Special Leave Petition Civil No 363 l of 1987
From the Judgment and order dated 11121986 of the Delhi High Court in CW No 1943 of 1986
AND Special Leave Petition Civil No 4321 of 1987
From the Judgment and order dated 531987 of the Delhi High Court in RA No 8 of 1987 in WP No 2013 of 1986 BRL Iyenger Mrs Lalitha Kaushik and Naresh Kaushik for the Petitioner
VB Saharya for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN J
In both these matters notice was given to the respondent on a limited point whether the Lt Governor of Delhi to competent is issue a notification under section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act
1894  the 1894 Act  to acquire hand for the planned development of Delhi
That is the ground on which inter alia the petitioners unsuccessfully challenged before the High Court the validity of a notification dated 2711984 issued by the Lt Governor of Delhi as the Head of the Delhi Administration for the acquisition of about 3550 hectares of land situated in Delhi
We have therefore heard counsel on this limited question
Section 41 of the 1894 Act insofar as it is relevant reads as follows 41Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose a notification to that effect shall be published in the official Gazette 763 Section 3ee of the same Act defines appropriate Government A as follows In this Act unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context ee the expression appropriate Government means in relation to acquisition of land for the purposes of the Union the Central Government and in relation to acquisition of land for any other purposes the State Government
A reference should also be made in this context to notifications issued under Article 231 of the Constitution of India by the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government of India on 1981954 1111956 and 791966
The cumulative effect of these notifications is that the Lt Governor of the Union Territory of Delhi is entitled to exercise the powers and discharge the functions of the Central Government under the provisions of the 1894 Act within the Union Territory of Delhi
There is no doubt considering the provisions of the 1894 Act and the above notifications that the Lt Governor of Delhi was fully competent to issue the notification dated 2711984
The argument addressed on behalf of the petitioners however is that after the enactment of the Delhi Development Act 1957 the 1957 Act  the provisions of the 1894 Act are no longer relevant in the present context
It is submitted that the expression planned development of Delhi can and does envisage the development of Delhi only in accordance with the provisions of the Master Plan and the Zonal Plans drawn up under the 1957 Act
Under the said Act the full responsibility of drawing up plans for the development of Delhi as well as executing the same in several phases is vested in the Central Government
Sec 15 of the Act makes it clear that this takes in also the acquisition of Lands for such planned development
It reads section 15 Compulsory acquisition of land 1 If in the opinion of the Central Government any land is required for the purpose of development or for any other purpose under this Act the Central Government may acquire such land 764 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894
1 of 1894
2 Where any land has been acquired by the Central Government that Government may after it has taken possession of the land transfer the land to the Authority or any local authority for the purpose for which the land has been acquired on payment by the Authority or the local authority of the compensation awarded under that Act and of the charges incurred by the Government in connection with the acquisition
 It is argued that while the notifications under Article 239 of the Constitution may have delegated the power of acquisition under the second part of section 151 to the Lt Governor they do not affect the Central Government s jurisdiction under the first part to take a decision that certain lands are needed for the purposes of the Act
The argument that land acquisition in Delhi for planned development is the business  of the Central Government is sought to be reinforced by reference to the Allocation of Business Rules 1961 made by the President under Article 773 of the Constitution of India
These rules enumerate the following items as falling within the purview of the Ministry of Works  Housing in the Union Government 16
Schemes of large scale acquisition development and disposal of land in Delhi
Delhi Development Authority
Master Plan of Delhi Co ordination of work in respect of the Master Plan and slum clearance in the Union Territory of Delhi
Administration of the Delhi Development Act 1957
All this shows according to the learned counsel that the Lt Governor has no jurisdiction or competence to issue the impugned notification
There is ex facie a very plausible reply to the petitioner s arguments based on section 15 of the 1957 Act
It is this that the expression Central Government in section 15 of the 1957 Act has to be understood in 765 the light of the definition contained in section 38 of the 
That definition reads 3
In this Act and in all Central Acts and Regulations made after the commencement of this Act unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context XX XX XX 8 Central Government  shall a    b in relation to anything done or to be done after the commencement of the Constitution mean the President and shall include i in relation to functions entrusted under clause 1 of Article 258 of the Constitution to the Government of a State the State Government acting within the scope of the authority given to it under that clause iiiin relation to the administration of a Union Territory the administration thereof acting within the scope of the authority given to him under Article 239 of the Constitution
 It therefore follows it can be said that even under this provision the jurisdiction to acquire lands rests only in the Lt Governor of Delhi
Anticipating this reply counsel for petitioners urges that the definition in the is inapplicable in the context of the Delhi Development Act
It is said that throughout this Act there runs a clear demarcation between the Central Government on the one hand and the Administrator of the Union Territory on the other
Reference is made to section 30 41 and 52 of the 1957 Act and it is urged in the light of these provisions that the reference to the Central Government in section 15 should be construed as a reference only to the Central Government and not to the Administrator ie Lt Governor of the Union Territory
