Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.V. Savant S. Radhakrishnan, JJ.
Shri Madhav Ramchandra Nanivadekar another ..... Petitioners.
Versus
Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 12 others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 6549 of 1997, decided on 13-7-1998.
Advocates appeared :
R.S. Apte, for the petitioners.
V.S. Gokhale, A.G.P., for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Section 5-A-Filing of objection to notice under Section 4-Personal hearing not demanded-Land Acquisition Officer not obliged to give personal hearing.- The enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act was vitiated as a result of failure to give personal hearing to the petitioners. No personal hearing was demanded by the petitioners though such an opportunity was offered to them.
It is not obligatory on the Land Acquisition Officer to give personal hearing to the citizen in an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act when the citizen does not demand such a personal hearing though such an opportunity was offered to him.
Sections 5-A and 18-Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976, Section 11-Grant for personal hearing-While filing objections, a personal hearing should have been asked for, in absence of such request at that time, it is not obligatory for Court to grant it now.-In the objections that were filed under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act, the petitioners did not dispute the fact that their lands fell within the benefited zone of Kumbhi Project nor did they demand personal hearing in the enquiry under Section 5-A. Once the declaration under Section 11 of the 1976 Act was made on 14th February, 1983, Section 12 of the said 1976 Act would come into force and there would be restrictions on transfer, sub-division or partition of land in the benefited zone. The only contention raised by the petitioners was that their holding was less than the minimum of 8 acres and that there were other lands available in Gaganbawda Taluka for resettlement of persons displaced by the Kumbhi Project.
Despite, the above factual position, the present petition has been filed as late as on 19th December, 1997 and the only challenge that is raised before Court is that there was no proper enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the sense that no personal hearing was given though, admittedly an opportunity of personal hearing was given in the notice dated 13th January, 1995 issued under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act. As mentioned above, Section 5-A enquiry was held during the year 1995 issued under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act. As mentioned above 5-A enquiry was held during the year 1995 pursuant to the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act issued on 31st October, 1994. Section 6 declaration was made as far back as on the 1st January, 1996. It was duly published in the Government Gazette, in the local newspaper, at the village Chawdi and the Tahsil office.
It has been observed that the procedure for enquiry under Section 5- A is not like an elaborate trial and it is open to the claimant to avail of the remedy of personal hearing. If, however, he did not so demand, it would not be necessary to insist on personal hearing in every case. In some cases arising under the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976, Court find that the only objection raised is that there is no public purpose. In some cases the only objection is that the holding is less than 8 acres. It would be unnecessary to insist on personal hearing being given in every case without the citizen having demanded such hearing.
In the light of the ratio of the later decision in Rnmlal Lakhabais case, in the facts of the present case, when there was no demand for personal hearing, Court do not think that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act was vitiated as a result of failure to give personal hearing to the petitioners.
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 was issued, as far back as, on 14th February, 1983 declaring that the State Government was of the opinion that it was necessary in the public interest, for the resettlement of the displaced persons, to apply the provisions of the 1976 Act to the said Kumbhi Project. Thereafter, notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short "the 1894 Act") was issued on 31st October, 1994. It was published in the local news papers on 30th November, 1994 in the Government Gazette on 15th December, 1994, at the village Chawdi on 25th January, 1995 and at the Tahsil Office on 27th January, 1995. There is no dispute regarding publication of section 4 Notification on the dates mentioned above as stated in the affidavit dated 26th June, 1998 filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 12, Kolhapur.
4. The Notice dated 13th January 1995 issued to the petitioners under section 4(1), which is at Exhibit 'B' specifically states that the petitioners or their lawyer can make their/his oral submissions at the time of submitting their objections. However, the petitioners only filed their written objections but did not demand any personal hearing. In the written objections filed on 18th February, 1995, it was contended, inter alia, that their holding was less then the minimum of 8 acres as provided under section 16 of the 1976 Act and, hence, no land should be acquired from them.
5. Though the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 gives wide power of compulsory acquisition to the State Government on payment of compensation to the citizen, sub-section (4) of section 16 of the 1976 Act provides as under :-
"16. (4) For the purpose of resettling displaced persons on land, the State Government may, subject to any rules made in this behalf, acquire land from holdings in the benefited zone or from any village or area specified under section 10 as far as practicable according to the provisions of part II of Schedule A hereto."
When we turn to Part II of Schedule A, the size of the holding and the area to be acquired has been stipulated. If the holding is not more than 8 acres, as far as practicable, no land should be acquired. If the holding is between 8 and 12 acres, 2 acres of land may be acquired. If the holding is between 12 and 16 acres, 3 acres of land may be acquired and so on.
6. In the objections that were filed under section 5-A of the 1894 Act, the petitioners did not dispute the fact that their lands fell within the benefited zone of Kumbhi Project nor did they demand personal hearing in the enquiry under section 5-A Once the declaration under section 11 of the 1976 Act was made on 14th February, 1983, section 12 of the said 1976 Act would come into force and there would be restrictions on transfer, sub-division or partition of land in the benefited zone. T
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
