Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • Dharmadhikari
  • Lalit, JJ.
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • Dharmadhikari
  • Lalit, JJ.
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Lalit, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner challenged a notification dated 18 September 1968 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner owned land bearing Survey No. 13 in village Kondari. Two adjoining mouzas (Kondari and Kondri Miira Wakan) have a combined gaothan area of 13 acres 22 gunthas (Kondari: 7 acres 17 gunthas; Kondri Miira: 6 acres 5 gunthas). The Section 4 notification proposed acquisition of 3 acres 11 gunthas from S. No. 13 for the purpose of extending the gaothan of village Kondari.

A Gram Panchayat resolution stated that floods in 1961 had inundated some village houses and recommended acquisition of about 5 acres from class land; the Section 4 notification was issued in pursuance of that resolution. The petitioner received notice, filed written objections, was represented by an advocate, and examined three witnesses in support of her objection. Her principal grounds were that abundant other 'E' class land (about 800 acres) was available; that the petitioner's land was unsuitable because a nalla flowed along its northern side; and that the Gram Panchayat had proposed acquisition of another parcel (S. No. 36), indicating S. No. 13 was unsuitable.

On 21 January 1969 the Land Acquisition Officer / Sub-Divisional Officer (L.A.O./S.D.O.) ordered a spot inspection (scheduled for 5 February 1969). The inspection was in fact carried out on 4 February 1969, when the petitioner's brother was present. After inspection the L.A.O./S.D.O. reported the matter to the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, and subsequently a notification under Section 6 was issued. The petitioner challenged the Section 6 notification in this petition.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was void for vagueness because the Schedule did not describe precisely the land to be acquired.
  2. Whether the acquisition selected the best-suited land for the declared public purpose (extension of gaothan), in particular given the Gram Panchayat's resolution proposing S. No. 36 and the asserted availability of other 'E' class land.
  3. Whether the petitioner was denied the opportunity of being heard as required by Section 5-A (2) of the Land Acquisition Act (i.e., whether the procedure under Section 5-A afforded a proper hearing after evidence was led and inspection conducted).

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments (as advanced by Mr. Chandurkar)

  • The Section 4 notification was vague because the Schedule did not describe the specific portion of S. No. 13 to be acquired — it only stated an approximate area of 3 acres 11 gunthas.
  • The petitioner's land was not the best-suited land for extension of the gaothan; the Gram Panchayat had resolved that S. No. 36 should be acquired instead, showing S. No. 13 was unsuitable.
  • There was abundant other land (about 800 acres of 'E' class land) available, so acquisition of the petitioner's land was not justified.
  • The petitioner was not given the opportunity of being heard as required by Section 5-A(2); in particular, after evidence was led and after local inspection, the Land Acquisition Officer should have personally heard submissions.
  • Relied on certain unreported decisions (Special Civil Appln. No. 506 of 1968 and No. 216 of 1968) and on Pradyumna v. State (1970 Mah LJ Note 25) to support the hearing requirement argument.

Respondents' Position (as recorded in the opinion)

  • The Section 4 notification incorporated availability of a plan at the Land Acquisition Officer's office that clearly delineated the portion of the land proposed to be acquired, enabling identification of the precise parcel despite a brief Schedule description.
  • The State government carried out the relevant inquiries and found the petitioner's land to be the best suited for the gaothan extension; the ultimate decision as to suitability rests with the Government.
  • In the Section 5-A inquiry the availability of other land was considered: the Land Acquisition Officer and the Deputy Engineer inspected the site and reported that the other 'E' class land was on a hilly track and thus unsuitable for gaothan extension.
  • The petitioner was given notice, filed written objections, led evidence (three witnesses), and participated in the inspection (petitioner's brother present); the Land Acquisition Officer considered all points in his report under Section 5-A before the Section 6 notification was issued.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Special Civil Appln. No. 506 of 1968 (decided 22-11-1974, Bom) — unreported Used by petitioner to support the proposition that an objector must be heard; in that decision objectors had not led evidence. The court distinguished it: in the present case the petitioner had led evidence and hence the facts were different and the precedent was not applicable.
Special Civil Appln. No. 216 of 1968 (decided 5-3-1975, Bom) — unreported Similar unreported decision relied on by petitioner where objectors had not led evidence. Distinguished for the same reason — here the petitioner had examined three witnesses, making the cited decision factually distinguishable.
Pradyumna v. State (1970 Mah LJ Note 25) Relied upon by petitioner concerning the hearing/Section 5-A inquiry (the opinion notes it as an authority invoked by counsel). The court observed it was unclear from that report whether an objector had led evidence; because petitioner had led evidence in the present case, the court held the decision would not apply.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court addressed each of the petitioner's contentions in turn and explained its reasoning based on the material before it:

  1. Vagueness of Section 4 notification:
    • The court noted the Schedule in the Section 4 notification stated an approximate area but the notification also expressly indicated that a plan of the lands proposed to be acquired was available for inspection at the Land Acquisition Officer's office.
    • Because the plan clearly delineated the portion proposed to be acquired and the petitioner had a full opportunity to inspect and ascertain which part of S. No. 13 was notified, the court held the land was properly specified and the vagueness argument failed.
  2. Suitability / best-suited-land argument (Gram Panchayat resolution and alternative S. No. 36):
    • The court emphasized that although acquisition proceedings may be initiated on a Gram Panchayat resolution, the ultimate inquiry under the Land Acquisition Act is for the State Government to make and the decision of the State Government as to which land is best suited is final.
    • On the material before it, the State government, after inquiry, had found the petitioner's land best suited for gaothan extension; therefore the petitioner's contention relying on the Gram Panchayat resolution was not sustainable.
  3. Availability of other land (about 800 acres of 'E' class land):
    • The court observed that the question of availability was considered in the Section 5-A inquiry, where the petitioner led evidence.
    • Returns filed by respondents showed that the Land Acquisition Officer and the Deputy Engineer inspected the site and reported that the alleged alternative land was on a hilly track and unsuitable for gaothan extension.
    • Since the relevant factors were taken into account in the Section 5-A inquiry and objections were considered, the court rejected the submission that other land was available and the acquisition was unjustified.
  4. Opportunity of being heard under Section 5-A(2):
    • The court quoted sub-section (2) of Section 5-A (objections must be made in writing and the Collector or Land Acquisition Officer shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard).
    • The court found the petitioner had been given due notice, filed written objections, was represented by an advocate, examined three witnesses, and had a family member present at the site inspection; no further opportunity had been requested by the petitioner.
    • The Land Acquisition Officer's report under Section 5-A addressed the petitioner's points and after consideration the Section 6 notification issued. The court concluded that a proper and reasonable opportunity to be heard had been given and that the proceedings did not suffer from procedural infirmity.
    • The court distinguished the unreported decisions relied on by the petitioner on the ground that in those cases objectors had not led evidence (whereas here the petitioner had examined witnesses), and likewise found Pradyumna v. State inapplicable on the available facts.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

The court's final disposition was to dismiss the petition. The opinion states: the petition is dismissed. The rule is discharged.

Immediate consequences for the parties:

  • The acquisition proceedings (including the Section 6 notification) were upheld; the court found no illegality in the acquisition and no reason to interfere.
  • There was no order as to costs in the circumstances of this case.

Broader implications:

The court confined its decision to the facts and procedure before it: it accepted that availability of a plan for inspection can cure a brief Schedule description in a Section 4 notification; that the State government's assessment of which land is best suited is decisive; and that where an objector has given written objections, led evidence and participated in inspection, the requirements of Section 5-A(2) (opportunity to be heard) may be satisfied without a separate oral hearing after inspection. The opinion did not purport to lay down a broader binding precedent beyond its factual conclusions.

Result: Petition dismissed; rule discharged; no order as to costs.

Show full summary ...

    Mukhtyarbegum v. The Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur And Others

    Lalit, J.:— The petitioner in this petition has challenged the notification dated September 18. 1968 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner owns land bearing S. No. 13 situate at village Kondari. The two villages mouza Kondari and mouza Kondri Miira Wakan adjoin each other. The present Gaothan for the two villages has a total area of 13 acres 22 gunthas. Village Kon dari has a Gaothan of 7 acres 17 gunthas and in village Mouza Kondri Miira the Gaothan extends over an area of 6 acres 5 gunthas. The notification under Section 4 of the Act proposed an acquisition from S. No. 13 belonging to the petitioner to the extent of an area of 3 acres and 11 gunthas. The purpose of acquisition of the said land was for extension of gao than of village Kondari. A resolution was made by the Gram Panchayat of vil lage Kondari and Village Kondri Maiira Wakan whereby it was resolved that on account of floods in the year 1961, some houses in the village were inundated and, therefore, it was necessary to acauire an area of 5 acres from class land. In pursuance of this resolution, the afore said notification under Section 4 was issued. The petitioner was given a notice of this acquisition and she filed objections challenging the proposed acquisition. The grounds taken up to contest the acquisition were mainly that there was other ‘E’ class land available to the extent of about 800 acres and it was not necessary to acquire the land of the petitioner. The other objection was that the land belonging to the petitioner was not suitable for the purposes of extension of the gaothan as a nalla was flowing from the northern side of the petitioner's land. The petitioner also contended that the Gram Pan chavat had proposed the acauisition of another land bearing S. No. 36. which showed that the petitioner's land was not suitable for the purposes of acquisition. When the petitioner filed the objection, the petitioner was represented through an advocate. On behalf of the Petitioner three witnesses were examined in sup port of her objection. On January 21. 1969. the L.A.O/S.D.O made an order that a spot inspection will be made on February 5. 1969. The land was in fact inspected on February 4. 1969 when the brother of the petitioner was present After this spot inspection, the L.A.O.I S.D.O made an order that the case be reported to the Commissioner. Nagpur Division. Subseauently the notification under Section 6 came to be issued. After the notification under Section 6 was issued, the petitioner has challenged this notification.

    2. Mr. Chandurkar, the learned advocate for the petitioner, has canvassed that the notification under Section 4 suffers from vagueness. Mr. Chandurkar has invited our attention to the Schedule attached to this notification. He submits that in the Schedule, the description of the land proposed to be acauired has not been given. It is his contention that all that the Schedule says is that an approximate area of 3 acres 11 gunthas from S. No. 13 was proposed to be acquired. R lving on this description. Mr. Chandurkar argues that as the notification under Section 4 fails to properly specify and des cribe the exact property which was pro posed to be acquired the notification under Section 4 suffers from vagueness. It is not possible for us to accept this contention of Mr. Chandurkar. In the notification issued under Section 4, there is a clear mention that a plan of the lands proposed to be acquired was available for inspection at the office of the Land Acauisition Officer. A portion of the land which was proposed to be acquired was clearly delineated in this plan and the petitioner was given a full opportunity to find out as to which portion of S. No. 13 was notified for acquisition. Even if the notification under Section 4 does not give the description of the area of 3 acres and 11 gunthas, in view of the Plan which was made available as for inspection, we feel that the land was properly specified and identified. As such it is not possible for us to accept this submission of Mr. Chan durkar that the notification under Section 4 was vague.

