EXAMINE THE POWER OF THE GOVERNOR UNDER THE LAND USE ACT "2004" IT'S LIMITATION

1.0. ABSTRACT

The Land Use Act of 1978, as stipulated in the CAP L5 L.F.N. 2004, confers extensive authority upon the Governor of a state, granting the ability to bestow and withdraw Statutory Right of Occupancy. Consequently, the Governor assumes the role of primary land custodian within their jurisdiction, possessing the power to revoke land from individuals or corporations for public purposes. However, the utilization of this power is not without limitations. This research endeavor undertook a doctrinal analysis and case law examination to ascertain the qualifications, responsibilities, restrictions, and prerogatives associated with the exercise of such authority. The study was motivated by the presumption that the Governor possesses the capability to supersede any land acquisition interest under the guise of public purpose. Findings indicate that revocations by the Governor must adhere to established procedures and satisfy specific grounds. Therefore, it is recommended that compensation provided for land revocations intended for public purposes should not only meet legal sufficiency but also be adequate to sustain affected parties.

2.0. INTRODUCTION

The enactment of the Land Use Act in 1978 can be understood as a direct response to the underlying contradictions inherent in the colonial and post-colonial dependent economic structures that have profoundly influenced Nigeria throughout history. These structures were characterized by a pseudo-capitalist system. In this context, the Act sought to address key concerns and challenges related to land ownership and utilization. Historically, land has consistently represented a vital and valuable asset essential for human existence and socio-economic development. Its intrinsic significance, coupled with its indispensable utility, underscores the critical need for ensuring equitable access to land and its proper utilization for the purpose of fostering sustainable development.

Prior to the introduction of the Land Use Act in 1978, the legal framework governing land in Nigeria drew from three primary sources. These sources included customary law, received English law (imposed during the colonial era), and existing legislation that addressed specific land-related matters. This resulted in a duality of land use systems, with distinct practices observed in the northern and southern regions. In 1962, the Land Tenure Law was enacted by the parliament of Northern Nigeria, granting the governor the authority to possess all land on behalf of the populace. In the southern region, land ownership was governed by the customary system, whereby communities, families, and individuals held freehold ownership rights. Notwithstanding the presence of land regulatory legislation, obstacles pertaining to land tenure and administration prevailed in both the northern and southern parts of the nation, impeding land acquisition by both the government and private individuals. Consequently, this reinforced the power of landlords and erected substantial hurdles. In response, the Federal Military Government established committees to investigate potential remedies for the challenges associated with land tenure and administration in Nigeria. The recommendations of the 1977 Land Use Panel formed the basis for the Land Use Act No. 6 of 1978.

There is no doubt that the Land Use Act of 1978, commonly referred to as "the Land Use Act" or simply "the Act," has had a profound transformative effect on the land tenure system in Nigeria. The Act brought about a significant change by transferring the fundamental title of land to the Governor of each state in the Federation. This transfer grants the Governor the responsibility of managing the land for the collective benefit of all Nigerians in accordance with the provisions outlined in the Act. Moreover, specific sections of the Act confer extensive powers upon the Governor in relation to land, such as authorizing the granting of rights of occupancy for any purpose, issuing certificates of occupancy, determining and collecting rent, conducting inspections of land under statutory rights of occupancy, issuing licenses for the extraction of non-mineral building materials, and giving consent for the transfer of ownership through assignment, mortgage, transfer, sublease, or other means. Any attempt to alienate such rights without the Governor's consent renders the alienation legally invalid.

The Act grants the Governor the authority to revoke land occupancy rights or acquire land for public purposes. This power has generated significant interest and controversies due to the emotional attachment people have to land. The exercise of this power has often been criticized for lacking transparency and being prone to abuse. Many individuals, companies, and communities have filed lawsuits against the government challenging the revocation of their land rights. In some cases, these actions have even led to demonstrations and riots. Given that the Governor's power to acquire land is a form of expropriation, which deprives title holders of their property rights, the Land Use Act and the Nigerian Constitution have attempted to clearly define the purposes, procedures, and rights involved in such acquisitions.

