Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Acquisition of land by landlord for building and other purposes- (1) (a) The landlord of village who is desirous of acquiring the holding or part of the holding or any land over which the inhabitants of such village have any common right for any reasonable and sufficient purpose having relation to the good of the holding, village or estate, or for the erection of buildings or for any religious, educational or charitable purpose; or for the purposes of mining, manufacture or irrigation, or effecting any agricultural or horticultural improvement or giving effect to any national policy of the Government may apply to the Deputy Commissioner for sanction to acquire the same. (b) The Deputy Commissioner may, on the application of a village headman, mulraiyat or raiyat of the village or of his own motion, sanction acquisition proceedings to be started with respect to such land as is referred to in clause (a), if he is satisfied after due enquiry that the acquisition is to be made for any of the purposes specified in the said clause. (c) On receipt of such application as is referred to in clauses (a) and (b), the Deputy Commissioner shall scrutinise it with a view to see that it satisfies the conditions of acquisition prescribed by the 1[State] Government in this behalf. If on such scrutiny of Deputy Commissioner considers the application to be not maintainable on the face of it, he may reject the application summarily. (2) If the application is not rejected summarily under clause © of sub- section (1), the Deputy Commissioner shall issue notice to the raiyats and other persons interested to appear before him and to file objections, if any. If after due enquiry the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that the purpose stated in the application is as specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) and that the objection, if any taken to the application are such that they may fairly be disregarded, the Deputy Commissioner may by order sanction acquisition proceedings to be started. (3) On the passing of an order under sub-section (2), the Deputy Commissioner shall, after issuing notice to the raiyats and other persons interested, decide claims and objections as to compensation, and may authorise the landlord, village headman, mulraiyat or raiyat, as the case may be, to take possession of the land on such terms and on payment to the raiyat whose land is acquired or other persons interested of such compensation as he thinks fit and reasonable. (4) If the applicant landlord, village headman, mulraiyat or raiyat, as the case may be, tenders to the raiyat whose land is acquired or other interested persons such sum as the Deputy Commissioner has approved under sub- section (3) as compensation and the latter refuses to receive the same, the Deputy Commissioner may, on the landlord, village headman, mulraiyat or raiyat, as the case may be, depositing the said sum with the Deputy Commissioner, give possession of the land to him in the prescribed manner and may execute a lease in the prescribed form in his favour. (5) The raiyat whose land is so acquired shall be entitled to receive proportionate reduction of rent in addition to compensation. (6) If the land so acquired is not utilised for the purpose for which it was required within five years of taking possession, the Deputy Commissioner may pass an order restoring the land to the original raiyat or his heirs or to the persons interested on such terms as he thinks fair and reasonable and, on the failure of such persons to take back the land, the Deputy Commissioner may settle the land as if it were village waste land. COMMENT Section 53.- Section 53 of the Act provide for payment of compensation so acquired under the Act but it does not fix either the amount of compensation or specify the principle and the manner in which the compensation is to be determined and given as laid down in Section 299 (2) of the Government of India Act, 1935, and Article 31(2) of the Constitution. This provision is intended to safeguard the interest of the person whose land is going to be acquired by the executive authorities from the arbitrariness and whims of the authorities. Therefore it cannot be held that provision of Section 53 of the Act fulfil the condition laid down in Section 299 (2) of the Government of India Act, 1935. Section 53 of Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provision)Act, 1949 are violative of the provision of Section 299 (2) Government of India Act, 1935 as well as Article 31 (2) of Constitution. Section 53 of the Act makes naked encroachment on the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution to hold their property and their properties could not be acquired to save for public purposes under the process of law. Which are in conformity with the provisions of Article 31 (2) of the Constitution. [Budhinath Mishra v. State of Bihar, 1969 PLJR 373: AIR 1970 Pat 358]. Sections 53- Section 53 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 has been held to be void and unconstitutional in the case of Budhinath Mishra v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1970 Pat 358, no further Relief can be given to the petitioner. As indicated above the original case was started on the application under Section 53 of the Act and the Section no longer exists on the statute book. [Tarini Prasad Sharma v. Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, AIR 1973 Pat 41]. Section 53(6)- Land acquired and subsequently settled with plaintiff before the Bihar Act, 14 of 1949 came into force- Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to exercise power of restoration under the Act- It is well established principle that retrospective construction to an amending Act cannot be given so as to affect past transactions and vested rights which sprang up before the Amending Act came into force. Bihar Act 14 of 1949 has no retrospective effect. It is held, that old law, vested right before the Amending Act came into force, as it stood before th Amending Act, namely Bihar Act XIV of 1949 because the plaintiff had taken settlement of the disputed land before the promulgation of the Amending Act and had acquired a vested right before the Amending Act came into force, and hence the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction under Section 53(6) Bihar Act XIV of 1949 to order restoration of the land to the original tenants.[Sugia Debi v. Chando Kapri, 1959 BlJR 95 (DB)]. CHAPTER VII JUDICIAL PROCEDURE