| Headnote |
Constitution of India-Articles 166(1) and (2)-Land Acquisition Act 1894-Section 5A(1) and (2), 4(1), (6)-Rules of business-Rules 15, 33, 12, 13, Instructions 4, 9, 10, Part II-Land acquisition-Notification under section 4(1) published-Objections of claimants submitted-Enquiry of Land Acquisition Officer conducted and report submitted to State Government-Revenue Department, referring to objections and to revenue circular, deciding that acquisition proceedings cannot be sanctioned-Ministry of Urban Development disagreeing with Ministry of Revenue-Dispute referred to Chief Minister-Meanwhile, Revenue Department communicating decision to LAO for appropriate action -whether decision of Revenue Department final and constitutes decision of appropriate government-Held, before an order or action can bind government, it must be drawn in the name of Governor as envisaged in Article 166 read with the Rules of Business and must be communicated to affected person-Held, further, Rules of Business entitles two departments to deal with land acquisition and valuation-lnstructions, which are integral part of Rules of Business and have constitutional force to supplement rules, require that when two Ministers .are not in agreement, subject should be submitted to Chief Minister for decision after placing it before Council or Cabinet-No decision having been so taken, held, no decision was taken to proceed further under Section 6 or to drop acquisition proceedings-Articles 163, 164, 167-Town Planning Act, Section 78. Constitution of India-Articles 164, 166, 167, 163-lmplied power of Chief Minister vis-a-vis subject allotted to Minister-Held, responsibility to the Governor and accountability to people collectively by Council of Ministers is through and by the Chief Minister-Decision of Minister under Rules of Business not final or conclusive until requirements under Article 166 are complied with-Held, further, Chief Minister has implied power to examine and take any decision or action though the subject allotted to a Minister-Collective Responsibility-Chief Minister-Rules of Business. Proceedings for acquisition of land for relieving parting and traffic congestion near Surat railway station were initiated in 1992. Notice under Section 5A was issued, and the appellants objected to the acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) conducted enquiry under Section 5A(1) and submitted the report to the government for appropriate decision. A dispute thereafter arose between the Revenue Department and the Urban Development Department. The Section Officer of the Revenue Department, wrote that, taking into consideration the objection submitted by the account-holder and considering the legal position, as also a revenue circular, notification under Section 6 could not be sanctioned. The Ministry of Urban Development disagreed. Consequently, the Chief Minister was moved to re-examine the issue. The Section Officer of the Revenue Department, however, communicated its decision to the LAO for further action. No action having been taken in that behalf, the appellants approached the High Court under Article 226. The High Court held that the government had not taken a decision under Section 5A (2) and dismissed the petition. The question for consideration before this Court was whether the appropriate government could be held to have taken a decision on the objections raised by the claimants. It was contended for the appellants that under Role 15 of the Business Rules, the competent authority to take the decision for acquisition of land is the Department of Revenue, and the Minister for Revenue having approved the proposal sent up by the Revenue Department not to take further action under Section 4(1), the government has taken a decision under its Business Rules not to proceed with the acquisition. For the government it was contended that the Urban Development Department had taken a decision that the land was needed for the stated public purpose, and acquisition was necessary. The decision of the Revenue Department, it was urged, was not final, and in the conflict between two departments, the matter required to be referred to the Chief Minister, and it required the consideration of the Cabinet. Therefore, there was no decision taken by government. Dismissing the petition, |