POWERS OF THE GOVERNOR UNDER LAND USE ACT

The governor, commonly elected by the populace, assumes significant practical powers and serves as the chief executive of a state. Within the specific jurisdiction, the governor possesses substantial control over government budgeting and holds the authority to appoint various officials, including judges. Power, within this context, pertains to the legal authorization to act on behalf of others and the capability to effectively carry out actions or tasks. Section 4 of the 1914 South Western Lands and Public Purposes Acquisition Act explicitly outlines the governor's empowerment to declare a purpose as one of public interest. These purposes encompass the provision of office and building premises for government operations or specific departments, the execution of works or projects sanctioned by legislation but lacking the power to acquire land except through this Act, and any purpose determined as being of public interest by both houses of parliament, whether within the same or different sessions. Consequently, these purposes are categorized as undertakings under the framework of the Compulsory Acquisition of Land Act 1925 and its amending Act, effectively treating them as projects authorized by parliamentary legislation, thereby facilitating the acquisition of lands necessary to fulfill these identified purposes.

When the governor issues a proclamation declaring a specific purpose, the promoter of the project has the authority to acquire the necessary land either through voluntary agreements or by compulsory means. However, certain conditions apply:

a. The governor must provide written direction for the acquisition of the land; otherwise, no land can be taken or required under this Act.

b. All land acquired through this Act is to be conveyed and vested in the person or officer designated by proclamation according to Section 5. If no person or officer is nominated, the land will be vested in the ruling monarch.

Webster's New Dictionary defines "public purpose" as a governmental action or directive that is intended to bring about benefits for the entire population. In the legal framework of Florida, the term "public purpose" assumes multiple meanings and provides distinct levels of protection concerning the property and financial interests of private individuals when utilized as a criterion for determining the validity of governmental actions.

Under Nigerian law, "public purposes" include:

a. Use exclusively by the government or for the general public.

b. Use by any corporate entity established by law or registered under the Companies and Allied Matters Act, provided that the government holds shares, stocks, or debentures in that entity.

c. Utilization for sanitary improvements of any nature.

d. Acquisition of land contiguous to any area or land that would experience increased value due to the construction of a railway, road, or other public works or conveniences undertaken or provided by the government.

e. To exercise authority over land necessary for or in relation to development, telecommunications, or the provision of electricity.

f. To exercise authority over land necessary for or in connection with mining activities.

g. To exercise authority over land necessary for or in connection with planned urban or rural development or settlement.

h. To exercise authority over land necessary for or in connection with economic, industrial, or agricultural development.

i. For the purpose of providing educational and other services.

The term "public purpose" as defined within the Land Use Act, similar to its counterpart in Florida Law, encompasses a range of interpretations. Its utilization as a standard for demarcating the scope of governmental actions entails varying degrees of protection afforded to private property rights and financial interests. Notably, in the context of sports venues, the emergence of the "Public Purpose Doctrine" can be traced back to the seminal legal case of State v. Daytona Beach Racing and Recreational Development Facilities District. This landmark case established a legal precedent that has influenced subsequent jurisprudence in the domain of public purpose and its application to matters concerning the development and utilization of sports facilities. In this ruling, the court established that as long as a project serves public purposes, it does not violate Articles 1 and 10 of the constitution, even if it incidentally benefits private parties. It is acknowledged that private entities operating for personal profit will derive advantages from any public advancement undertaken by the government.

Land represents the most valuable asset for both nations and individuals, playing a pivotal role in determining a nation's wealth and level of development. Consequently, every nation or state places great importance on the management and utilization of its land resources. To this end, governments seek to exert control over land use and management within their territories, and also reserve the power to acquire or access land for agricultural, industrial, and socio-economic development. This concept of land acquisition is founded upon the social contract, whereby individuals relinquish a portion of their absolute land rights to the governing authority to facilitate development, provision of social amenities, healthcare, education, and protection from external and internal threats. Compulsory acquisition serves as the philosophical foundation for this arrangement.

