RAMBHAI LAKHABAI BHAKT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner at length, we find that it is not a fit case for interference. It is seen that admittedly a notice was issued under Sec. 5-A to the petitioner on 18-7-1991 calling upon the petitioner to submit his written objections, if any, and it was stated specifically in the notice thus :

(2.) The petitioner was informed that if he had objection in respect of the acquisition of his land, pursuant to the notification under the said Act, he should, personally or through his authorised representative or advocate, make representation in that behalf to the Deputy Collector and the Land Acquisition Officer, Shri Vyas, within 30 days from the date of the publication of the public notice. At the time of producing objections for the facts stated by him, his authorised representative or himself or his advocate would also be heard. Pursuant thereto, admittedly, the petitioner had sent his objections by post. But he did not personally appear nor appeared through an advocate. The objections had been considered and a report had been submitted to the State Government. Pursuant thereto, after considering the report, the declaration under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1890 as amended under Act 68 of 1984 was published on 16-7-1992 as per the procedure prescribed therein.

(3.) The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the notification published under Sec. 4(1) on 25-6-1991 and also the declaration. The principal contention raised in the High Court was that since no personal hearing had been given to the petitioner, it is violative of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 5-A of the Act. Sub-sec. (2) contemplates thus: