (2) of Section 31. This Collector''s disability to pay, according to Mr. Kotwal, must result in the consequential disability to proceed
with the acquisition proceedings. The contention, to our mind, is devoid of any substance. The section obviously has reference to minors and other
persons under disabilities, and widows under the uncodified Hindu law, whose competency to alienate was subjected to certain limitation. It can
have no reference to the provisions restraining any person from transferring his land. The volition or consent a! the owner is never relevant for the
compulsory acquisition of any property under the L.A. Act. It is pertinent to note that vesting of title of land acquired, takes place as soon as the
possession of the land is taken u/s 16, after award is declared u/s 12. It is not made dependant on payment of the amount to the owner or
acceptance thereof by him. Section 31(2) of the L.A. Act thus does not give rise to any inconsistency.
36. When, however, the very land actually finds place in the final statement prepared by the competent officer u/s 9 of the Act, acquisition
proceedings under the L.A. Act would become inoperative and ineffective to that extent, in view of the overriding effect of Sections 9 and 10 of
the U.L.C. Act. As seen earlier, the inclusion of any land of the holder in the final statement u/s 9 of the Act is a positive preliminary step towards
the acquisition thereof in terms of Sections 10 and 11 of the Act. The competent authority is left with no choice of not acquiring the land once it is
included in final statement u/s 9. As the opening words of Section 10(1) itself indicate that the competent officer is under a statutory obligation to
issue notification for its acquisition as soon as possible, after the service of final statement u/s 9, on the holder or concerned person. Notification of
acquisition u/s 10(1) of the Act thereafter is merely a matter of formality. The proceedings under the U.L.C. Act can be said to have commenced
in respect of such land at this stage itself. Acquisition under L..A Act then will become obviously inconsistent. The same land cannot be subject-
matter of acquisition proceedings under both the Acts. We have already seen how, provisions of the U.L.C. Act as to compensation are materially
inconsistent with those of the L.A. Act. The L.A. Act would cease to be operative on the land to that extent from that stage.
37. Mr. Setalvad, Mr. Mehta, Mr. Desai and Mr. Shah contend that preparing final statement u/s 9 of the Act by itself cannot result in any such
inconsistency as to warrant discontinuation of the land acquisition proceedings initiated long before the Act. This contention is untenable in view of
what we have so far discussed. None of the cases cited by Mr. Setalvad support such a contention. We have already indicated how cases cited by
Mr. Setalvad dealing with the overriding provision under the Central Act on mines, over State enactments on that topic, can have no relevance.
The ratio of the judgment in the case of Ch. Tika Ramji and Others etc. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, , relied on by Mr. Setalvad
dealing with the principles of repugnancy between the Central and State legislation on the topics covered by the concurrent List III by reference to
Article 254 of the Constitution is also not relevant.
38. The ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Harishankar Bagla and Another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, relied on by Mr.
Setalvad is relevant to a limited extent. The Cotton Textile (Control of Movement) Order of 1948 was made in exercise of the Essential Supplies
(Temporary Powers) Act of 1946. The Order authorised the Textile Commissioner to impose certain restrictions on the transport of the textile
goods. The Order on that count was claimed to be inconsistent with Sections 27, 28 and 41 of the Indian Railways Act. The Supreme Court held
that the Railway Act does not exclude imposing such restrictions and it did not give rise to any inconsistency. This supports our conclusion that
provisions of the L.A. do not conflict with the provisions of the U.L.C. Act till final statement u/s 9. The judgment, however, does not support Mr.
Setalvad in his contention that the scheme of Sections 9 and 10 of the U.L.C. Act is not inconsistent with the provisions of L.A. Act. The
discussion in para. 12 of the judgment at p. 469 also indicates how Section 6 of the Order, identically worded as Section 42 of the U.L.C. Act,
could not have the effect of repealing of the same provisions of the Railway Act by implication but of merely by passing any such inconsistent
provisions to allow its operations in other areas to remain unaffected. This indicates how Mr. Sawant''s contention to that effect is untenable.