In a democratic framework, the government's authority to compulsorily acquire property from its citizens has traditionally been counterbalanced by recognizing individuals' right to property ownership. Hence, governments are obligated to provide fair and reasonable compensation when acquiring private property, a principle that has been enshrined in various constitutional instruments over centuries. These instruments encompass a range of historical and contemporary texts, from the Magna Carta of 1215 and the Bills of Rights in 1689 to more recent expressions like Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the Nigerian context, the right to receive reasonable compensation for the compulsory acquisition or requisition of property is safeguarded under specific constitutional provisions, notably section 31 of the 1963 Constitution, section 40(1) of the 1979 Constitution, and presently section 44(1) of the 1999 Constitution. These provisions ensure that even during periods of war or emergencies, individuals maintain a legitimate entitlement to receive just compensation when their property is subjected to compulsory acquisition or requisition.

COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND OR REVOCATION OF LAND UNDER THE LAND USE ACT

The revocation or compulsory acquisition of land holds substantial importance within the framework of the Land Use Act in Nigeria. Following a preliminary exploration of the conceptual and philosophical foundations, as well as the historical context surrounding compulsory acquisition, we shall now proceed to undertake a comprehensive examination of the powers vested in the Governor to revoke land occupancy rights or effect compulsory acquisition under the purview of the Land Use Act.

Undoubtedly, the provisions outlined in the Land Use Act bestow upon the Governor an expansive and comprehensive authority over land within their respective state. This unequivocally establishes the Governor as the supreme arbiter in matters pertaining to land within their jurisdiction. Among the various provisions enshrined in the Act, none exemplifies the magnitude of these powers more prominently than Section 28 of the Act.

SECTION 28 OF THE LAND USE ACT STIPULATES THE FOLLOWING:

a. The Governor possesses the lawful authority to revoke a right of occupancy in circumstances where an overriding public interest is present.

b. An overriding public interest, with regards to a statutory right of occupancy,

c. The occupant's improper alienation of their right of occupancy, either wholly or partially, through means such as assignment, mortgage, transfer of possession, sublease, or any other actions that contravene the provisions set forth in the Act or its accompanying regulations,

d. The necessity of the land by either the State Government or a Local Government for public purposes.

The act of overriding the public interest concerning a customary right of occupancy encompasses all the aforementioned factors, in addition to the requirement that the land is needed for the purpose of extracting building materials. Section 28(4) of the legislation stipulates that if the President issues a notice declaring that the government requires the land for public purposes, it becomes incumbent upon the Governor to revoke the right of occupancy. Furthermore, section 28(5) states that the Governor has the authority to revoke a statutory right of occupancy in the following instances:

a. violation of any provisions outlined in the certificate of occupancy as stipulated in section 10 of the Act,

b. breach of any term specified in the certificate of occupancy or any special contract formed under section 8 of this Act, and

c. refusal or neglect to accept and pay for a certificate that was originally issued to evidence a right of occupancy but was subsequently canceled by the Governor under subsection (3) of section 9 of this Act.

Section 10 of the Land Use Act states that every certificate of occupancy is deemed to include provisions requiring the holder to make payments to the Governor for any remaining improvements on the land at the time of occupation, as well as the rent determined by the Governor and any rent agreed upon or revised according to section 16 of the Act. Upon thorough analysis of Section 28(2)(a) previously examined, it becomes apparent that while it is presented as one of the grounds for revocation due to a violation of the Act's provisions, it can be argued that revocation based on this section cannot strictly be classified as a revocation on the basis of overriding public interest.

Revocation based on the aforementioned ground can be interpreted as a punitive action imposed as a consequence of non-compliance. Essentially, it entails the forfeiture of a right of occupancy due to a violation of the Act's provisions. Consequently, the provisions articulated in section 28(5) of the Act, which empower the Governor to revoke a statutory right of occupancy for contravening the terms specified in the certificate of occupancy (whether explicitly stated or implied), should be understood as supplementary to the aforementioned discussion of section 28(2)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the revocation based on non-compliance with the Act's provisions, as outlined in section 28(5), assumes a distinct role, augmenting the grounds for revocation delineated in section 28(2)(a).

