AIRCRAFT EMPLOYEES' HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY versus THE SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 424 · Decided: 08-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AIRCRAFr EMPLOYEES' HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOC!ET):'.· 
v. 
B 
THE SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT 
RAJ, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE AND ORS. 
AUGUST 8, 1996 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
C 
Ss.4(1), 5-A, 6(1), Explanation (1)-Stay of land acquisition Proceed-
ings by High Cowt after publication of notification u/s.4( 1) and declaration 
u/s. 6( 1 )-Effect of-lnqui1y u/s.5-A-Objections tO-Oppoinmity of hea1ing 
to land owneri--Notification u/s. 4( 1) published acquiiing ce1tain lands of 
responde11ts 3 to 7-0bjections u/s. 5-A filed by respondents---Neither re.1pon-
D dents nor their cou11sel. appeared even on t/ie adjoumed date of hearing-()b-
jections disposed of-Declaration u/s.6(1) made-Respondellts filed writ 
petitio11-By an inte1im order of High Court further proceedi11gs in the matter 
remai11ed stayed for a peiiod of more than four years-Thereafter the High 
Court allowed the writ petition-Held, High Court en-ed in holding that si11ce 
the proceedings were stayed after declaratio11 u/s.6(1) was published, Explmia-
E 
tio11 1 to s. 6 was not applicable and the declaration u/s.6 and Notificatio11 
u/s.4 elapsed-Notification u/s.4(1) was published on 24.11.1981-Declara-
tion u/s.6(1) was published on 28.10.1982--Wiit petition was filed thereafter 
and stay was granted-Jn the inten-egnum Govemment was disabled to take 
further proceedings-Therefore it cannot be said that though the stay was 
F gra11ted, the notification u/s.4( 1) and the declaratio11 u/s.6 elapsed for failure 
of Govemment to take further action i11 pursuance of s.4( 1) of the Act, within 
three years penod-T71e words 'in pursuance of occuning in s.4(1), would be 
read widely to give effect to the steps to be taken i11cluding the inquiry u/s.5-A 
and declaration u/s.6 and ftuther action tltereafter--The restricted interpreta-
tion given by tlte High Cowt is illegal-Respondents were given oppo1tunity 
G thrice to file objections u/s.5-A-On the adjo11111ed date of hearing neither the 
respondents nor their counsel appeared-Respondents denied themselves the 
opporttmity of hearing-Neither inqui1y u/s.5-A nor declaration u/s.6 is 
vitiated by any ennr of law. 
H 
Words and Phrases : Expression 'in pursuance of occuning in s.4(1) 
424 
AIRCRAFTEMPLOYEFS'HSG. CO.OP. SOCY LTD.v. SECY. RURAL DEV.AND PANCHA YATRAJ 
425 
of Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Meaning of 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3961 of 
1988. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.10.87 of the Karnataka High 
Court in W.A. No. 1762 of 1987. 
K.R. Nagaraja, for the Appellant. 
Prem Parsad Juneja and M. Veerappa for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
An interesting question of law has been raised in this case. Notifica-
tion under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition, 1894 (1of1894) (for short, 
B 
c 
the 'Act') was published in the State Gazette on September 24, 1981 
acquiring an extent of 137 acres of land for housing scheme of the appel-
D 
!ant. We are concerned with 2 acres 28 gunthas of land belonging to the 
respondent Nos. 3 to 7 in this appeal. The objections under Section 5-A of 
the Act were filed by the respondents on November 12, 1981. He appeared 
through counsel on November 21, 1981 and sought further time to file 
further objections. The matter was posted for November 25, 1981. He filed 
a memo stating that the additional objections already filed on November E 
12, 1981 would be treated as on record and sought time for hearing and 
accordingly the matter was posted for November 30, 1981 on which date 
the respondent appeared neither in person nor through counsel. The Land 
Acquisition Officer, therefore, considered the objections and submitted his 
·report to the Government for consideration by his proceedings dated f 
January 12, 1982. The Government after considering the objections and the 
report and on rejection thereof published the declaration under Section 
6(1) in the Gazette on o'ctober 28, 1982. Thereafter, the respondent filed 
Writ Petition No. 43227/82 sometime in October 1982. The High Court 
directed stay of further proceedings. The High Court in the impugned G 
judgment dated May 27, 1987 held that the enquiry under Section 5-A was 
vitiated on account of failure to give opportunity of hearing to the respon-
dents on the objections. Since the writ petition came to be filed after the 
declaration under Section 6 was published, Explanation 1 to 6 is not 
attra

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.