NITYANANDA BORA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constipation of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceedings in Land Acquisition Case No. 4/ 92 and the notification dated 5.7.1996 under Sections 4 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') and the declaration dated 31.8.1996 under Section 6 of the said Act.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that he along with his wife purchased two (2) Kathas of land in Village Japorigog under Beltola Mouza covered by K. Patta No. 64(o)/123(n) and had their names mutated in respect of the said land. After taking possession of the said land, the petitioner constructed a small Assam Type house and a 'Namghar' in a portion of the land. But Land Acquisition Case No. 4/92 was instituted and notification dated 2.9.1994 was issued stating that 61/2 lechas' of the aforesaid land belonging to the petitioner was likely to be needed for a public purposes, viz., for construction of Arunachal Path. By the said notification objections were invited to the acquisition under Section 5A of the Act. The petitioner submitted an objection on 13.12.1994 before the Deputy Commissioner,.Kamrup, stating, inter alia, that the proposed Arunachal Path was not required for the persons in the elaka but the same was required for the encroachers of NF Railway's land who were carrying out antisocial and criminal activities and requesting him to cancel the proposal for acquisition of the land. After receiving the said objection, the petitioner was called for hearing 'and on 21.1.1995 the petitioner appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer, Kamrup and produced documents in support of his objection. Thereafter, the petitioner received a notice dated 13.2.1995 from the Land Acquisition Officer informing him that there would be a spot verification on 17.2,1995 and he should remain present on the spot on that day with all relevant documents. The Land Acquisition Officer visited the spot on 17.2.1995 but no action was taken thereafter in the land acquisition proceedings. By letter dated 7.12.1995 of the Government of Assam in the Public Works Department to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, the Deputy Commissioner was informed that on 11.10.1995, the land acquisition case had lapsed as the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act had been issued on 12.10.1994. In the said letter dated. 7-12-1995, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, was requested to submit a fresh draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act along with a draft declaration under Section 6(1) under the urgency clause with a certification under the relevant rules within 15 days. It appears that pursuant to the said request, draft notification and draft declaration were sent by the Deputy Commissioner to the Government and on 5.7.1996 the impugned notification was issued under Sections 4 and 17 and on 31.8.1996 the impugned declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Act declaring that the land was required to be taken by the Government at the public expense for public purposes, viz., construction of Arunachal Path in the village of Japorigog. Thereafter, the petitioner and his wife were informed by notice dated 11.7.. 1997 of the Land Acquisition Officer that a compensation of Rs. .44.274.18 had been fixed for acquisition of the land measuring 61/2 lechase with house, etc. By the said notice, the petitioner and his wife were informed to collect the said amount from the office of the Land Acquisition Officer on 25.7.1997. Aggrieved, the petitioner has moved this Court for appropriate relief and on 8.9.1997 this Court while issuing notice passed an interim order directing the respondent not to take possession of the land from the petitioner.

(3.) At the hearing, Mr. G.K. Bhattacharyya, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would be clear from the letter dated 7.12.1995 of the Government of Assam in the department of Public Works to the Deputy Commissioner that the only ground for invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act and for dispensing with the objection and hearing under Section 5A of the Act was that the delay in submission of fresh notification after lapse of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 11.10.1995 would lead to lapse of sanctioned amount for the purpose of acquisition of the land. According to Mr. Bhattacharyya thjs cannot be a ground for invoking the urgency clause in Section 17 of the Act. He contended that the whole process for acquisition of the land was started in the year 1992 and it lingered from 1992 to 1996 and the authorities could not all of a sudden invoke the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act and dispense with the objection and hearing under Section 5A of the Act. He cited the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh & Ors.. to the effect that compulsory taking of a man's property is a serious matter and hearing him before depriving him is both reasonable and pre-emptive of arbitrariness, and denial of this administrative fairness is constitutional anathema except for good reasons and save in real urgency where public interest does not brook even the minimum time Deeded to give a hearing land acquisition authorities should not, having regard to Articles 14 and 19, dispense with an enquiry. Mr. Bhattacharyya, in particular, relied on the following observations of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case :