However, the combined effect of section 28(2)(a) and (5) can give rise to certain complications. While some have argued that these provisions may only be invoked by the Governor to revoke or forfeit a right of occupancy in cases of fundamental breaches, such as unauthorized alienation or using the land contrary to its intended purpose, it is asserted that these provisions have a broader impact. Their literal interpretation would enable the Governor to forfeit or revoke a right of occupancy for any violation of terms in the certificate of occupancy, including failure to pay annual ground rent for a single year. Likewise, if a certificate of occupancy stipulates, as is often the case, that the holder must construct and complete specified buildings or works within two years or undertake construction valued up to N2 million, the Governor would be within their rights to revoke the right of occupancy if the buildings or works are not erected and completed within the specified timeframe.

Nevertheless, it can be contended that the stringent application of these provisions may give rise to undue hardship or unintended ramifications in specific cases. These provisions bestow upon the Governor substantial discretionary powers, potentially creating an avenue for the abuse of revocation authority. Consequently, it is imperative to restrict the power to revoke a right of occupancy solely to instances of fundamental breaches, such as unauthorized use or alienation without consent. Even in such circumstances, revocation should only occur after affording the title holder a sufficient opportunity to rectify the breach, thereby ensuring fairness and due process.

CASE LAWS

In the case of PROVOST, LAGOS STATE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ORS. v. EDUN witnessed the Lagos State Government purporting to acquire the respondent's land through compulsory acquisition and subsequently notifying the owner by publishing the notice of acquisition in the official gazette. The Supreme Court, in its determination, established that when an acquiring authority intends to take possession of private property, it is imperative to notify the property holder prior to the publication of the notice in the gazette. This ruling emphasizes the significance of providing adequate notice to property owners in compulsory acquisition proceedings.

Similarly, in the case of OBIKOYA & SONS LTD. v. THE GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE, the Lagos State Commissioner for Economic and Physical Planning, acting on behalf of the Governor, issued an instrument declaring the revocation of the respondent's right of occupancy over the disputed land. However, this revocation instrument was not duly served on the respondent. Consequently, the court deemed the revocation null and void. According to section 44(e) of the law, in order to serve a revocation notice, it is necessary to address it to the holder or occupier of the premises and deliver it to someone on the premises or affix it to a noticeable part of the premises. This method should only be utilized if it is impractical to determine the holder's name or address for personal service.

In the case of A.G., LAGOS STATE v. SOWANDE, the notice of revocation was published in the Lagos State Gazette and served by attaching it to the fence of the disputed land, despite the government or its officials having knowledge of the respondent's name and address. The Court of Appeal concluded that section 44(a) of the law was not applicable in this particular scenario.

COMPENSATION FOR COMPULSORY ACQUISITION

The matter of compensation concerning land acquired through compulsory means is governed by both constitutional and statutory provisions. According to section 44(1) of the 1999 Constitution:

"No movable property or any interest in immovable property shall be subject to compulsory possession, and no right or interest in such property shall be acquired compulsorily in any part of Nigeria, except according to the prescribed manner and for the prescribed purposes set forth in a law which, among other requirements:

a. Ensures prompt payment of compensation in relation to such acquisition; and

b. Provides individuals claiming such compensation with the right to access a court of law, tribunal, or any other body with jurisdiction in that specific part of Nigeria for the determination of their interest in the property and the assessment of the compensation amount."

Consequently, the constitution mandates that any compulsory acquisition of property, both movable and immovable, must adhere to specific procedures. These procedures include promptly compensating the affected parties and granting them the right to seek legal recourse through the appropriate court, tribunal, or body to determine their interest in the property and ascertain the compensation that is due to them.

