9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Validity of land acquisition notification and award, service of notices under relevant sections, legality of subsequent land purchase post notification.
Validity of land acquisition notification and award: The appeal challenged a judgment by the High Court of Bombay regarding the acquisition of land for public purpose. The notification under Section 4(1) for acquiring land was published, followed by a declaration under Section 6 and an award. The High Court set aside the notification due to lack of notices served on certain respondents. However, the Supreme Court noted that Section 4(1) does not require personal notices, only publication in the locality and Gazette, which were complied with. Notices under Section 9 were not served on certain respondents due to mutation issues, making the High Court's decision to quash the acquisition unjustified. Service of notices under relevant sections: The Supreme Court observed that while the original owner was served notice, mutation not being completed for subsequent purchasers led to a lack of notice under Section 9 for them. The Court highlighted that the lack of notice to a purchaser after the award had been made renders their purchase illegal and not binding on the State post notification under Section 4(1). Legality of subsequent land purchase post notification: The Court emphasized that a subsequent purchaser cannot claim rights over land post notification and award. The High Court's decision to quash the acquisition in favor of certain respondents was deemed unjustified. The Court also noted that the Corporation's disinclination to use the land did not matter unless a formal withdrawal notification under Section 48(1) was issued. The appeal was allowed, the writ petition dismissed, and no costs were awarded due to the circumstances.
|
