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

1998 Supreme(Bom) 365

A.V.SAVANT, S.RADHAKRISHNAN
Madhav Ramchandra Nanivadekar and another – Appellant
Versus
Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 12 and others – Respondent


JUDGMENT - A.V. SAVANT, J.:---Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith and heard both the learned Counsel; Shri Apte for the petitioners and Shri Gokhale, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

2. The short point which arises for our consideration is whether, in an inquiry under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is it obligatory on the Land Acquisition Officer to give personal hearing to the citizen, without the citizen having prayed for such a personal hearing. In other words, when in pursuance of the Notice under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, a citizen only files his objections and does not demand a personal hearing though such an opportunity was given to him in writing, is it still necessary to give him personal hearing? A few facts may be stated first.

3. What is sought to be challenged in this petition is the acquisition of lands for a public purpose viz. resettlement of persons displaced on account of Kumbhi Project in taluka Gaganbawda, District Kolhapur. The acquisition is under the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 (for short "the 1976 Act"). Under section 11 of the 1976 Act, the relevant notification


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top