THE POWER OF CONSENT IN MORTGAGE AND OTHER RELATED LAND TRANSACTIONS

In Nigeria, the governor's consent holds substantial influence over mortgage transactions, land sales, and other interconnected land-related dealings. This authority is derived from the provisions outlined in the Land Use Act of 1978, a legislative framework that governs land ownership and utilization throughout the entire country. Within the Nigerian legal system, the consent of the governor serves as an essential prerequisite for the legality and enforceability of mortgage transactions involving land or property. Likewise, obtaining the governor's consent is a fundamental requirement for the transfer or sale of land in Nigeria. This requirement is rooted in the objective of ensuring transparency and upholding the rights of all parties involved in the transaction. The process of obtaining consent involves the submission of relevant documents and payment of the prescribed fees.

Consent, as elucidated by Black's Law Dictionary, encompasses the voluntary act of yielding or endorsing another's proposition. It signifies a purposeful concurrence, sanction, or authorization that is bestowed upon by a capable individual, particularly in connection with a distinct action or objective. From a legal standpoint, consent signifies a valid and binding agreement with respect to a designated matter. This concept finds appropriate articulation in Section 21 of the Land Use Act.

The interpretation of the aforementioned sections of the Act has posed challenges for Nigerian judges. The consent provisions encompass both explicit and implied grants. It is essential to note that the consent provision does not outrightly prohibit the transfer of a right of occupancy if such an action aligns with the principles outlined in the Act. It is imperative to view the consent requirement as an administrative hurdle rather than an absolute obstruction. It is only the holder of a customary right of occupancy, an individual whose right has been expressly granted by the governor in accordance with Section 36(5) of the Act, who is unequivocally forbidden from disposing of their interest under any circumstances. In this particular scenario, a complete prohibition on any form of disposal exists. This restriction has been identified as a legislative fiction or, at the very least, a legislative misstep.

The consent provisions outlined in the Act have been a subject of ongoing disputes since the influential ruling in Savannah Bank v Ajilo, These controversies primarily arise from concerns regarding the perceived deficiencies in the drafting of the Act and the consequent hardships faced by individuals subject to its interpretation, often referred to as vulnerable victims. In light of these concerns, legal scholar I. O. Smith has argued that judicial opinion consistently supports the proposition that a transferor, who bears the responsibility of seeking and obtaining the governor's consent, cannot avail themselves of the absence of consent as a ground to annul a bona fide transaction. Such an argument is considered objectionable, particularly when consideration has been exchanged. Smith further argues that the Savannah Bank v Ajilo case only establishes that the governor's consent is required for any transfer permitted by the Act, whether it be an actual or deemed grant, and nothing more.

Furthermore, it has been contended that, strictly interpreting the Act, the consent provision would extend to all periodic tenancies, including weekly tenancies. However, based on the application of Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian principle of maximizing economic benefit over cost, some argue that periodic tenancies should be exempted from the consent requirement to promote freedom and economic efficiency by maximizing overall economic gains. These intricacies in interpreting the consent provisions of the Act have sparked ongoing debates within legal circles, reflecting the complexities and diverse perspectives surrounding the application of these provisions. Beyond mortgage and land sales, certain other land-related transactions, such as long-term leases and subleases, also require the governor's consent. This regulatory framework serves as a mechanism for maintaining oversight and preventing fraudulent activities within the realm of land transactions.

It is important to note that the specific procedures and prerequisites for obtaining the governor's consent may vary across different states in Nigeria. Each state has its own set of regulations and guidelines governing land transfers. Therefore, seeking guidance from the appropriate land authorities or legal experts is advisable to ensure compliance with the specific processes involved. By adhering to the requirements for the governor's consent in land transactions, individuals can establish the legality and validity of their dealings, fostering transparency and protecting the rights of all parties involved.

POWER TO GRANT RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY

Under the Land Use Act, the powers bestowed upon the governor are specifically related to the grant of statutory rights of occupancy and no further. The governor's authority is limited to issuing a certificate of occupancy for land rights that existed prior to the enactment of the Land Use Act. Any additional powers exercised by the governor are constrained to the statutory rights of occupancy that have been granted.

