1995 Supreme(Guj) 378

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :B.N.KIRPAL, H.L.Gokhale
ZAVERCHAND POPATLAL SUMERIA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A. 13525 of 1994
Decided On : 09/06/1995

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 - Mandamus - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Secs. 4, 5A & 6 - Acquisition of land for a company - Enquiry under sec. 5A - Adjournment of date fixed for inviting objection - No proper notice of adjournment given - Land owners therefore deprieved for filing objections - Further, ipse dixit acceptance of companys report cannot be regarded as recommendation of the objections - Held, statutory requirements of Sec. 5A not fulfilled - Impugned acquisition therefore not valid.

       It appears to be difficult to believe that 89 objectors who had refused to voluntarily sell their land to the company, despite the companys best efforts, and thereafter filed objections after the publication of the Sec. 4 Notification would deliberately choose to remain absent on the date of hearing. Their entire land was going to be acquired and it was their case that they would be rendered unemployed and they would be deprived of their livelihood. Under these circumstances, we are not satisfied that the objectors had knowledge of the new date of hearing. Mere fixation of notice of adjournment on 18.6.1993 at the chavdis cannot be regarded as a proper notice of hearing to at least those villages who were illterate, and who had admittedly filed objections. In the present case, the objector was not heard on 21.6.1993, not because of any adjournment or postponement having been sought by the objectors, but because of the Assistant Collector deciding that the case cannot be taken up for hearing on that date. This decision was taken prior to 21.6.1993, and we are not satisfied that the objectors had proper notice of the date to which the case had been adjourned. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in the present case no proper opportunity had been granted to the objectors for hearing of their objections, and we find it difficult to accept that the objectors had notice of the postponement of the date of hearing from 21.6.1993 to 30.6.1993. There is non-compliance, in accordance with law, with the provisions of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 5A. Merely accepting the ipse dixit of the company as has been done in the present case, cannot be regarded as recommendation of the objections as provided by sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 5A. Apart from the non-compliance of Sec. 5A, there is, in our opinion, noncompliance with Rule 3 and Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1969. The mandatory provisions of Rules 3 and 4, as well as of Sec. 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, have been violated, and therefore, we issue a writ of mandamus quashing the Notification dated 15.2.1993 under Sec. 4 and 18.5.1994 under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, as well as the Award dated 12.12.1994, in so far as they relate to the lands of the petitioners and other objectors (totalling 89 in number) in Villages Padana and Meghpar. Rule made absolute accordingly.

       [Paras 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 & 45]

       (b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sec. 40(1) (aa) - (As Amended by Land Acquisition Gujarat Unification and Amendment) Act, 1965 - Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1969 - Rules 3 & 4 - Acquisition of land for private company - Constitution of Land Acquisition Committee - Held, it is a statutory requirement - Non compliance in the instant case render acquisition invalid.

       The Supreme Court has in no uncertain terms held that the provisions of Rule 4 as well as Sec. 5A have are mandatory and to be complied with. The reason for holding that the aforesaid provisions are mandatory appears to be that not only it is required on the plain reading of the said provisions, but even otherwise, in the interest of justice, such a construction has to be placed. The acquisition which is covered by Part VII of the Act relates to the Government or the acquiring body coming to the aid of a private company, for acquiring land. This aid is required when the company has been unable to acquire land by private negotiations. There has been non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 3, and Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1969, and Sec. 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

       [Paras 11, 12 & 42]

       (c) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sec. 3(f) - Public purpose - Does not include acquisition of land for companies - Words & phrase.

       It is to be borne in mind that as per Sec. 3(f) of the Land Acquisition Act, the expression "public purpose" does not include acquisition of land for companies.

       [Para 12]

       (d) Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1969 - Rules 3 & 4 - Enquiry under - Is of quasi-judicial nature - Opportunity of hearing not given - Acquisition rendered invalid

       The inquiry under Rule 3 is, in a sense, quasi judicial and sufficient opportunity should be given to the land owners to refute the case of the company at least in so far as the matter like negotiation of price is concerned, as also other relevant matters. Possibly, the reference by the Supreme Court was really intended in this passage to Rule 4 inasmuch as, it is subsequently stated in this paragraph itself that Rule 4 is mandatory. In the present case, no such opportunity has been granted by the Collector. One further infirmity/non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 4 is that the Collector, prior to the submissions of his report dated 28.1.1993, did not consult the Senior Agricultural Officer, as was required by Rule 4(2)(i).

       [Paras 39 & 40]