Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1391 of 1999
PETITIONER:
Swasthya Raksha Samiti Rati Chowk
RESPONDENT:
Chaudhary Ram Harakh Chand (D) by LRs. & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/02/2005
BENCH:
N.Santosh Hegde,B.N.Srikrishna & P.K.Balasubramanyan
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
SANTOSH HEGDE,J.
This appeal is placed for final hearing before this Bench on a
reference made by a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court.
The question involved in this appeal pertains to the nature of
enquiry to be conducted under Rule 4(2)(iii) of the Land
Acquisition (Company) Rules, 1963. The referring Bench noticed a
judgment of this Court in the case of Shyam Nandan Prasad & Ors.
vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (1993 (4) SCC 255) which held that
compliance of Rule (4) is not only mandatory but a notice of the
said enquiry should also be given to the land owners concerned.
The said judgment had noticed three earlier judgments of this
Court in the case of State of Gujarat & Anr. vs. Patel Chaturbhai
Narsibhai & Ors. (1975 (1) SCC 583), State of Gujarat & Ors. vs.
Ambalal Haiderbhai & Ors. (1976 (3) SCC 495) and General
Government Servants Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Agra vs.
Shri Wahab Uddin & Ors. (1981 (2) SCC 352) which also took
similar views.
The referring Bench, however, felt that though the enquiry
under Rule (4) is mandatory, issuance of notice to the land owners
of such enquiry is not mandatory, because they will anyway be
heard in Section 5A (L.A Act) enquiry even in regard to the
validity of the acquisition in favour of a company.
It is in view of the above doubt entertained by the Division
Bench the matter is referred to a larger Bench.
So far as the judgments of this Court cited herein above are
concerned, they do hold that Rule (4) is not only mandatory but
that the notice of the said enquiry has to be given to the land
owners. The above judgments, however, have not taken into
consideration an earlier 5-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in
the case of Babu Barkya Thakur vs. The State of Bombay & Ors.
(1961 (1) SCR 128) wherein this Court indicated that all the
requirements of Part VII of the Act especially Section 40 could be
considered in Section 5A enquiry itself which would include all
and any objection of the land owners including the objection in
regard to the acquisition in favour of a company. This judgment of
the 5-Judge Bench of this Court in our view seems to support the
doubt entertained by the referring Bench.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we are
also of the opinion that since the objections that could possibly be
raised in Rule (4) enquiry can also be raised in a Section 5A
enquiry and in the absence of any specific requirement in Rule (4)
as to the issuance of notice to the land owners of being heard in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
such an enquiry, hearing the land owners at the stage of Rule (4)
enquiry would lead only to duplication and cause delay. Since the
judgment of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Patel
Chaturbhai Narsibhai (supra) and State of Gujarat vs. Ambalal
Haiderbhai (supra) as also the judgment of General Government
(supra) are judgments of 3-Judge Bench and the said Bench having
not noticed the observations of this Court in the case of Babu
Barkya Thakur (supra). We think it appropriate to refer this matter
to a larger Bench.
For the reasons stated above, we direct the office to place
the papers of this appeal before Hon. the Chief Justice of India for
appropriate orders.