Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
NANDATAI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/09/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
FAIZAN UDDIN (J)
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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.