1990 Supreme(J&K) 26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
R.P. Sethi, J.
Dwarko & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State Of J&K & Anr. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 397/1989
Decided On : 05 April, 1990
Important Points
Subject
Land Acquisition - Mandatory Provisions
Act Referred
Headnote
LAND ACQUISITION ACT - SECTION 5-A - HEARING OF OBJECTIONS - MANDATORY - FAILURE TO COMPLY - INVALIDITY OF DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 6.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, alleging non-compliance with Section 5-A, which mandates a hearing of objections before issuing the declaration.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 5-A of the Act is mandatory and failure to comply with its provisions renders the declaration under Section 6 invalid.
Issues: Whether the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, issued without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 5-A, is valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various precedents, including Supreme Court judgments, which have held that Section 5-A of the Act is mandatory and a personal hearing is mandatory if objections are filed. The purpose of Section 5-A is to give an opportunity to persons interested in the land to put forward their point of view and persuade the authorities to drop further proceedings for acquisition.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the declaration under Section 6 and the notices issued under Sections 9 and 9-A of the Act, and directed the respondent to afford the petitioners an opportunity of being heard before passing appropriate orders.
Advocate For Appellant: U. Salaria
Advocate For Respondent: A.V. Gupta
2. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, it is submitted that the notice under section 4 of the Act was issued by respondent No. 2; copy of which was sent to Tehsildar, Udhampur who had forwarded the same to the Patwari Halqa under his No. 1495/OQ dated 7-11-1979. The interested persons including the petitioners were served with the notice through village Chowkidar. The notification was made known in the locality by placing the same at a conspicuous place as well as by beating of drum. On coming to know of the said notification, the petitioners Nos. 2,3,5,6,7 & 8 filed their written objections dated 12-11-1979. It is claimed that the objections filed by the petitioners and others interested persons were considered by the Collector whereafter the case was submitted to the Government alongwith the record of acquisition proceedings under letter No. 3542-44 dated January 28, 1980. After considering the objections filed, the Govt. issued the notification under section 6 of the Act. It is submitted that the interested persons appeared in response to the notices issued under sections 9 and 9-A of the Act and demanded a compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- (Forty thousand only) per kanal. The writ petition is alleged to be misconceived and liable to be dismissal.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. The respondents have categorically stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners and others were properly served with the notices u/s 4 of the Act which were duly publicised in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The plea of the petitioners that they were not served is without any basis and not believed. The acquisition proceedings on this ground cannot be set-aside.
5. It has, however, been contended on behalf of the petitioners that as respondents have failed to comply the mandatory provisions of section 5-A of the Act, all the subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed. Section 5-A of the Act provides:
5-A Hearing of Objections. (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4,