766 A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the Delhi Development Authority DDA which contained an annexure which would have provided a direct answer to the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners
This answer is a notification dated 14269 issued by the Central Government under section 522 of the 1957 Act
By this notification the Central Government directs that the powers of that Government under the provisions of the 1957 Act mentioned in the Schedule thereto annexed would subject to the control of the Central Government and until further orders also be exercised by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi
11 items are mentioned in the Schedule
Of these the powers in regard to item 2 of the Schedule alone have to be exercised by the Administrator with the prior approval of the Central Government
The others which include powers in regard to section 15item 6 can be exercised by the Administrator even without such prior approval
This notification places it beyond doubt that the powers of the Central Government under section 15 can be exercised by the Lt Governor of Delhi
Both the power to form an opinion under the first part of section 151 and the power of acquisition under the second part are comprehended by this notification
This notification therefore would have furnished a complete answer to the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners
Unfortunately it appears the notification was only at the draft stage and was never gazetted
We have therefore to leave this notification out of account
But even otherwise we are of the opinion that Lt Governor was quite competent to issue the notification in question
It is no doubt true that the 1957 Act makes separate mention of the Central Government and the Administrator and demarcates some functions between the Central Government on the one hand and the State Government or the Administrator on the other
But whatever may be the position in regard to other provisions there can be no doubt that in the con text of section 15 it would not be correct to understand these two expressions in different senses
We say this because on reading of section 151 it is the obvious intention of the Legislature that the same authority should exercise its functions under both the parts of the sub section
If the sub section is read in the manner in which the petitioners seek to read it the working of the section would become impracticable and cumbersome
According to them the Central Government will first to have form an opinion that certain lands are required for the purposes of planned development of Delhi under the Act thereafter this opinion has to be communicated to the Lt Governor who in view of the delegation of powers under Article 239 of the Constitution which we have referred to earlier will have to apply his 767 mind once again to the same question before he can issue a notification under section 4 of the 1894 Act
This is a duplication of functions which could not have been within the contemplation of the Legislature
The provision requires the satisfaction of only one authority and since the powers of the Central Government under the 1894 Act have been delegated to the Lt Governor the expression Central Government  will have to be understood in the same sense for the first part of the sub section as well
The Allocation of Business Rules relied on by counsel have no relevance in this context
They only provide that when any of the items mentioned such as DDA master plan the 1957 Act or acquisition etc
Of properties in Delhi comes up for the consideration of the Central Government it will have to be dealt within the Ministry of Works  Housing
They are quite consistent with the position that even the powers delegated to the Lt Governor are exercisable by him only subject to the control and further orders of the President
They cannot be understood as negativing the competence of the Lt Governor to deal with the subject matter in question
Even assuming that the petitioners are right in their interpretation of section 151 the competence of the Lt Governor to issue the impugned notification can be upheld on another ground
The provisions of the 1894 Act clearly empower the Lt Governor to acquire the lands for the planned development of Delhi which it is now settled law is clearly a public purpose
That competence cannot be denied without some express provision in some statute
Both the 1894 Act and 1957 Act are Central enactments
Granting that the 1957 Act desired to empower the Central Government to acquire lands in Delhi for the purposes of the said Act and even granting that such power has to be exercised through the Lt Governor because of the notification under Article 2391 such power can also stand size by side with the wider power of the Lt Governor to acquire lands for a public purpose
There is nothing in the 1957 Act which prohibits the Lt Governor taking such steps as he desires under the powers available to him to carry out the planned development of Delhi in consonance with the plans approved or finalised under the 1957 Act
Viewed in this light the powers of the Lt Governor under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act can be read as additional to the powers of the Central Government under the Delhi Development Act
The 1957 Act does not destroy but only supplements the 1894 Act
This is the view taken by the High Court and we agree with it
Both counsel referred to certain decisions
We do not think it is necessary to refer to them in detail except to say that the decision in H 768 the Express Newspapers Pvt Ltd  Ors
vs Union of India  Ors
 1985 Supplement 3 SCR 382 relied upon for the petitioner is clearly distinguishable and it related to a case regarding the powers of the Delhi Administration in regard to lands belonging to the Union
For the reasons discussed above we reject the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners
The Special Leave Petitions fail and are dismissed
We however make no order as to costs
SL Petitions dismissed


Summary:
Section 81b of the provides for appointment of an arbitrator by the Central Government in a case where there is no agreement for determining compensation
Sub section 4 of section 40 of the Andhra Pradesh Telanga na Area Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950 stipulates the interest of a protected tenant in the land at sixty per cent
