Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Gomp,,i!so,11 acquisition ot lano1.-(1) It in the opinion of \he State Government any land .is required tor carrying out ,ar.ir function o, the Authority under this Act it shall be deemed to be required for a "public purpose" and the State Govern-ncnt may acquire such land for ihe authority in accordance with any iaw for tho time being in force. . · (2) Any land either bqlonging to the State Government or which has been acquired by the State Government for the Authority may be handed over to the atr/hority by he State Government by notitication in the official Gazette. Comments Bi case-law [Acquisition of land for Trust-for the purposes oi acqu:ring land for the Trust, the machinery of the· Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as modified is contern- plated, The Town P!annmg and Improvement Trust Act, does not exclude the Land Acquisinon ·Act on the contrary it makes t- applicable, but subject to modi- tications ,.md exceptions. The Master Plan has to desig'1ate the 'and which will be subject to compulsory acquisition by the various authorities therein mentioned inciud:ng ths State Government: Patna Improvement Trust vs. Smt. Lakshmi De11i, "1963 BL.JR 790 (SC). _ Persons whoso land or house has been acquired by the Trust Authority are displaced persons'. Such persons are entitled to get 2 piece of land 2.f'd claim priority in ailotment ot a plot at the appropriate time. This being a legat right for seHlc:nen! or a plot, it follows that a statutory du1v has been- cast on the Au- \1- -.riiV and the same can be enforced by a writ of mandamus. Prem. Shankar .Sahay 11s. Chairman, 1982 BBCJ 185. PrincipJ,~ or determination of compensation payable to owners for the portion o! H1eir buildings or lands acquired eithe: under Section 298 or Section ?.99 of · · Court .3flCl remanded back the matter wtlh certain directions, Smt Krishna. Singh vs. Sfaio of B1ha1; 98b 0LJR (SC) 8 S•ip,·,;,u;:.i Gi:.ui'i's direction siftiar r·~m.and.---disput€d question of fact-in or- der io gei the physical situation clarified, the High Court gave di:·ections fo; con- stitwing a committee of technical experts as per iis directions, ind for tho im plemoatatlon or the recommendations of this committee hy the P. R D A Smt. :Cd;;f;na 8ingh vs. Stale of Bihar, 1986 PLJR i 063. M2st'er Plan for Patna is operational and has noi lost its force after the ei'.piry of tho period filwd by the Government. Section 17 provides that the Master Plan would be deemed to bo in :-,>:istence till another Mnster Plan fs pre- pared or the present one is altered or modified. ibid. Procedures for the formulation of a Mastm Pla11 ar.d its subsequent attera- t'on and amendments have been laid down in sections 17 to ?4. Any maps not a:::,pearin9 to be! prepared in accordance wilf1 law cannot be described as amen- ded form of Mnster Plan or an arnondrnont to the Master Ptan. ibio'.] ~& Da:t·~ or cporatlon o·? MastGr and Zonal Da'l:lelol')m-ant l?lan.-Jrn;nooi- atoly nfier "l Master/Zona, Development Plan has been finalised, the Authority sha!I puolis, rt in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations slating therein the date of ns coming into operation. CHAPlrEH "'JI ACQUISITION Al'.JD DISPOSAL OF LAND. Bihar !=iogionnl Development Authoriiy Act, 1974L Secs 25-2u 2 01 compensation shall be confined only .to the loss sustamed or tho expenses m curred. by the owner, as a consequence of acquisition of his building or v m lying withir the regul"' Ii , of tho public street. Sub-section (I) of Sectior 30 I as it stands amends- i even !hough specifies the principle of compensation 1Jay- able for land acquire · under either of the Sections 298 or 'J99 does not rnqu.re the payment of compensaiion to bo paid thereunder, to include the value of k:nct. The amended sub-section, therefore, makes it clear that the payment of value. that is. market value, as compensation for the acquired land is excluded 111"rn under. Therefore, _principle 'spocified in sub-soction (t) of Section 30 i for detP; mina!ion of compensation payable io the owners for thei i nds or bui!din~ ac- . qulred under either of the Section 298 or Section 299 theroot, does not wa rant determination of compensation according to market valu« 01 such bui!ding or land. Municipal Corporution of Greater Bombay vs Centre! Bente of India, ("1994) 4 sec 590 (Under Bombay Act}. For fixing the annual value ot the promises, it is the market value of the site and land attached to the house or buildinn, which has to be taken note of. Even land taken on lease can have market value. As to what would be ihe market value. rs however, a matter which has to be worl<ed out by thA authori1}1 concerned keeping In view the restrictive clauses of each of the lease aeeds, bearing in mind what has been stated in this regard in Balbir Singh case. Tr e national market value shail have to be discounted appropriately as lhe rcsutctlor subject lo which leases were granted, would undoubtedly depress the same. New Delhi Municipal Committee vs. Gymkhana Club Ltd. (1994} 3 sec 498. Since the compensation payable under sub-section {i) of Section 30i of the 81\/iC Act to the owner of" the acquired land or building can only be 'he loss sustained and the expense incurred by the owrer because of such acouismon, the compensation should be the amount which is required to be made good to the owner towards reimbursement of his loss sustained, if any, on account of acquisition and his expense incurred, it any, on account of acquisftion, Soms- times lhere may not be any loss sustained and sometimes there may not bo any expense incurred. At other times, there may be botn loss sustained and · expense incurred by the 'owner. Therefore, depending upon a given situation. what should be th& compensation payable under that sub-section, has 'o 'be determined. Moreover the requirement of 1he proviso to the said sub-seciion has also. to be 1aken into consideration in determining the amount of such cornpen- sation. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Contra/ Bent: of indle, (1994) 4 sec 690.J · 27 .. Disposal of !and by the Authoritv.-The disposal of land belonging to the Authority or without carrying out development thereon shall be done by the Authority in accordance with the regulations made for the purpose. Comments & case-taw [Grant of leases of open space inside a public park 10 various orqarusations by the Stale Government violates every concept of urban planning and ciisr.ir.;line of law which requires parks to be preserved as parks. Court :nay order buiiciing constructed inside park to be dismantled. Arun Kumar vs. Nagar fVJahapalika, 1987 All.LT. 1038. '5-, Government agency put in possession of certain lands by the State Government for the .purpose of developing the land and parcelling lhe sites and --.J.C..- U,-m .,.f =ri;\I r;itp_c; should Observe the equalitv clause and be Jclif • "> I Bihar Flegional Development Authority Act, 1974 Sec. 27 J · to the purchasers. Where the Development Aulhorii\f for unavoidable reasons is no: able to deliver possession. to the purchasers o allottees of some of the pio:s of land, ii should offq· them alternative plots without asking for an exorbi- ·:ant price. However, d1e Development Authority canr-ot .be compelled to offer plots at the old price. Haryana Urban Development Authority vs Sunit« Rekhi. AIR ,989 SC 1637. Allotmr,;nt a; residential plots.~Where the.State Government had issued ad- vertisement fo~ sale of. plots of land, stating that .lillv enveloped plots will ba provided, thP. Supremo Court deprecated the fc::ilu~0 to provide fully developed p:o,s ever. af!er e)cpiry of many years and directec hat possession of fully de- veloped plots be given within six months. · Sector 6, Bahadurgarh Plot Holders Associafion vs. State·of Haryana, (1996) 1 sec 48b. The Developme,~t Authority and State Electricity Board must dischar- ,e their statutory liabi1iiy to provide water and electricity connections to prospective con- sumers within the area. The High Court may give directions to concerned Au- ·,hority ·:6 provide the water and/or electric connecUoris in terms O! proviso 10 section 52. Ranchi Regional Development Authority vs. Ranchi Municiioal Cotpo- retion, 1!J95 ("I) BUR 572. : tsss (2) PLJR 340.) ,r· .. !'>..cq11idiion oi pro_periies blf AuUcoritv.- The Authority mall acquire movable OF ;mmovable properties by purchase, exchange, gift, lease, !'i10,1gage or by any other method permissole unde; law. CommeRts fu case ·la:,, [Nqtice is r:ol required to be served on an occupier of !he premises whose name is not entered in Municipal assessment list. It is tnreasonaole to assume tha: a duW has been cast upon the Improvement Trust to serve not.ce on the occupier of the premises even though his name is 1ot entered iP the municipal asscssmerr iist. /l. general notice. whic!i would be :i 1oticc to all the owners and occcpiors of the premises sought to be acquired for the imorovement scheme has been provided for in Section 46 (of 1951 Act). therefore, does no! impose sucn unreasonable restrictions as to attract the provisions o~ Ar:icle 19 (1) (f) o1 the Constitution of lndia. ShivJe11 Singh vs. Ststo, i963 8LJR 254 ] 22 •• -'-\~':f.>jUisltion of land fo'l purposes of i:t-iis Aci.-(·i) T11a State Govern- rnsnt may acquire land for purposes of this Act by computsory acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act 1 of 1894) : w~ ~~: ~~ ~ -~, ~ fc;ror,m .nf~c.i/tl( ;.,~ -a: ;:!-,o, ~m mr --~f'q- on'1 .:;:ii'hs:?,-;;;i•·;r cll' -~ai"'~~ i~.._.,,,i:, ~ ~. ~ ~ ~rn1i'I'.' ~ ~ ~ i)· M cl:i ~ c;~: •f~ ~) <.:~ ~1 ~~~ "l!l_,.;..,, °i{ ~r.{!-4 ~- o7i ~~T-1' ~f.i~ fsi...;rr .,...;1·: 1;,· cJm', <:IR; t¥•d-.s;; ~~ ~ cf. i:m~ ~ mt;€f ~ zy cJif (;;'j~ "IT"~ ~ ~ ~-e,·t' -~l"'II ,fo:i ~ 3'~41"h' .:m~ ~1!,m<1 -m..,.,-1, ~i f,:h'fir ~~l~ ~ ~a_ra ~T ~:i~it~• ~- emf ~ ~FT ~ 1",c!:J"" ~'t m1~ ~. ~ \\.~ ~f.rclr4 ~ ~ a:i-R>ra ..- ~ , .. , .. , (~· \l.Tj=.1 ~ ~ '$xl 11~ 3wfii; ~.- ~ ~ -~ ·if .::i.m ~ ~"r ~r ..,.~a i;;,°". ·t1 ... -.!11 ~-i~ehH -ff~~~ ~~-~I (2) If the State Government failed to. acquire the land wifli'1 a oeriod of six months from tile· date of receipt of the notice, the Master plan or, as the case may be, the Zonal Development plan or the Regional plan shall have effect, af- •~r •h"' ,,,,,..,, •. l'liion of the said six months as if the land wera not required to be -· -'~~;~..-..-,fnrl ~c:: c::1,hiecl to L Secs. 28-29 Bihar Regional Dev_e~opmr--nt ulhority Act. 1974 2 2] CMAPTIER Vf DEVELOPMENT OF LANO Al\lD BUILDING ,JONTROL