Section 5 of the Act provides explicit clarification regarding this limitation. It stipulates that the governor possesses the legal authority to grant statutory rights of occupancy for various purposes, whether pertaining to land within urban areas or in other contexts. Additionally, the governor is empowered to grant easements that are germane to the statutory rights of occupancy and may require rental payments for such land grants. Thus, the governor's power to grant easements and to demand and assess rent is confined to situations in which the statutory right of occupancy has been granted. However, it is important to note that the governor retains the ability to impose a penal rent in cases of non-compliance with any covenant specified in the certificate of occupancy, which pertains to the development or improvement of the land covered by the certificate. Moreover, the governor is authorized to make revisions to such penal rent in accordance with the provisions delineated in the Act. This power is applicable irrespective of whether the land is covered by a statutory right of occupancy or not, as long as it is covered by a valid certificate of occupancy.

ADJUDICATORY POWERS

Within the parameters of the Land Use Act, the governor fulfills a multifaceted role that encompasses executive, legislative, and judicial functions. As the key figure responsible for the implementation and execution of the Act's policies, the governor wields substantial authority. This includes the prerogative to establish rules and regulations under the Act, thereby exercising quasi-legislative powers. Additionally, the governor assumes quasi-judicial powers by heading the Land Use and Allocation Committee. In this capacity, the governor plays a pivotal role in adjudicating disputes concerning the sufficiency of compensation payable to individuals impacted by the revocation of land rights. This underscores the governor's crucial role in the resolution of such matters. Through this comprehensive mandate, the governor assumes a central position in shaping and enforcing the provisions of the Land Use Act, ensuring its effective implementation, and overseeing the resolution of pertinent disputes.

In theory, the Land Use and Allocation Committee can be seen as an independent body since it is led by one of its own members. However, it is important to note that the governor holds authority over the committee's composition, membership, tenure, and the regulation of its proceedings. Furthermore, it is important to note that the role of the committee is solely advisory, and its recommendations lack binding authority over the governor. Ultimately, the governor retains the final decision-making power regarding any matter brought before the committee.Moreover, it is crucial to emphasize that both the committee and the governor hold ultimate jurisdiction in determining the amount of compensation payable for improvements made on land in accordance with the Act. Notably, the Act precludes any court from reviewing or questioning the adequacy or quantum of compensation awarded or to be awarded. These provisions contribute to a situation where the governor consolidates and exercises the functions attributed to all three branches of government—executive, legislative, and judicial—pertaining to the administration of the Act. However, it is worth noting that this consolidation runs counter to the fundamental principles of democratic governance, specifically the principles of separation of powers and the rule of law.

LIMITATIONS

The powers vested in the governor under the Land Use Act, though significant, are not absolute or unfettered. The Act incorporates a range of limitations that serve to uphold individual rights and prevent potential abuses of power. Several key restrictions exist to ensure that the exercise of authority by the governor aligns with legal safeguards. The following limitations are noteworthy:

1. Judicial Review: The actions and decisions of the governor pertaining to land-related matters are subject to the scrutiny of judicial review. This mechanism allows any aggrieved party to challenge the governor's conduct if there is a belief that it contravenes the law or exceeds the statutory powers conferred by the Act. Courts possess the authority to examine and assess the validity and legality of the governor's decisions.

2. Compensation for Acquisition: In instances where the governor wields the power of compulsory acquisition of land for public purposes, provisions within the Act enshrine the entitlement of affected landowners to receive fair and adequate compensation. The Act mandates that such compensation be provided promptly and without undue delay, ensuring that landowners receive just recompense for their loss.

3. Statutory Restrictions: The powers of the governor are circumscribed by other relevant legislation and regulations. It is incumbent upon decision-makers to consider the provisions of complementary laws, such as those governing environmental protection and urban planning, in conjunction with the Land Use Act. These additional legal frameworks provide constraints and guidelines that must be taken into account when making decisions under the Act.

4. Limitations on Tenure: To promote efficient land utilization and avoid indefinite land lock-up, the Act imposes limitations on the maximum duration of statutory rights of occupancy. Generally, these rights are granted for a period of 99 years or less. Such temporal restrictions ensure that land resources are utilized effectively and that opportunities for their productive utilization are not impeded by extended tenures.