The expression protected tenant  is defined in section 2r to mean a person who is deemed to be a protected tenant under the provisions of the Act
One of the conditions to be fulfilled by such a person under section 341a sub cls
ii and iii is that he should have held the land as tenant continuously for a period of six years immediately preceding the 1st day of January 1948 or for a period of six years commencing not earlier than 6th October 1943 and completed before the commencement of the Act
Section 35 makes the decision of the Revenue Authorities on the question conclu sive
Section 37 mentions other persons not entitled under section 34 to be deemed to be protected tenants
Section 37A enables persons holding lands as tenants at the commencement of the Act to be deemed to be protected tenants
Section 99 bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts and section 102 exempts lands leased granted alienated or acquired in favour of or by the Central Government
Certain lands settled in favour of the appellant by his grandfather were requisitioned in 1963 by the Military Estate Officer Secunderabad
Respondent claimed rights as a tenant of the said land
1230 His claim was settled by sharing of the rent
The property was acquired under the Central Act subsequently in 1970
The entry in the Protected Tenancy Register prepared under section 37A of the Andhra Pradesh Act in favour of the respondent was cancelled by the Tahsildar in 1970 suspecting it not to be genuine
That order was challenged by the respondent in a writ petition before the High Court which held that whether the petitioner was a protected tenant or whether he had any prima facie interest in the suit property were matters entirely within the sole jurisdiction of the arbitrator who was to be appointed under section 8 of the Central Act
The District Revenue Officer in the proceedings before him held that entry in the Protected Tenancy Register was a spurious one as it was not supported by an inquiry
This order was upheld by the High Court in revision filed by the respondent In its order dated 30th January 1975 in tile special leave petition this Court left it open to the High Court and the arbitrator to decide the question whether the respondent was a protected tenant or not
The arbitrator after exhaustively discussing the evi dence on record held that the respondent was a protected tenant and as such he was entitled to sixty per cent of the compensation money payable
In the statutory appeal of the appellant before the High Court an application filed by the respondent for adducing additional evidence was allowed and a Commissioner appointed
Disposing of the appeal against the aforesaid order this Court in its order dated 19th August 1985 reiterated its earlier view that the High Court should determine this issue
The HIgh Court took the view that the arbitrator was not in error in deciding the issue in the manner it did that there was surfeit of evidence to conclude that the respond ent was a protected tenant under section 34 read with section 37 or under section 37A of the Andhra Pradesh Act and therefore he was entitled to sixty per cent of the compensation payable
In this Appeal by Special Leave it was contended for the appellant that it was mandatory under section 99 read with section 102 of the Andhra Pradesh Act for the Revenue Authorities to decide whether a person was a protected tenant or not and the Revenue Authorities having found that he was not a protected tenant it was not open to the arbitrator to decide the question of protected tenancy
On behalf of the respondent it 1231 was contended that the compensation payable must be deter mined under the Central Act and the arbitrator was the authority to decide that question
Dismissing the appeal the Court HELD The challenge to the award is rejected
The re spondent was a protected tenant  under the Andhra Pradesh Telangana Area Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950
He was therefore entitled to get sixty per cent of the compensation amount
l242D H 1243A Under section 99 of the Andhra Pradesh Act which makes the determination by the Tahsildar to be final the bar of jurisdiction is not against the arbitrator appointed under section 8 of the but against a civil court
In determining the amount of compensation payable to a person under the Central Act his interest in the property had to be deter mined
1242DE Atchi Appalareddi and another vs Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition Visakhapatnam Municipality and another 1979 Andhra Weekly Reporter Vol
1 p 101 referred to
By the scheme of the Central Act compensation was pay able to persons who had interest in the land acquired
Who were those persons had to be decided in accordance with law and the evidence
Determination by the revenue authorities and non determination was not conclusive or decisive
Sec tion 102 of the Andhra Pradesh Act lays down that after acquisition of the lands by the Central Government the Act was not to apply in respect of such lands
Section 99 of that Act therefore had no application
124 1 G 1242B In its two orders dated 30th January 1975 and 19th August 1985 this Court had left it open to the High Court and to the arbitrator to decide whether the respondent was a protected tenant or not
What was the interest of the re spondent in the land acquired had to be determined in deter mining the question of payment of compensation to him and in so determining the facts and circumstances and proceedings before the revenue authorities and entries and subsequent deletions had to be taken into consideration by the arbitra tor
The arbitrator had done so and held that the respondent was a protected tenant and as such entitled to sixty per cent of money payable for the acquisition of land
He had jurisdiction to do so
The High Court found overwhelming evidence in support of this view
It discussed 18 documents and concluded a 1232 that because the respondent was a tenant of the said land between January 1942 to January 1948 for six years he was a protected tenant under sub cl
ii of cla of sub section
1 of section 34 of the Andhra Pradesh Act and b that because he held the land from October 1943 to October 1949 he was a protected tenant under sub cl
iii and held that he was entitled to sixty per cent of the compensation
This view has to be upheld however unsatisfactory it might appear that a fruit plucker gets sixty per cent of the compensation while the owners get only forty per cent
If that is the law let it be 1242G C 1239AB 1242H 1243A 1239DE 1240EF 1243A