9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (8) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt quashed the notification mainly on the ground that the Land Acquisition Collector gave no opportunity to the appellant of being heard in respect of the objections filed under s. 5A of the Act. The respondent (Lt. Governor of Delhi) filed a Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench. The Division Bench allowed the appeal. This appeal, by certificate, has been filed against that judgment. The Delhi Administration issued a notification under s. 4 of the Act on November 13, 1959 stating that land measuring about 34070 acres was needed for a public purpose. The notification specifically excluded from its purview land under graveyards, tombs, shrines and the land attached to religious institutions and wakf property . The appellant, a so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enquiry was made in respect of the land in question subsequent to July 27, 1962. In that report, the Collector, after noting the lands and houses in respect of which Shri Mandir Sita Ramji had filed objections, made the following report: Decision may kindly be taken after the inspection of the site . Thereafter, it is common ground, that the Delhi Administration did not give a hearing to the appellant before publishing the declaration. It was on the basis of these circumstances that the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the appellant was given no opportunity of being heard under s. 5A of the Act. When the appeal came up for hearing before the Division Bench, the Division Bench felt that an oppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use against it. Merely because the Government may not choose to accept the recommendation of the Land Acquisition Collector, even when he makes one, it cannot be said that he Reed not make the recommendation at all but leave it to the Government to decide the matter. In other words, the fact that the Collector is not the authority to decide the objection does not exonerate him from his duty to hear the objector on the objection and make the recommendation. The objection in substance was that the lands in question were attached to a religious institution and were therefore, immune from being acquired under the notification. That was how the Land Acquisition Collector understood the objection. The objection raised a mixed question of law a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... institution. As the objection raised questions of fact, the Land Acquisition Collector should have enquired into them and should have made his recommendation as provided in s. 5A. The failure of the Land Acquisition Collector to inquire into the objection after giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard would show that he declined to exercise his jurisdiction under the section. As we said, the fact that the ultimate decision has to be made by the State Government did not relieve the Collector from his statutory duty to enquire into the objection and make the recommendation. We see no reason why the Division Bench should have departed from the procedure prescribed by the statute. The observance of the procedure laid down by statute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
