Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.L. DATTU AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.
LAJJA RAM & ORS. - Appellants
VERSUS
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH & ORS. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1964 of 2013 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.24916 of 2008)
Decided on : 27-2-2013.
Constitution of India ,1950 - Article 226 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 - inquiry - Company - Land Acquisition Officer (for short ‘the LAO’) had issued a notice under Section 5-A of the Act, inter alia, directing the appellants to file their objections, if any, to the proposed acquisition of lands in question. The appellants had filed their detailed objections, inter alia, bringing it to the notice of the LAO that they have made A class construction over the lands in dispute. Having considered the objections so filed and also keeping in view the stand of the appellants and the respondent no. 1, a favorable report dated 17.02.2006 was submitted by the LAO recommending, inter alia, exemption of the appellant’s lands from acquisition to the competent authorities who matters much. Later on, after conducting survey of the said lands, the LAO has modified his earlier report made under Section 5-A of the Act and accordingly has withdrawn his recommendation in respect of grant of exemption to the appellant’s lands, vide his letter –Held, Collector who is enjoined with the task of hearing the objectors has the freedom of making further enquiry as he may think necessary. In either eventuality, he has to make report in respect of the land notified under Section 4(1) or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land to the appropriate Government containing his recommendations on the objections and submit the same to the appropriate Government along with the record of proceedings held by him for the latter’s decision. The appropriate Government is obliged to consider the report, if any, made under Section 5-A(2) and then record its satisfaction that the particular land is needed for a public purpose. This exercise culminates into making a declaration that the land is needed for a public purpose and the declaration is to be signed by a Secretary to the Government or some other officer duly authorized to certify its orders. The formation of opinion on the issue of need of land for a public purpose and suitability thereof is sine qua non for issue of a declaration lands in question need not be acquired by the respondent-authorities for the purpose intended in the acquisition notification. Thereafter, upon the survey of lands, the LAO has changed his stance and has suggested that the said lands should not be exempted from acquisition and thus, must be acquired by the respondent-authorities. The order so passed by the LAO was adverse to the interests of the appellants and they were entitled to be provided with a reasonable opportunity of hearing to represent their stand before the LAO in the altered circumstances of the case. This non-adherence to the principles envisaged under the Act at the stage of making recommendations, not only defeats the purpose and object of the provisions of Section 5-A(2) but also introduces illegality into the opinion formulated by the State Government after considering the report so submitted by the LAO and therefore, by necessary implication, permeates the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act with such illegality - Ordered accordingly
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 14018 of 2008, dated 13.08.2008, whereby and whereunder the High Court has dismissed the aforesaid Writ Petition filed by the appellants.
3. The dispute relates to acquisition of lands situated in village Lahora and Sarangpur, Chandigarh, by the respondent No. 1 for the purpose of development of complex for important projects and allied purposes, i.e., Chandigarh Science Park and Institutional Area and also for regulated and planned development under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952.
4. The respondent No. 1 had issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), dated 25.07.2005, for acquisition of lands including lands in Khasra Nos. 111, 112, 113, 114/1, 114/2 and 244 in the village Lahora, whereat the residential houses of the appellants are also situated for the aforesaid purpose. Pursuant to the said notification, the Land Acquisition Officer (for short ‘the LAO’) had issued a notice under Section 5-A of the Act, inter alia, directing the appellants to file their objections, if any, to the proposed acquisition of lands in question. The appellants had filed their detailed objections, inter alia, bringing it to the notice of the LAO that they have made 'A' class construction over the lands in dispute. Having considered the objections so filed and also keeping in view the stand of the appellants and the respondent no. 1, a favorable report dated 17.02.2006 was submitted by the LAO recommending, inter alia, exemption of the appellant’s lands from acquisition to the competent authorities who matters much. Later on, after conducting survey of the said lands, the LAO has modified his earlier report made under Section 5-A of the Act and accordingly has withdrawn his recommendation in respect of grant of exemption to the appellant’s lands, vide his letter dated 07.07.2006.
5. The notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 24.07.2006 was issued by the respondent-authorities. Upon issuance of such notification, the appellants had approached respondent-authorities for release of their lands from acquisition proceedings. On 26.03.2007, the matter was remitted by respondent no. 2 to the LAO for re-consideration, whereafter the LAO, after providing opportunity of hearing to the appellants and inspection of the site, recommended release of the said lands under Section 48 of the Act, by his report dated 16.05.2007. After a series of communications between the respondent-authorities, the final decision was taken on 22.07.2008 releasing Khasra No. 113 in part and exempting Khasra Nos. 114/1 and 114/2 while acquiring Khasra Nos. 111 and 112 completely and Khasra Nos. 113 and 244 in part. Immediately thereafter, award came to be passed vide order dated 23.07.2008. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellants had approached the Writ Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 14018 of 2008, inter alia, questioning the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act.
6. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition on two grounds: firstly, that there is delay of nearly three and two years respectively in approaching the Writ Court from the date of Notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, and therefore they are fatal to the proceedings; and secondly that after the award passed by the LAO, the appellants could not have approached the Writ Court, inter alia, questioning the notifications issued by the respondent no. 1 under Section 4 and 6 of the Act. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the appellants are before us in this appeal by special leave.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis and also perused the documents on record.
8. Shri V.K.Jhanji, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the High Court has erred i
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
