NANDATAIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 1021
- Decided
- 10 September 1996
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The omission of notice to a subsequent owner does not vitiate the enquiry under Section 5A when the recorded owner has been duly notified and heard.
Summary
The petition arose from a land acquisition proceeding where a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published and notice under Rule 1 was served on the father‑in‑law, who was the recorded owner of the land at the time. The petitioner, who had obtained the land through a divorce settlement, had not yet effected mutation of title and therefore was not the owner on record when the notice was served. The father‑in‑law filed objections and was heard, while the petitioner received no notice. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the failure to give notice to the subsequent owner vitiated the enquiry required under Section 5A (Section SA) of the Act. The Court held that because the person who was the legal owner on record was duly notified and heard, the omission of notice to the petitioner did not invalidate the enquiry. Consequently, the High Court’s refusal to interfere with the declaration under Section 6 and the notification under Section 4 was affirmed, and the special leave petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the omission of notice to a subsequent owner, who was not the recorded owner at the time of the acquisition notice, vitiates the enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 4, s. 5A, s. 6
Subjects
Judgment
.•
A NANDATAI
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 10, 1996
...
,.
B [K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
Sections 4, SA and 6-Enquiry under S.5A-Landholder given
notice-He filed his objections and was heard-Subsequent transfer of
c land-Omission to give notice to the subsequent owner-Does not vitiate the
I::
enquiry-High Court right in refusing to interfere with the declaration and the
notification published.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition No.
D 17207 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.3.96 of.the Bombay High
Court in W.P. No. 3161 of 1993.
Uday Umesh Lalit for the Petitioner.
E
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
This special leave petition arises from the judgment and order of the
Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, made on March 8, 1996 in W.P. No.
'--'
3161 of 1983. The admitted position is that notification under Section 4(1)
F of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the 'Act') was
published in the Gazette and thereafter it was published in the locality on
September 15, 1992. The land originally belonged to Sudam Z. More, the
father- in-law of the petitioner. It would appear that at a family settlement
due to incompatibility of the petitioner in living with her husband, mutual
divorce was effected in consideration of her walking out from marital
G home. After divorce, 2 acres 5 gunthas of land in Survey No. 16 of
Jambhakhurd was given to the petitioner. Under Rule 1 of Rules made ·-
under the Act by the Maharashtra Government, notice was given to the
father-in-law of the petitioner, namely, S. More. He filed his objections.
Admittedly, the divorce deed was executed on June 2, 1992 and on her own
H admission she made an application to the Patwari for mutation on June 6,
776
NANDATA!v. STATE 777
1992 on the date of the issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) and A
on the date of issue of notice under Rule 1 mutation was not effected and
her name was not brought on record as an owner of the land. On the other
hand, the holder of the land was admittedly her father-in-law and notice
.,, was given to him. The question arises : whether the failure to give notice
vitiates the enquiry conduc,ted under Section SA of the Act and by opera-
B
tion of Sub-sectiq_n (2) of Section SA; the proceedings of enquiry are
vitiated. It is true that sub-section (2) of Section SA as amended by Act 68
of 1984 envisages that notice on the owner or persons interested or any
authorised person on his behalf shall be given and a right of hearing also
shall be given, on objections being filed. On such objections, after making
such further enquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, the Land Acquisition C
Officer shall report in respect of the land whether notified under Section
4 or any different parcel of the land was needed for the public purpose to
the appropriate Government containing his recommendations on the ob-
jections together with the record of the. proceedings held. by him for
decision of the Government. In this case since holder on record has already D
been given notice· and he filed his objections after enquiry he was heard,
the omission to give notice to the petitioner who subsequently became
owner of the property does not vitiate the enquiry conducted under Section
SA nor is the enquiry violative of sub-section (2) of Section SA. The High
Court, therefore, was right in refusing to interfere with the declaration
published under Section 6 and notification published under Section 4. E
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
G.N. Petition dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.