9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the cancellation of the notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. Compliance with the mandatory provisions of section 5-A of the Act. 3. Opportunity given to the petitioners for objections under section 5-A. 4. Effectiveness of the fresh notification issued under section 6. Analysis: 1. The judgment involves the challenge of the validity of the cancellation of the notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The court emphasized the importance of the proper sequence of events, stating that the notification canceling the section 6 declaration must appear first in the gazette before giving an opportunity to the petitioners. The court ruled that the cancellation of the notification under section 6 was not valid as the petitioners were not informed until its publication in the gazette, rendering the subsequent actions based on the cancellation invalid. 2. The court examined the compliance with the mandatory provisions of section 5-A of the Act. It highlighted that the purpose of section 5-A is to provide landowners with an opportunity to raise objections to the proposed acquisition. The court found that there was a denial of opportunity and non-compliance with section 5-A in this case, as the petitioners were not adequately informed before the hearing for objections under section 5-A was scheduled, leading to a conclusion of plain injustice and a pretense of compliance. 3. The issue of the opportunity given to the petitioners for objections under section 5-A was closely scrutinized by the court. It was noted that the petitioners were not informed of the cancellation of the earlier notification under section 6 before the hearing date, leading to a lack of proper communication and procedural irregularities. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the provisions of section 5-A and the necessity for proper compliance to ensure fairness in land acquisition proceedings. 4. The effectiveness of the fresh notification issued under section 6 was also a crucial aspect of the judgment. The court ruled that the fresh notification issued on January 16, 1969, under section 6 was invalid due to the procedural flaws and lack of compliance with the statutory requirements. The court highlighted the significance of publication dates and the need for adherence to legal procedures in issuing and canceling notifications under the Land Acquisition Act to uphold the integrity of the acquisition process.
|
