LexDAHYABHAI RANCHHODDAS DHOBI AND ANR. versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 8 S.C.R. 575 DAHYABHAI RANCHHODDAS DHOBI AND ANR. A v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5882 of 2010) JULY 23, 2010 [P. SATHASIVAM AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894: B s.5A - Hearing/enquiry under - Plea of landowners that c hearing uls. 5A not held - Held: The affidavit of land acquisition officer specifically stated that hearing of objections was fixed from time (o time and landowners were heard through their lawyers - In view of specific information, it is incorrect to say that enquiry/hearing in terms of s.5A was not D held. s. 6(2) - Locality publication - s. 6 notification published in gazette and public notice displayed at the office of Mamlatdar of the concerned ward - Therefore it is incorrect to say that no publication of notice in the locality u/s. 6(2) was E effected. s. 11 A - Award - Limitation - s. 6 notification published on 19.4.1990-Award uls. 11A published on 18.4.1992- Held: Award published within 2 years from publication of s. 6 F notification. Acquired land - Plea that land was designated as residential and hence authorities cannot establish a school thereon - Held: Not tenable as land in question was reserved for school in the sanctioned development plan u/s. 17 of G Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 - It is for the authorities to take a decision understanding the need and necessity of establishing primary school in the area. 575 H 576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R. A The respondent-State initiated acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of construction of school on the suit land owned by the appellants. The appellants challenged the acquisition proceedings on the ground that there was no B hearing/enquiry in terms of Section SA of the Act; that the locality publication was not effected under Section 6(2); that the award under Section 11 A was not passed within two years from the date of last publication of notification under Section 6 which vitiated the acquisition c proceeding; that after change of classification of the suit land namely, residential use, the respondents could not establish a prima~y school; and that in view of the fact that the area was designated as residential congested by houses on either side, it was not a fit place for 0 establishing a school. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. With regard to the first objection as to the enquiry under Section SA of the Land Acquisition Act, E 1894, though the appellants stated that they were npt given an opportunity of being heard, however, in the counter affidavit filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Surat before the High Court it was specifically asserted that notification under Section 4 in the Official F Gazette was published on 09.03.1989, public notice was displayed at the office of Mamlatdar of the concerned Ward on 20.04.1989 and hearing of objections under Section SA was fixed on 20.0S.1989. In para 4 of the counter affidavit, the Land Acquisition Officer specifically stated that appellants were given several opportunities G for hearing their objections from time to time. The hearing was fixed on 29.05.1989, OS.06.1989, 12.06.1989, 20.09.1989, 28.09.1989 and 16.10.1989 and the appellants were heard through their lawyer. In view of the above H DAHYABHAI RANCHHODDAS DHOBI AND ANR. v. 577 STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. specific information, the contention contrary to the same A is liable to be rejected. [Para 8] [582-F-H; 583-A-B] 2. With regard to the second objection that locality publication was not effected under Section 6(2) of the Ac.t, in the same counter affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition 8 Officer, it was asserted that publication of notification under Section 6 was published in the Gazette dated 21.03.1990. Public Notice displayed at the office of Mamlatdar of the concerned Ward on 19.04.1990. In the light of the said information, the claim that no publication C of notice in the locality under Section 6(2) cannot be accepted. [Para 9] [583-B-C] Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India and Ors. (2009) 6 SCC 398; Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and Anr. v. Makrand Singh and Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 497; Eugenio Misquita and D Ors. v. State of Goa and Ors.(1997) 8 SCC 47; S.H, Rangappa v. State of Karnataka and Anr. (2002) 1 SCC 538; . General Manager, Department of Telecommunications, Thiruvananthapuram v. Jacob Slo Kochuvarkey
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.