1976 (7) TMI 170 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the acquisition order under Section 284J of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.
2. Applicability of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. Requirement of personal hearing for objections under Section 5A.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Acquisition Order:
The appeal questions whether the acquisition order passed by the Municipal Commissioner u/s 284J of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, is invalid and void due to non-compliance with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad authorized the Commissioner to provide housing for the poorer classes, leading to the compulsory acquisition of land, including 1694 sq. yds. belonging to the appellants. The acquisition order was published, and objections were invited but no personal hearing was given to the appellants.

2. Applicability of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act:
The appellants contended that Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, which mandates a personal hearing for objections, was not complied with. The City Civil Court and the High Court of Gujarat held that the principles of natural justice were satisfied and that Section 5A was duly complied with. However, the Supreme Court found that Section 5A is clearly a part of the Bombay Act as per Appendix I, and its provisions, including the right to a personal hearing, are applicable.

3. Requirement of Personal Hearing:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the heart of Section 5A is the hearing of objections, and a personal hearing is mandatory. The Court rejected the argument that the appeal provision under Schedule B of the Bombay Act substitutes the need for a personal hearing. The appeal court's scope is limited and does not cover all relevant objections that the Commissioner can consider. The Supreme Court concluded that the acquisition order and its confirmation by the State Government are invalid due to the lack of a personal hearing.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and quashed the acquisition order. The Commissioner is directed to give a personal hearing to the appellants as required u/s 5A(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and dispose of the matter in accordance with the law. No order as to costs was made.