Administrator Municipality vs Jagiri Lal and ors.

(1) Section 32 ( 3 & 4 ) of the Land Acquisition Act reads :

32 (3) Notwithstanding any thing in this section, the Collector may, with the sanction of the Government, instead of awarding a money

compensation in respect of any land, make any arrangement with a a person having a limited interest in such land, either by the grant of other lands

in exchange, the remission of laud revenue on other lands held under the same title, or in such other way as may be equitable having regard to the

interests of the parties concerned.

(4) Nothing Vo the last foregoing subsection shall be construed to interfere with of limit the power of the Collector to enter into any arrangement

with any person interested in the land and competent to contract in respect thereof.

(2) For purposes of carrying out the object of these subsections, provision has been made in the rules called the 'Land Acquisition Rules' framed

under the Act. Rule 34 reads :

Compensation in form of land in lieu of cash, In all cases an award of cash compensation must be made. It, however, not frequently happens that

either (a) the person from whom the land is being acquired, asks that Government land no longer required for public purposes may be given to him

in lieu of cash compensation or (b) it would be convenient to Government to award compensation in the from of land instead of cash. This latter

case would occur chiefly when a new cut was being made on a canal and the land under the old cut was no longer required. All land no longer

required must, however, be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 83 below. It follows, firstly, that no land to which any

person has any claim under that paragraph can be awarded to other persons an compensation for land acquired from them, and secondly, that no

departmental officer can by private negotiation or to there wise acquire land for a public purpose and give in exchange for it other land no longer

required. AH land not required must be handed over to the Collector. If it is proposed by any departmental officer to relinquish land and to acquire

other land in the neighbourhood, he must treat the two transactions as entirely separate. All he can do is to hand over the land to Collector and

represent to him that if possible, the land should be given as compensation for the other land to be acquired, If the Acquiring officer, after having

satisfied himself that no person has any claim to the land, proposes to award it as compensation he will not award cash compensation as usual, but

will record in the award and in the award statement A (vide paragraph 70), a note to the effect that it is proposed to give land in lieu of cash and

the file close.

Treatment of such cases.The question of the land to be awarded will then be dealt with in a separate file :

(3) A combined reading of these provisions would make it amply clear that, instead of awarding the money Compensation, the collector may grant

land in exchange for the land acquired. But he can ! do so only after he has made sure that the land given in exchange belongs to the Government

or, to the indenting department, as the case may be. He cannot award in exchange land to which any person has any claim If he does so, that

constitutes a clear contravention of the provisions mentioned above. In the present case, the Municipality was the indenting department. The case

of the plaintiff is that the property granted in exchange for the land acquired does not belong to the Municipality. It is an evacuee property. The

Collector has not even cared to see if it really belonged to the Municipality. There is a contravention of the Act and the rules made there under.

The award is therefore, vitiated. Thus, the plaintiff complains of the contravention of the Act and the rules made there under in the matter of

awarding compensation and not raise any controversy about the adequacy of the compensation. Accordingly I am not impressed by the argument

of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute touches compensation and, as such, the plaintiff's remedy lay under section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act and that remedy by way of a suit was barred. The lower court has rightly decided issue No. 1 against the defendants and held that

the present suit is cognizable by the civil court.

(4) Then comes the question whether the Municipality was entitled to any notice under section: 50 of the land Acquisition Act which was the

subject matter of issue No. 2. The lower court has held that the Municipality was not entitled to any notice under this section and, I think rightly so.

Section 50 reads :

Notice in case of suits for anything done in pursuance of this Act: No suit or other proceedings shall be commenced prosecuted against any

person for anything done in pursuance of this Act without giving to such person two months' previous notice in writing of the intended proceeding

and of the cause thereof, nor after tender of sufficient amends,

(5) This section lends protection to a person for anything done in pursuance of this Act. The protection is obviously available in respect of an act

done pursuant to the Act. It is true that the proceedings for acquisition were commenced at the request of the Municipality, but the request is not

an act which is a part of the acquisition proceedings under the Act. In making a request, the Municipality cannot be therefore deemed to have done

an act in pursuance of the Act. Accordingly the Municipality is not entitled to any notice contemplated by this section. The argument to the contrary

of the learned counsel for the petitioner is clearly unsustainable and must be rejected.

(6) The result therefore is that this revision petition fails. It is dismissed accordingly.