Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 66 of 1998
PETITIONER:
Tej Kaur & Ors., etc.
RESPONDENT:
State of Punjab & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/03/2003
BENCH:
K.G. Balakrishnan & P. Venkatarama Reddi.
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
The appellants in these two appeals are land-owners whose land was
acquired for the purpose of starting an "Industrial Focal Point" by the State of
Punjab. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was
published on 7.5.1991. Appellants in Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1998 filed objections
on 13.6.1991. Section 6 declaration was made on 18.3.1992 and the award was
passed on 15.3.1994. The appellants filed writ petitions before the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana, challenging the acquisition proceedings. The
Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions and aggrieved by
the same, the present appeals are filed.
Though the appellants had raised several grounds in the writ petitions,
those grounds were not urged before us. The appellants urged only two
grounds, namely : there was no Section 5A inquiry and the appellants were
not given personal hearing regarding the objections filed by them; and secondly,
the lands owned by them were liable to be exempted as the acquired lands
were agricultural lands.
In Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1998, the counsel for the appellants
contended that though Section 5A inquiry was mandatory, no such inquiry
was conducted in the instant case and that after the declaration under Section 6
of the Land Acquisition Act was made, the award was passed within a short
period and, therefore, the subsequent proceedings are illegal. In support
of his contention, learned counsel relied on the decision in Farid Ahmed
Abdul Samad & Anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad &
Anr. (1976) 3 SCC 719 wherein this Court held that personal hearing
under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act is mandatory and does not rest
on person’s demand for personal hearing.
Another decision relied on is Shri Mandir Sita Ramji vs. Lt. Governor of
Delhi & Ors. (1975) 4 SCC 298. In that case, this Court held that the duty of
the Land Acquisition Officer to afford opportunity of being heard under Section
5A of the Act is mandatory and that a decision by Government on the objection,
when the Collector afforded no opportunity of being heard to the objector,
would not be proper. The power to hear the objection under Section 5A is
that of the Collector and not of the appropriate Government. Merely because
the Government may not choose to accept the recommendation of the Land
Acquisition Collector, even when he makes one, it can not be said that he need
not make the recommendation at all but leave it to the Government to decide the
matter.
Similarly, in the decision in Shyam Nandan Prasad & Ors. vs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
State of Bihar & Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 255, this Court observed that affording of
opportunity of being heard to the objector during inquiry under Section 5A is a
must and that this provision embodies a just and wholesome principle that a
person whose property is being, or is intended to be, acquired, should have the
occasion to persuade the authorities concerned that his property be not touched
for acquisition.
It is true that Section 5A inquiry is an important stage in the
acquisition proceedings and a person who is aware of Section 4(1) Notification
can raise objection to the effect that his property is not required for acquisition
and he is also at liberty to raise the contention that the property is not required
for any public purpose. It is also true, that the objector must also be given a
reasonable opportunity of being heard and any violation of the procedure
prescribed under Section 5A would seriously prejudice the rights of the owner of
the property whose land is sought to be acquired. In the instant case,
however, it is pertinent to note that the Collector had, in fact, conducted the
Section 5A inquiry, though there is no material on record to show that the
appellants in Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1998 were heard in person. The facts and
circumstances of Civil Appeal No. 66/1998 clearly show that the
objection raised by the appellants was considered and partly allowed by the
Collector. About eight acres of land was sought to be acquired from the
appellants as per the Notification, but out of that, an extent of six acres
was excluded from acquisition and only one and half acre of land was
actually acquired by the authorities. This would clearly show that the objection
filed by the appellants was considered by the Collector. Moreover, Section 6
Declaration was made on 18.3.1992 and the award was passed on 15.3.1994.
The appellants filed the writ petition only on 12.4.1994. In spite of the
Section 6 Declaration having been made on 18.3.1992, the appellants allowed
the acquisition proceedings to go on until the award was passed. This fact
clearly indicates that the appellants did not have a genuine grievance against
Section 5A inquiry held by the Collector. Therefore, we are not inclined to
interfere with the judgment on the grounds now advanced by the appellants.
As regards Civil Appeal No. 67 of 1998, the appellants did not raise any
objection within a reasonable time after Section 6 Declaration was made.
The possession of the land itself was given to the third parties for the
purpose of starting the industry. Moreover, the land of the appellants is
surrounded completely by other plots which are acquired and sought to be
used for industrial purposes. We do not find any justifiable ground to exclude
the appellants’ lands from acquisition. The Division Bench has correctly held
that the appellants were not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in
the writ petition.
In view of the above, we see no merit in these appeals which are
dismissed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.