SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(SC) 327

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi and S.J. Mukhopadhaya, JJ.
RAMLAL MOTIRAMJI TAYADE - Appellant;
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND OTHERS - Respondents.
Civil Appeals No. 4036 of 2012 with Nos. 4039 of 2012, 4040 of 2012 and 4041 of 2012, Decided on : April 27, 2012

IMPORTANT POINT
Core issues raised in a writ petition must be addressed in the judgment.

Headnote:Constitution of India – Article 226 – Core issues raised in writ petitions – Not even adverted to in impugned judgment – Not sustainable. (Para 7)

       (2011) 5 SCC 553 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       Acquisition of land was challenged on the ground that the land was fertile agricultural land and its acquisition was against Government policy; that government lands were available; and there was discrimination in acquisition of lands.

       The writ petitions were eventually dismissed.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment is not sustainable.

       

JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted. For the purpose of implementing the expansion programme undertaken by it, the Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited (respondent No. 3) sent a requisition to the State Government to acquire land in village Paras, District Akola. Thereupon, the State Government issued notification dated 30.11.2008 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') proposing to acquire 132 hectares land. The Appellants, whose lands were included in the notification filed objections under Section 5A(1) and prayed that in view of the policy framed by the State Government not to acquire fertile land, their land may be left out from the process of acquisition. They also pleaded that there was no justification to acquire their land because large tract of government land was available and the same can be transferred to Respondent No. 3. It is the Appellants' case that without giving them opportunity of hearing, the State Government issued the declaration under Section 6, which was published on 30.5.2009. After one year and six months, notice dated 14.2.2011 was issued in respect of 109 hectares only and land comprised in survey Nos. 1033, 1040, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1054, 1055, 1056 and 1139 left out.

2. The Appellants challenged the acquisition of their land by filing separate writ petitions. They pleaded that the acquisition was contrary to the policy framed by the State Government not to acquire fertile land; that the declaration under Section 6 was issued without giving them opportunity of hearing; that government land was available and the same could be allotted to Respondent No. 3 and that the acquisition was arbitrary and discriminatory. This is borne out from paragraphs 8 to 11 of Writ Petition No. 2256/ 2011 filed by the Appellant in the first case. The same are extracted below:

8. After the service of the notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the Petitioner had filed his objection before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Katepurna and Morna Project, Akola. The Petitioner had stated in details, as to how his land and the land at Paras was not suitable for the project for which it was sought to be acquired. It was also pointed out to the Respondent No. 1 that the land at Paras is extremely fertile and is having back soil. The Petitioner takes two crops during the year. It was also pointed out by him that Government land was also available for the project. The Petitioner had also pointed out that due to the acquisition 29 families would be rendered landless fifteen agriculturist would become homeless. It was also stated that the land at Nagzari was fallow and was of low category and 50% of it is a Government land and was available for acquisition. It was pointed out that the land was available for acquisition. It was pointed out that the land which was sought to be acquired was very close to Gaothan of village Paras, and lot of pollution would be caused due to generation plant at Paras. It was also pointed out to the Respondent No. 1 that there were procedural lapses in the matter of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. It was also pointed out that the acquisition was against the public policy.

9. Though the Petitioner and other agriculturist of village Paras had raised strong objections to the acquisition of his land, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, issued a notice under Section6 of the Land Acquisition Act on 30.5.2009. The copy of the notice dated 30.05.2009 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-VII. The Petitioner is filing the copy of the order sheets of Land Acquisition Case No. 7/47/2006-07-Paras, maintained by the Respondent No. 1 as Annexure-VIII. The order sheet dated 28.11.2008 shows that the order sheet is fabricated, as several dates of hearing have been shown as dates of hearing. The order sheets dated 29.12.2008, 30.12.2008, 31.12.2008 and 1.1.2009 are











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top