advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
Land Acquisition Act 1894
LAND ACQUISITION – SEC. 4, 5 A, 6 – Whether the acquisition of the appellants’ land is vitiated due to violation of Sections 5-A and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) and whether the State Government resorted to discrimination in the matter of release of the acquired land = plea of discrimination is legally correct. It is not in dispute that the lands owned by the appellants and M/s. Rani Shaver Poultry Farm Ltd. and four others were acquired for one and the same purpose i.e. the development of Sectors 21, 22, 23 and 23A of Gurgaon. Therefore, once the State Government took a conscious decision to release the lands of M/s. Rani Shaver Poultry Farm Ltd. and four others, albeit by executing agreements with them, there could be no justification whatsoever for not according similar treatment to the appellants. As will be seen hereafter, the solitary reason put forward by the respondents for not releasing the appellants’ land, namely, that most of it was lying vacant was ex-facie erroneous. Be that as it may, the direction given by the Chief Minister for the issue of notification under Section 6(1) without considering the objections of the appellants and other relevant factors must be held as vitiated due to non application of mind. – arbitrary acquisition by pointing out to the authority concerned, inter alia, that the important ingredient, namely, “public purpose” is absent in the proposed acquisition or the acquisition is mala fide. – Section 5-A(2), which represents statutory embodiment of the rule of audi alteram partem, gives an opportunity to the objector to make an endeavour to convince the Collector that his land is not required for the public purpose specified in the notification issued under Section 4(1) or that there are other valid reasons for not acquiring the same. That section also makes it obligatory for the Collector to submit report(s) to the appropriate Government containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him so that the Government may take appropriate decision on the objections. Section 6(1) provides that if the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made by the Collector under Section 5-A(2) that particular land is needed for the specified public purpose then a declaration should be made. This necessarily implies that the State Government is required to apply mind to the report of the Collector and take final decision on the objections filed by the landowners and other interested persons. Then and then only, a declaration can be made under Section 6(1). As a sequel to the above discussion, we hold that the decision taken at the level of the Chief Minister was not in consonance with the scheme of Section 5-A(2) read with Section 6(1). We further hold that the State Government’s refusal to release the appellants’ land resulted in violation of their right to equality granted under Article 14 of the Constitution. 35. In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the declaration issued by the State Government under Section 6(1) is quashed. However, it is made clear that this judgment shall not preclude the State Government from taking fresh decision after objectively considering the objections filed by the appellants under Section 5-A(1). 36. If the final decision of the State Government is adverse to the appellants, then they shall be free to challenge the same before an appropriate judicial forum and urge all legally permissible contentions in support of their cause.
Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2557 OF 2013 M/s. Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms Private Limited and others …Appellants versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.2576 OF 2013 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2577 OF 2013 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2578 OF 2013 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2580 OF … Continue reading
The compulsory acquisition of the land = (i) Whether preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short, “1953 Act”) issued on 01.05.1980 has lapsed since declaration under Section 6 of that Act was made on 19.03.1987 after the expiry of two years from the commencement of 1Page 2 the Rajasthan Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1981 (for short, “1981 Amendment Act”). (ii) Whether invocation of power of urgency and dispensation of inquiry under Section 5-A after 7 years of issuance of preliminary notification under Section 4 of the 1953 Act are legally sustainable? = Having regard to clear and unambiguous mandate of Section 5(2) of the 1981 Amendment Act that no declaration under Section 6 of the 1953 Act in respect of any land for the acquisition of which notice under Section 4(5) has been given before the commencement of the 1981 Amendment Act shall be made after the expiry of two years from the commencement of the 1981 Amendment Act, it has to be held and we hold that preliminary notification dated 01.05.1980, which was followed by notice under Section 4(5) before the commencement of the 1981 Amendment Act, has lapsed and does not survive since declaration under Section 6 has been made much beyond the time limit prescribed in law. Civil appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. It is declared that preliminary notification dated 01.05.1980 has lapsed and the declaration made on 19.03.1987 is legally unsustainable. If possession of the subject land has been taken from the appellants, the same shall be restored to them without any delay.
Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6392 OF 2003 Laxman Lal (Dead) Through LRs. and Anr. …… Appellants Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. …… Respondents JUDGMENT R.M. LODHA, J. The compulsory acquisition of the land admeasuring 4 bigha and 2 biswa comprised in Khasra no. 1013 … Continue reading
A very large chunk of land including the said land stood notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) on 6.6.1964 for the establishment of the Ulhas Khore Project i.e. a project for industrial development. However, no subsequent proceedings were taken up thereafter, and the acquisition proceedings lapsed. The predecessors-in-interest of the appellants were not merely illiterate farmers, but were also absolutely unaware of their rights and hence too inarticulate to claim them. Thus, they could be persuaded by the officers of the respondent authorities to hand over possession of the said land. Actual physical possession of the said land was taken by the State authorities and handed over to the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter called as the ‘Development Corporation’) in the year 1964 itself. welcome suggestion stating that in order to redress the grievances of the appellants, the respondent-authorities would notify the land in dispute under Section 4 of the Act within a period of 4 weeks from today. Section 6 declaration will be issued within a period of one week thereafter. As the appellants have full notice and information with respect to the proceedings, publication in the newspapers either of the notification or of the declaration under the Act are dispensed with. Notice under Section 9 of the Act will be served within a period of 4 weeks after the publication of Section 6 declaration and award will be made within a period of three months thereafter. The deemed acquisition proceedings would thus, be concluded most expeditiously. Needless to say, the market value of the land in dispute will be assessed as it prevails on the date on which the Section 4 notification is published in the Official Gazette. Payment of compensation/award amount will be made to the claimants/persons- interested immediately thereafter, alongwith all statutory benefits. The appellants shall be entitled to pursue the statutory remedies available to them for further enhancement of compensation, if so desired. 21. Before parting with the case, we appreciate the gesture shown by the State Government for coming forward with a most appropriate suggestion to enable us to resolve the controversy involved herein, in a manner so cordial and sympathetic. 22. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7780 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.2418 OF 2012) Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. thr. Power of Attorney Holder ……. Appellant (s) Versus M.I.D.C. & Ors. ……..Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. 1. Leave granted. … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 