IMPORTANT POINT
Section 5A of the LA Act confers a valuable important right and having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300-A of the Constitution, it has been held to be akin to a fundamental right.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -State of West Bengal requisitioned floors of appellant under the provisions of West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947 - Maximum period of requisition was fixed at 25 years from date of initial order of requisition -Case of appellant that, instead of release of said floors State Government initiated proceedings under Act, 1894 to acquire the said premises - Writ Petitions filed by appellant praying for quashing notifications on the ground that report submitted by Second Land Acquisition Officer was vitiated due to violation of the rule of hearing enshrined in Section 5A(2) of the LA Act -Dismissed by Single judge-Appeal-Dismissed by Division Bench-Appeal-Appellant’s case that notification under Section 4 of the LA Act was not served on owner companies-However, upon coming to know of this notification, appellant submitted Objections-Second Land Acquisition Officer adjourned the hearing on one occasion as requested by appellant- He, however, refused to adjourn the matter any further- The second request was rejected- Looking to the nature of issues involved, Second Land Acquisition Officer could have adjourned the proceedings after putting the appellant to terms because hearing the representative of the owner companies was Mandatory- In any event, if he did not want to adjourn the proceedings and wanted to consider the objections in the absence of counsel for the owner companies and assuming such a course is permissible in law, he ought to have dealt with the objections carefully and not in a lighthearted manner because heavy responsibility rested on his shoulders-By no stretch of imagination, it could be said that Second Land Acquisition Officer had applied his mind to the objections raised by appellant- Objections taken by appellants were rejected on a very vague ground- Since no hearing was given to appellant resulting in non compliance of Section 5A of the LA Act, declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act set aside-Impugned judgment of High Court set aside-Appeal disposed of (Paras 19 to 24)
       Facts of the Case :
        A.State of West Bengal herein in the instant case requisitioned floors of appellant under the provisions of West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947 . Maximum period of requisition was fixed at 25 years from date of initial order of requisition.Case of appellant that, instead of release of said floors State Government initiated proceedings under Act, 1894 to acquire the said premises.
        B. Writ Petitions filed by appellant praying for quashing notifications on the ground that report submitted by Second Land Acquisition Officer was vitiated due to violation of the rule of hearing enshrined in Section 5A(2) of the LA Act were Dismissed by Single judge. Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by Division Bench.
        C. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        A. Appellant’s case that notification under Section 4 of the LA Act was not served on owner companies..However, upon coming to know of this notification, appellant submitted Objections. Second Land Acquisition Officer adjourned the hearing on one occasion as requested by appellant. He, however, refused to adjourn the matter any further. The second request was rejected.
        B. Looking to the nature of issues involved, Second Land Acquisition Officer could have adjourned the proceedings after putting the appellant to terms because hearing the representative of the owner companies was Mandatory. In any event, if he did not want to adjourn the proceedings and wanted to consider the objections in the absence of counsel for the owner companies and assuming such a course is permissible in law, he ought to have dealt with the objections carefully and not in a lighthearted manner because heavy responsibility rested on his shoulders.
        C. By no stretch of imagination, it could be said that Second Land Acquisition Officer had applied his mind to the objections raised by appellant. Objections taken by appellants were rejected on a very vague ground. Since no hearing was given to appellant resulting in non compliance of Section 5A of the LA Act, declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act set aside. Impugned judgment of High Court was set aside. Appeal was disposed of

JUDGMENT

(Smt.) Ranjana Prakash Desai, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal, by grant of special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 19/8/2009 passed by the High Court at Calcutta dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.

3. The appellant, which is a private limited company was entrusted by seventeen joint owners of the premises known as “Industry House” at No.10, Camac Street, Calcutta - 700 017 (for short, “the said premises”), to look after the day-to-day management and maintenance of the said premises as also to initiate proceedings for and on their behalf. The seventeen joint owners include respondents 6, 7 and 8 herein and one Pilani Investment (hereinafter referred to as “owner companies” for convenience). They are seized and possessed of certain floors of the said premises. The State of West Bengal requisitioned the said floors under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947 (for short, “the 1947 Act”). Under the 1947 Act, the maximum period of requisition was fixed at 25 years from the date of initial order of requisition and the State Government was obliged to release the property under requisition after expiry of 25 years. It is the case of the appellant that, in fact, the release of the said floors was in contemplation of the concerned authorities. However, enquiries made by the appellant revealed that the State Government was planning to acquire the said premises in exercise of its powers under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the LA Act”). The appellant along with owner companies, therefore, filed Writ Petition No.22859 (W) of 1997 praying for a writ of mandamus directing the State to release the said floors from requisition.

4. Instead of releasing the said floors from requisition, the State Government issued a notification dated 29/7/1997 under Section 4 of the LA Act stating, inter alia, that the said floors are needed for the public purpose viz. for permanent office accommodation of Public Works Department. The said notification was published in the Government Gazette on 12/8/1997. It is the case of the appellant that the owner companies raised objections vide letter dated 8/9/1997 under Section 5A of the LA Act. The Second Land Acquisition Officer issued notice dated 23/9/1997 fixing date of hearing of the objections on 26/9/1997. On receipt of the said notice, the representative of the appellant met the Second Land Acquisition Collector on 25/9/1997 and by letter of even date, requested that the hearing fixed on 26/9/1997 be postponed till after 29/9/1997 because the Constituted Attorney of the appellant was held up in Mumbai and was unable to attend the hearing. The Second Land Acquisition Collector issued another notice dated 26/9/1997 fixing the date of hearing of the objections on 30/9/1997. By letter dated 29/9/1997, the appellant again requested for adjournment till after 28/10/1997 on the ground that its Constituted Attorney was unable to attend and the advocate was out of station. According to the appellant, while they were waiting for further communication about the date of hearing, the State Government issued a declaration dated 24/10/1997 under Section 6 of the LA Act, which was published in the Gazette on 29/10/1997. In the said declaration, it was stated that the Government was satisfied that the said floors were needed for the public purpose. The Special Land Acquisition Officer did not accept the appellant’s request for further adjournment and proceeded to submit report dated 30/9/1997.

5. The appellants along with the owner companies filed Writ Petition No.25632(W) of 1997 and prayed for quashing notifications dated 29/7/1997. One of the grounds taken by them was that the report submitted by the Second Land Acquisition Officer was vitiated due to violation of the rule of hearing enshrined in Section 5A(2) of the LA Act and non application of mind by the concerned officer to the objections filed under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 1144

IMPORTANT POINT Section 5A of the LA Act confers a valuable important right and having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300-A of the Constitution, it has been held to be akin to a fundamental right.

Cases Referred (9)

IMPORTANT POINT
Section 5A of the LA Act confers a valuable important right and having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300-A of the Constitution, it has been held to be akin to a fundamental right.