    3. Mr. Chandurkar has then argued that the land which was sought to be acauired was not the best suited land for the purposes of extension of Gaothan. He submits that when the Gram Panchayat made by resolution, it resolved that an other, land bearing S. No. 36 should be acquired. It is not possible to accept even this submission of Mr. Chandurkar. It may be that the Gram Panchayat had resolved that S. No. 36 should be acquired. But the ultimate enquiry with regard to the proposed acquisition is to be made by the State Government. It may be that the acquisition proceedings were initiated on account of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat. However for the purposes of the land acquisition Act, it is for the Government to decide which land is most suited for the acquisition and the decision of the State Government in this behalf would be final. The State Government in the present case, on making an enquiry, has found that the land of the petitioner was best suited for the purposes of extension of gaothan. We cannot therefore, accept the submission of Mr. Chandurkar in this behalf. Mr. Chandurkar has then canvassed a submission that there was abundant other land available for the purposes of acquisition. He submits that nearly 800 acres of ‘E’ class land was available and the acquisition of the land of the petitioner was not therefore justified. It is not possible for us to agree with this contention of Mr. Chandurkar. In the enauiry under Section 5-A the question about the availability of the other land was taken into account. On this question the petitioner had led evidence and on a consideration of the evidence it has been found that no other suitable land was available. From the return which has been filed on behalf of the respondents, it ap pears that a spot inspection of the site was made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Deputy Engineer also inspected the site and submitted a report. The question as to whether the other land was available was also considered and it was found that it was on a hilly track and, as such, was not suited for the purposes of extension of the gaothan. Since all the relevant factors were taken into account, and the objections in this behalf were properly considered under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. we must reject the sub mission of Mr. Chandurkar.

    4. Lastly Mr. Chandurkar has argued that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing as is required under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Mr. Chandurkar has particularly relied on sub-section (2) of Section 5-A. which is to this effect:

    “(2) Every objection under sub-section (i) shall be made to the Collector or to the Land Acquisition Officer, where he has published a notification under sub section (1) of section 4. in writting, and the Collector or, as the case may be the Land Acquisition Officer shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by Pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under section 4 of sub-section (i). or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land…………”

    5. Mr. Chandurkar argues that in the present case it was necessary to hear the arguments on behalf of the petitioner after the evidence was led by the parties. The grievance of Mr. Chandurkar is that after the local inspection it was necessary for the Land Acquisition Offi cer to personally hear the arguments which could be advanced on behalf of the petitioner. In this context it has to be stated that no such opportunity was ever asked for on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner was given a due notice of the proposed acquisition. The petitioner filed a written statement in support of the objection. The petitioner even exa mined three witnesses. After the evidence was recorded, the site was inspected and at the time of the inspection the brother of the petitioner was present. On these facts it appears to us that proper opportunity was given to the petitioner to show cause against the proposed acquisition. In the report of the Land Acquisition Officer, under Section 5-A. all the points on the basis of which the petitioner wanted to resist the acquisition were considered and after a consideration of these aspects, the notification under Section 6 was issued. In the context of those facts, it does not appear to us that the petitioner can make any grievance that a proper opportunity was not given. Mr. Chandur kar has relied on two unreported decisions of this Court. They are in Special Civil Appln. No. 506 of 1968 decided on 22-11-1974 (Bom) and in Special Civil Appln. No. 216 of 1968 decided on 5-3-1975 (Bom). In these two decisions' the facts were auite distinct. In those cases the parties who objected to the acquisition had not led any evidence. In the case with which we are dealing, we find that the petitioner had appeared through an advocate and had examined three witnesses in sup port of her objection. As such, the above two decisions are clearly distinguishable.

    6. Mr. Chandurkar has also relied on another unreported decision in Pradyumna v. State. (1970 Mah LJ Note 25). There also it is not clear whether the ob jector had led evidence in the enauiry under Section 5-A. As in the present case the petitioner has examined witnesses, this dicision will not apply.

    7. In the present case we are satisfied that due and rea sonable opportunity has been given to the petitioner to show cause against the acquisition and he was properly heard as required under Section 5-A (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The proceedings, there fore, do not suffer from any infirmity.

    8. There is no illegality in the acquisition and we do not see any reason to interfere in this case.

    9. In the result, the petition is dismissed. The rule is discharged. However, in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.

    10. Rule discharged.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Mukhtyarbegum v. The Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur And Others
    (Jul 1, 1975)