9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Lack of Section 5A inquiry and personal hearing regarding objections filed by land-owners. 2. Exemption of acquired lands as agricultural lands. 3. Timeliness of objections and possession of land in Civil Appeal No. 67 of 1998. Issue 1: Lack of Section 5A Inquiry and Personal Hearing: The appellants contended that a Section 5A inquiry was mandatory, but none was conducted in their case. They relied on legal precedents like Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad & Anr. vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad & Anr. and Shri Mandir Sita Ramji vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. to support their argument that personal hearing under Section 5A is crucial and not dependent on the objector's request. The Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of Section 5A inquiry, emphasizing that the objector must have a fair opportunity to be heard to prevent prejudice to the land-owner's rights. However, the Court noted that the Collector did conduct a Section 5A inquiry in this case, even though there was no evidence of personal hearing for the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1998. The Court observed that the Collector partially allowed the objections raised by excluding a significant portion of the land from acquisition. Despite the Section 6 Declaration being made earlier, the appellants delayed challenging the acquisition until after the award was passed, indicating a lack of genuine grievance against the inquiry. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the judgment based on the new grounds raised by the appellants. Issue 2: Exemption of Acquired Lands as Agricultural Lands: The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1998 argued that their lands should be exempted as they were agricultural lands. However, the Court found that the Collector had considered their objections and excluded a substantial portion of the land from acquisition, demonstrating that the objections were indeed taken into account. The Court highlighted that the possession of the land was given to third parties for industrial purposes, and the surrounding plots were also acquired for similar use. Given these circumstances, the Court concluded that there was no valid reason to exempt the appellants' lands from acquisition. The Division Bench's decision denying the reliefs sought in the writ petition was upheld by the Supreme Court. Issue 3: Timeliness of Objections and Possession of Land in Civil Appeal No. 67 of 1998: In Civil Appeal No. 67 of 1998, the appellants failed to raise objections promptly after the Section 6 Declaration was made. Additionally, possession of the land had already been given to third parties for industrial purposes, and the appellants' lands were entirely surrounded by plots earmarked for industrial use. Considering these circumstances, the Court found no valid grounds to exclude the appellants' lands from acquisition. The Division Bench's decision denying the reliefs sought in the writ petition was deemed appropriate by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs. This detailed analysis of the Supreme Court judgment addresses the issues raised by the land-owners regarding the lack of Section 5A inquiry, exemption of lands as agricultural, and the timeliness of objections and possession of land in the respective appeals.
|
