NAGAR VALLABHBHAI PATEL; ERACH NASARVANJI DAMANIA; NAVROJI RUSTOMJI LUTH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & 5 OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Certain agricultural lands situated in the village of Kachigam, Nani Daman were notified on 11th January, 1984, to be likely to be needed for the public purpose of extension of the existing industrial estate at Kachigam, Nani Daman. The said Notification was followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 2nd March, 1985. Some parties challenged the said Notification under Section 6 inter alia, on the ground that they had filed objections under Section 5A of the Act and the same had been decided without being given a personal hearing to them. The said Notification under Section 6 was quashed by this Court by Judgment dated 8th April, 1986, and thereafter a fresh notification under Section 6 was issued on 25th November, 1987 and Published on 4th December, 1987, in the Government Gazzette. This notification was published after a fresh hearing was given to all the parties whose lands were sought to be acquired.

(2.) The petitioners in these Petitions are owners of some pieces of land sought to be acquired under the said Notification. They challenge the Notification under Section 6, mainly on ground that the said Notification under Section 6 was issued after the expiry of one year over the publication of the Notification under Section 4. They also contend that the acquisition proceedings are mala fide, fraudulent and in a colourable exercise of power.

(3.) It is not necessary for us to deal with the second challenge of the petitioners, since the Petitions succeed on the first ground itself. In fact, Mr. Bharne, the learned Additional Government Advocate, fairly conceded that the Notification under Section 6 earlier published in this case had been quashed as a whole by this Court by Judgment dated 8th April, 1986 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 80 and 81, both of 1985, and therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer had given a notice for personal hearing of all the parties whose lands were sought to be acquired under the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Additional Government Advocate merely contended that since the acquisition proceedings had been initiated prior to the amending Act of 1984, the procedure to be followed was under the old Act and not under the new one.