Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. Compliance with procedural requirements under Sections 4, 5A, and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. Jurisdiction and discretion of the High Court in dismissing the writ petition in limine. 4. Rights of purchasers of land after the issuance of the notification under Section 4. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act: The notification under Section 4 is the foundation of a proceeding for acquisition of land. In this case, the notification did not precisely set out the parts of Khasra No. 2030 belonging to different owners sought to be acquired. The notification merely indicated the areas intended to be acquired out of Khasra No. 2030, but the exact locations could not be ascertained. No plans demarcating the land to be acquired were published or made available to the owners of the land. The appellants contended that they had no opportunity to avail themselves of their statutory right to object to the proposed acquisition under Section 5A due to this lack of precise information. 2. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under Sections 4, 5A, and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act: Section 4 requires the appropriate Government to publish a notification and the Collector to cause public notice of the substance of such notification. The Collector may then enter upon and survey the land. Section 5A allows any person interested in the land to submit objections within thirty days of the notification, and the Collector must hear these objections and submit a report to the Government. Section 6 permits the Government to proceed with the acquisition only after considering the Collector's report. In this case, no order under Section 17(4) was issued, so the owners were entitled to be heard. The appellants argued that they had no opportunity to make their representations because the notification did not inform them that their land was intended for acquisition. The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that the Collector was satisfied with the demarcation and that the issue was one of fact. However, the Supreme Court found that the appellants were entitled to challenge the correctness of the Collector's opinion and that the High Court should have considered the petition on its merits. 3. Jurisdiction and Discretion of the High Court in Dismissing the Writ Petition in Limine: The High Court dismissed the petition in limine, stating it would not determine disputed questions of fact. The Supreme Court held that the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues of both fact and law in a petition under Article 226. The discretion to dismiss a petition in limine must be exercised on sound judicial principles. The High Court should have entertained the petition and called for an affidavit in reply from the respondents instead of dismissing it summarily. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because questions of fact may need to be determined. 4. Rights of Purchasers of Land after the Issuance of the Notification under Section 4: The Municipal Committee argued that the appellants, who purchased the land after the notification under Section 4, had no right to challenge the notification. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that if the notification under Section 4 was vague, the appellants, as purchasers with title to the land, could challenge its validity. The appellants had invested substantial sums in constructing buildings on their plots, and the Court held that they were not debarred from challenging the notification or contending that it did not apply to their lands. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the order of the High Court was set aside. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the High Court with the direction to readmit the petition, consider the affidavits in reply, and dispose of the petition according to law. The costs of the appeal were to be the costs in the petition.
|