LAWS(BOM)-1989-9-114

RUKHAM Vs. SUB

Decided On September 15, 1989
Rukham Appellant
V/S
SUB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case is an agricultural landholder owning Survey No.37/7 of village Sindhi (Meghe), District Wardha. A portion of this land ad measuring 90 acres out of total acreage of 3.07 hectares was sought to be acquired for extension of Gaothan and accordingly the Sub-Divisional Officer Land Acquisition Officer, Wardha issued notification dated 18.7.1979 under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (here-in-after referred to as 'the Act') which was published on 30-7-1979. Objections were called by the notice under Sec. 5 of the Act. A person by name Shri Bhake, who claimed to have entered into an agreement for purchase of the said land was the first one to file objections on 17-1-1980. The petitioner also submitted his objections on 22-1-1980, where after the respondent no. 1, Sub-Divisional Officer made an enquiry and submitted his report under Sec. 5A of the Act on 31-1-1980. There was considerable exchange of correspondence between the respondent no. 1 and the Commissioner, respondent no. 2, in regard to the proposal for acquisition of the petitioner's land. The Commissioner, respondent no. 2, in regard to the proposal for acquisition of the petitioner's land. The Commissioner returned the proposal in the first instance on 27-2-1980. Thereafter compliance with the direction was made and the details sought by the respondent no. 2 were also supplied by the respondent no. 1 under various letters. Finally a report was submitted by the respondent no. 1 to the respondent no.2 on 23-2-1981, which was the one about full compliance with the directions given by the respondent no.2 and in answer to all the queries by the latter. Obviously for the reason that this report was then accepted, the notification under Sec. 6 of the Act was issued by the respondent No. 1 on 24-3-1981 and published on 11-6-1981.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that without giving any consideration to the various objections which he had raised initially and also additionally and without giving him any opportunity of being heard in support of these objections, respondent no. 1 proceeded to submit his report and thereafter to publish the notification under section 6 of the Act, both of which thus stood vitiated by reason of non-application of mind to the objections raised by the petitioner. By reason of opportunity being refused to the petitioner to substantiate his objections, both these notifications, therefore, deserve to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) For the State i.e. respondents Nos. 1 and 2 a return was filed specifying all chronological details in regard to the proposal to acquire die said survey No.37/7 of the petitioner and the progress in the matter until issuance of final notification under Sec. 6 of the Act. A categorical denial was therefore made about any additional opportunity in the matter of raising objections or in regard to his being heard over and in support of his objections.