Nandatai
Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors [1996] INSC 1106 (10 September 1996)
Ramaswamy,
K.Ramaswamy, K.Faizan Uddin (J) G.B. Pattanaik (J)
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
This
special leave petition arises from the judgment and order of the Bombay High
Court, Nagpur Bench, made on March 8, 1996
in W.P.No. 3161 of 1983. The admitted position is that notification under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the
'Act') was published in the Gazette and thereafter it was published in the
locality on September
15, 1992. The land
originally belonged to Sudam Z. More, the father-in-law of the petitioner. It
would appear that at a family settlement due to incompatibility of the
petitioner in living with her husband, mutual divorce was effected in
consideration of her walking out from the marital home. After divorce, 2 acres
5 gunthas of land in Survey No. 16 of Jambhakhurd was given to the petitioner.
Under Rule 1 of Rules made under the Act by Maharashtra Government, notice was
given to the father-in- law of the petitioner, namely, S.More. He filed his
objections, Admittedly, the divorce deed was executed on June 2, 1992 and on
her own admission she made an application to the Patwari for mutation on June
6, 1992 on the date of the issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) and
on the date of issue of notice under Rule 1 mutation was not effected and her
name was not brought on record as an owner of the land. On the other hand, the
holder of the land was admitted her father-in-law and notice was given to him.
The question arises whether the failure to give notice vitiates the enquiry
conducted under Section 5A of the Act and by operation of sub-section (2) of
Section 5A, the proceedings of enquiry are vitiated. It is true that sub-section
(2) of Section 5A as amended by Act 68 of 1984 envisages that notice on the
owner or persons interested on any authorised person on his behalf shall be
given and a right of hearing also shall be given, on objections being filed. On
such objections, after making such further enquiry, if any, as he thinks
necessary, the Land Acquisition Officer shall report in respect of the land
whether notified under Section 4 or any different parcel of the land was needed
for the public purpose to the appropriate Government containing his
recommendations on the objections together with the record of the proceedings
held by him for decision of the Government. In this case since holder on record
has already been given notice and he filed his objections after enquiry he was heard,
the omission to give notice to the petitioner who subsequently became owner of
the property does not vitiate the enquiry conducted under Section 5A nor is the
enquiry violative of sub-section (2) of Section 5A. The High Court, therefore,
was right in refusing to interface with the declaration published under Section
6 and notification published under Section 4.
The
special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
Back
Pages: 1 2