39. Mr. Setalvad also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Council Palai Vs. T.J. Joseph and Others, In exercise
of powers under Sections 286 and 287 of the Travancore District Municipalities Act of 1941, the Municipal Council constructed a bus stand and
called upon all the vehicles to use it by paying certain fees. Vehicle owners challenged the validity of this order on the ground that the said sections
must be deemed to have been impliedly repealed by Section 72 of the Travancore Cochin Motor Vehicles Act of 1950, which authorised the
State Government to regulate installation of vehicles'' stops. High Court overruled the same, holding that provisions of the enactment were not
irreconcilably inconsistent. The ratio is not directly relevant. The Supreme Court has, however, approved the two passages from Crawford on
Statutory Construction quoted by us earlier.
40. Mr. Setalvad then contends that overriding effect contemplated u/s 42 of the Act is intended only to the provisions of the Act and not to any
order passed thereunder. He, therefore, contends that final statement u/s 9 cannot have such overriding effect, He relied on the recent judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Prag Ice and Oil Mills and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI), , to support his attempt to draw a distinction
between an order and the section of the Act under which it is framed. It is difficult to see how the provisions of any Act can be effectuated,
excepting through the orders so passed by the officers acting thereunder. It is difficult to conceive of overriding effect of any of the provisions of the
Act, excepting through the order passed thereunder. The order dealt with by the Supreme Court namely Mustard Oil (Price Control) Order of
1977 made under the Essential Commodities Act ""is a Legislature Order"" and was claimed to be immune from the attack of being violative of
fundamental rights by virtue of the parent Essential Commodities Act being included in the ninth schedule. That the provisions of this Act were so
immune from such attack by virtue of Article 31B of the Constitution was not disputed. The Supreme Court negatived such a claim of immunity.
Now, this decision dealing with a legislative order can have no bearing whatsoever on the executive or quasi-judicial orders passed by any
competent authority under the provisions of this Act.
41. Mr. Setalvad contends that the proceedings under the L.A. Act were dragged on for years by the land acquisition officer for no fault of the
petitioners. The petitioners would have received the full compensation had the proceedings concluded before February 17, 1976. The land
acquisition officer or the Government should not be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong. The U.L.C. Act should be so interpreted, so
contends Mr. Setalvad, that the guilty does not stand to benefit from his own wrong. Reliance was placed by Mr. Setalvad in support of this
contention on the passage from p. 212 in Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes (twelfth edn.). There is no quarrel with the proposition. It has,
however, no application to the situation before us. Mr. Setalvad did not refer to any particular words of any particular section as such, to indicate
the application of this doctrine which is too well known. It is not possible to mix, identity of the guilty officer or the Government with the identity of
the legislature. The competent authority who has to carry out the central legislation mandate cannot be allowed to be influenced by what the land
acquisition officer did or omitted to do in the matter.
42. Mr. Agarwal, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in special civil application No. 2 of 1978 contends that even though the
competent officer has issued notification u/s 10(7) of the U.L.C. Act, the proceedings under the L.A. Act having been initiated earlier, owners get
a vested right of, the land being acquired under the LA. Act and they being paid compensation according to the provisions thereunder. The
competent authority, according to Mr. Agarwal, has no jurisdiction either to include the land so subjected to proceedings in the L.A. Act earlier, in
the final statement u/s 9 or to acquire the same u/s 10 of the Act. The entire foundation for this argument is the assumption that the award becomes
effective in all its implications not from the date on which it is made or on the date when the possession of the land is taken by the Government u/s
16 of the Act but on the date when Section 4 notification is issued by the Government. This assumption is again based on Section 23 of the Act
which requires determination of compensation at the rate prevalent on the date of the notification u/s 4 of the Act. The contention is liable to be
rejected as misconceived. Now, this mere circumstance of the obligation to pay compensation at the rate prevalent on the date of Section 4
notification cannot make the the Government owner of the land from that date nor extinguish the title of the owner on that date. Any such
interpretation will be contrary to the plain wording of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act under which title of the owner is not extinguished and
the same does not get vested in the Government till the possession of the land is not taken, after the declaration of the award. In fact, till that date it
is open for the Government to drop the proceedings without anything if no notice u/s 9 is issued or to withdraw the proceedings thereafter at any
time in terms of Section 48 of the Act. There is no basis for contending that owner acquires any vested right in the acquisition by the State as soon
as Section 4 notification is issued.
43. [The rest of the judgment is not material to the purposes of the report.]
