9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Notification dated February 6, 1975, issued u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. Allegations of mala fide acquisition proceedings. 3. Legality of the notice served under Section 4(1) of the Act. 4. Jurisdictional issues regarding the plot number in the notification. 5. Validity of the corrigendum notification dated March 13, 1975. 6. Compliance with the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963. Summary: Issue 1: Validity of the Notification dated February 6, 1975, issued u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act The Supreme Court examined whether the notification and the subsequent corrigendum complied with the mandatory requirements of Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court held that the notification was invalid as the substance of the notification was not published in the locality, which is a mandatory requirement. The Court upheld the High Court's finding that the failure to publish the substance of the notification rendered the proceedings void. Issue 2: Allegations of mala fide acquisition proceedings The petitioner argued that the acquisition was initiated by the Sammelan to thwart the construction of a cinema theatre on Plot No. 26, rather than for any genuine public purpose. The Supreme Court found that the Sammelan had ample land lying vacant and unutilized for over a quarter of a century, and the purported need for additional land was a pretext. The Court concluded that the acquisition was a colorable exercise of power and was initiated for extraneous and irrelevant purposes, thus constituting legal mala fides. Issue 3: Legality of the notice served under Section 4(1) of the Act The petitioner contended that the notice under Section 4(1) was served only two days before the deadline for filing objections under Section 5-A, rendering the proceedings illegal. The Court did not specifically address this issue in detail but focused on the broader non-compliance with Sec. 4(1). Issue 4: Jurisdictional issues regarding the plot number in the notification The initial notification incorrectly referred to Plot No. 62 instead of Plot No. 26. The corrigendum later corrected this error. The Court found that the failure to publish the substance of the corrigendum in the locality further invalidated the notification. Issue 5: Validity of the corrigendum notification dated March 13, 1975 The corrigendum was issued to correct the plot number and area in the initial notification. However, the Court held that the corrigendum was also invalid as its substance was not published in the locality, thereby failing to comply with the mandatory requirements of Sec. 4(1). Issue 6: Compliance with the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 The petitioner argued that the acquisition for the Sammelan, a company, was invalid due to non-compliance with Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963. The Supreme Court did not delve deeply into this issue, as the acquisition was already deemed invalid on grounds of mala fides and non-compliance with Sec. 4(1). Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the impugned notification on the grounds of failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Sec. 4(1) and legal mala fides. The appeal by the Collector and the Land Acquisition Officer was dismissed, and the petitioner's appeal was partly allowed.
|
