Dismissed

Sureshkumar S/O Madanlal Jindal and Anr. v. Special Land Acq. Officer, V.I.D.C. and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Jul 2014WP/5177/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Section 6 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court held that personal hearings are not required for belated objections filed beyond the statutory limit, rendering the notification valid.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sureshkumar S/O Madanlal Jindal and Anr. Vs Special Land… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP5177-12

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5177/2012

¶5

(SURESHKUMAR MADANLAL JINDAL & ANOTHER VERSUS SPECIAL L.A.O., V.I.D.C. BHANDARA & ANOTHER)

¶6

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

- - - - Shri S.V. Sohoni, counsel for the petitioners. Shri N.S. Khubalkar, A.G.P. for the respondents.

¶8

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND V.K. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : JULY 23, 2014.

¶9

By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent no.2-Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur to decide the objection raised by the petitioners under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and declare that the notification issued by the State Government under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 04.08.2012 is illegal and not binding on the petitioners.

¶10

Admittedly, the lands of the petitioners were included in the notification issued by the State Government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 26.05.2011. According to the petitioners, the petitioners filed the objections to the notification but, without deciding their objections, the State Government issued the Section 6 notification on 04.08.2012. According to the petitioners, the mandatory provisions of Section 5A of the Act of 1894 are not followed inasmuch as the petitioners were not granted a personal hearing before deciding their objections. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the land of the adjoining owners, i.e. Land Gat Nos.203 and 204, were deleted from acquisition after the issuance of the Section 6 notification as their lands were at a higher level and would not fall

¶11

WP5177-12

¶12

¶13

within the submergence area. It is the case of the petitioners that the lands of the petitioners are on a still higher level and, hence, they would definitely would not submerge in Gosekhurd Project. It is submitted that the action of the respondents in issuance of Section 6 notification is bad in law, more so, when the Collector was inclined to delete the lands of the petitioners from the acquisition.

¶14

The respondents have filed an affidavit-in-reply and it is stated in the affidavit-in-reply that though the Section 4 notification was published on 26.05.2011, the petitioners did not file any objection till 30.03.2012. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the provisions of Section 5A are mandatory and it was necessary for the petitioners to have filed objections within a period of thirty days from the date of issuance of the Section 4 notification. The learned Assistant Government Pleader relied on the judgment reported in 2006 (1) Mh.L.J. 556 ( Brahman Sahayak Sangh Versus State of Maharashtra & others ) to substantiate his submission that the State Authorities are under no obligation to grant personal hearing to the objectors if they file their objections beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 5A(1) of the Act of 1894. It is stated that the case of the petitioners that Gat Nos.203 and 204 are deleted from acquisition after the issuance of the Section 6 notification is not correct and is without any basis. It is stated on instructions from the Deputy Collector and the Special Land Acquisition Officer that Gat Nos.203 and 204 are not deleted from acquisition. It is submitted that the lands of the petitioners are very much necessary for the project for which the land is being acquired and the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that though the respondents were not bound to consider the objections belatedly filed by the petitioners, they were looked into, and the Executive Engineer found that the acquisition of the land was necessary.

¶15

WP5177-12

¶16

¶17

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears that there is no force in either of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. Section 4 notification was issued on 26.05.2011 and the petitioners filed the objections for the first time on 30.03.2012. Since the objections were not filed by the petitioners within a period of thirty days as required by the provisions of Section 5A(1) of the Act of 1894, the State Authorities were under no obligation to grant personal hearing to the objectors. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has rightly relied on the judgment reported in 2006 (1) Mh.L.J. 556 ( Brahman Sahayak Sangh Versus State of Maharashtra & others ), in that regard. Also, the delay in filing the objection was not negligible and there was an inordinate delay, inasmuch as the objections were raised by the petitioners nearly ten months after the issuance of the Section 4 notification. The petitioners were not personally heard by the State Authorities and we do not find anything wrong with that. The objections of the petitioners were considered by the authorities and the Executive Engineer found that it was necessary to acquire the lands of the petitioners for Gosekhurd Project. Though the petitioners had tried to make out a case about the deletion of the lands of the adjoining land holders, the case is found to be incorrect in view of the statement made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader on the basis of the instructions received from the Deputy Collector and the Special Land Acquisition Officer that the lands of the adjoining owners were not deleted from acquisition. In any case, that cannot be a reason for effectively challenging the Section 6 notification as the petitioners could have challenged the same only if their objections were not decided in compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 5A of the Act of 1894 by giving them a personal hearing. Since we have held that personal hearing was not contemplated in

¶18

WP5177-12

¶19

¶20

respect of the belated objections, filed more than ten months after the issuance of the Section 4 notification, there was no question of violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 5A of the Act of 1894.

¶21

Since there is no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶22

JUDGE

¶23

APTE

Sureshkumar S/O Madanlal Jindal and Anr. v. Special Land Acq. Officer, V.I.D.C. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sureshkumar S/O Madanlal Jindal and Anr. v. Special Land Acq. Officer, V.I.D.C. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal S/O Bhagwan Pakhare Vs the Collector, Akola and Another

Dr. Dilip S/O Yeshwantrao Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary Agriculture, Animal Husbandary and Another

Dr. Dilip S/O Yeshwantrao Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary Agriculture, Animal Husbandary and Another

Santosh S/O Bhausing Khanande Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Irrigation Department and

Ashish S/O Rajnikant Mahajan Vs Shri Subhash S/O Gopalrao Kelkar, Executive Director (H.R.)

Vidarbha Youth Welfare Societys Dental College and Hospital Thr. Its Dean and Anr. Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Anr.