Case: Patna Improvement Trust Vs. Smt. Lakshmi Devi &amp; Others

The appellant in all the appeals is the Patna Improvement Trust but in all the four appeals the respondents are different persons2. On January 19, 1961, the Government of Bihar issued a notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 proposing to acquire an area of 407.85 acres of Land in the City of Patna at the expense of the Patna Improvement Trust for a public purpose viz. for development of residential neighbourhood, to provide for housing facilities for various income groups and to facilitate the planned growth of the City of Patna. By another similar notification of the same dale the State of Bihar proposed to acquire 54.08 acres of land. The respondents challenged the legality of the notice under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act by their respective applications for writs under Art. 226 of the Constitution. These notifications were quashed by a writ in the nature of certioraris by the High Court of Patna and against that judgment and order the Patna Improvement Trust has brought these appeals by special leave.

Court's reasoning:
5. It is not necessary to go into the argument of inconsistency between the Bihar Act and the Land Acquisition Act or the special Act excluding the general because it appears to us that the various provisions of the Bihar Act themselves afford the key to the solution of the problem before us which is one of construction. Section 71 of the Bihar Act which modifies the Land Acquisition Act, itself states that for the purpose of acquisition of land for the Trust under the Land Acquisition Act that Act (Land Acquisition Act) shall be subject to the modification specified in the schedule. Therefore even for the purpose of acquiring land for the Trust the machinery of the Land Acquisition Act as modified is contemplated. It does not exclude the Land Acquisition Act, on the contrary it makes it applicable but subject to its modifications and exceptions. Now the first relevant modification is sub-cl. (1) of c. 2 of the Schedule. There a first notice under S. 46 of the Bihar Act is substituted for and has the same effect as a notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act but that is subject to an important exception and that exception is a notification under S. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act or a declaration under S. 6 of that Act which "has been previously made and is in force". Thus when the exception applies the first notice under S. 46 of the Bihar Act has not that effect. The words "has been previously made" do not merely connote the issuing of a notification before the Bihar Act was passed but include all notifications before the Bihar Act was passed but include all notifications made prior or anterior to the first publication of a notice of an improvement scheme under S. 46. In other words if, before a notice under S. 46 has been published a notification under S. 4 (1) or a declaration under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is made and is in force then the first publication of a notice under S. 46 would not be substituted for or have the same effect as a notification under S. 4(1). This construction is in accord with the construction placed by the Scottish courts in Mercer Hendersons Trustees v. Dunfermline District Committee, 37 SC LR 119 on similar words viz "previously in use". Lord Justice Clerk construed these words as not being equivalent to prior to the passing of a statute. That the power of the State Government to acquire land for the Trust is not taken away by the Bihar Act is further shown by S. 33 of that Act which deals with the preparation of a master plan of the Trust6. Again by clause 1 of the Schedule of the Bihar Act sub-s. (ee) is deemed to be inserted in S. 3 of the Land Acquisition Act and by that modification the expression "local authority" will include the Board of Trustees for the Improvement of a town constituted under S. 3 of the Bihar Act which means the Trust. Section 50(1) of the Land Acquisition Act relates to the employment of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of acquiring land at the costs of any fund managed or controlled by a local authority or any company. Therefore S. 50(1) would be equally available for being put into force for the purpose of a Trust. This again shows that the intention of the legislature was not to exclude the functions of the Land Acquisition Act such as Ss. 4, 6, 50 etc. in the matter of acquisition of land for the purpose of a Trust7. The notification issued by the State Government is not therefore invalid and the High Court was in error in holding it otherwise.