Gomp,,i!so,11 acquisition ot lano1.-(1) It in the opinion — BIHAR ACT 40 or " 1982]1

2C. Gomp,,i!so,11 acquisition ot lano1.-(1) It in the opinion o of \he State Government any land . is required tor carrying 1) It in the opinion of \he State out ,ar.ir function o, the Authority d f"bli" d h 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 . . · 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 moditications ,.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. t. Lakshmi De11i, i, "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 cortianAn1reniresthatsuch 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 1 Jayable 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~ acqulred 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, T pg , 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 , Somstimes 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 cornpensation. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Contra/ Bent: of indle, (1994) 4 sec 690.J ·

Section 2C