5. The governor is obligated to adhere to the principles of natural justice and due process when exercising their powers under the Act. Crucially, this entails providing affected parties with fair notice, affording them an opportunity to be heard, and granting them the right to present their case before any decision is made. The governor must afford all parties involved a fair and impartial hearing, enabling the presentation of arguments and evidence prior to reaching a determination.

6. Protection of Customary Rights: Recognizing the significance of customary rights of occupancy, the Land Use Act safeguards these rights from undue erosion or extinguishment. The powers conferred upon the governor under the Act cannot undermine or disregard these pre-existing customary rights without the observance of due process and the provision of appropriate compensation.

These limitations collectively serve as integral safeguards, ensuring that the powers bestowed upon the governor under the Land Use Act are exercised within well-defined legal boundaries. Their existence promotes equity, accountability, and the protection of individual rights, effectively governing matters concerning land use and management.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Drawing from the preceding analysis, it is justifiable to contend that Section 28(1) of the Land Use Act bestows upon the Governor the authority to compulsorily acquire land or revoke a right of occupancy on grounds of overriding public interest or public purpose. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that this power of expropriation is subject to stringent regulation within the framework of the Act. Judicial interpretation of the provisions pertaining to such power, as well as the delineation of the specific public purposes for which it can be invoked, and the procedural requisites for its exercise, assumes significant importance in this regard.

Consequently, the exercise of this power is subject to specific conditions, qualifications, and limitations. Failure to adhere to the provisions outlined in Section 28(2) and 51(1) of the Land Use Act, which pertain to establishing overriding public interest or public purpose for land acquisition, will render the acquisition null and void. Similarly, the improper or non-service of the notice of acquisition to the holder of a right of occupancy, in contravention of Sections 28(6) and 44 of the Act, will result in the invalidation of the acquisition. Moreso, even in cases where the Governor duly acquires land compulsorily, they are obliged, as mandated by Section 44(1) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 29 of the Land Use Act, to provide reasonable compensation to the holder of the right of occupancy. Failure to fulfill this compensation requirement, except in instances where the acquisition is predicated on a breach of the conditions accompanying the right of occupancy, will render the compulsory land acquisition by the Governor invalid.

In conclusion, the powers vested in the Governor under the Land Use Act for compulsory land acquisition or revocation of rights of occupancy are subject to rigorous regulation and must adhere to specific conditions and procedural requirements. Failure to meet these requirements, such as establishing overriding public interest or public purpose, appropriately serving the notice of acquisition, or providing adequate compensation, will lead to the invalidation of the land acquisition. Despite these stipulations and limitations, the provisions set forth in Section 28 and 29 of the Land Use Act, along with other relevant provisions of the Act, may be considered inadequate in guaranteeing a fair and equitable acquisition process. It is important to note that the enumerated items constituting overriding public interest or public purpose under Sections 28(2) and (3) and 51(1) of the Land Use Act are broad and flexible, potentially enabling governors to exploit these provisions to their advantage and undermine the rights of titleholders for reasons not primarily grounded in public interest. Thus, it is recommended that the definition of overriding public interest or public purpose, as delineated in the aforementioned sections, be further refined to mitigate the potential for abuse or arbitrary actions on the part of the governor.

In light of the aforementioned considerations, it is deemed necessary to incorporate an additional provision within the Land Use Act requiring a hearing before a judicial or quasi-judicial body. This hearing would serve the purpose of meticulously evaluating the justifiability of the public purpose advanced by the government for a proposed acquisition, as well as determining the actual extent of land necessary to fulfill this purpose. Only upon the completion of such a hearing and the subsequent validation of the public purpose would the governor be authorized to invoke their power of revocation as stipulated in Section 28(1) of the Act. This proposed addition aims to introduce a vital safeguard within the Act, ensuring that the decision-making process pertaining to land acquisition undergoes an independent assessment by a designated body. By implementing this requirement, the intention is to enhance transparency and curtail the potential for arbitrary conduct, ultimately striving to achieve a more equitable balance between the government's authority to acquire land and the protection of individual rights.