GOJER BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS

Citation: [2013] 12 S.C.R. 489 · Decided: 28-11-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 12 S.C.R. 489 
GOJER BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED 
v. 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 10757-58 of 2013) 
NOVEMBER 28, 2013 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
A 
B 
s.5-A rlw s.4(1) and 6- Non-compliance of s. 5-A - Effect c 
of - Land in question acquired at the instance of school, after 
decree of eviction against school had been upheld by all 
courts including Supreme Court - Objections of land-owner 
summarily rejected - Writ petition dismissed by single Judge 
- Division Bench of High Court going into merits of objections D 
and rejecting the same - Held: Non-consideration of 
objections filed uls 5A(1) has resulted in denial of effective 
opportunity of hearing to appellant -
The manner in which 
the Jbint Secretary to the Government approved the 
recommendation made by Land Acquisition Collector E 
favouring acquisition of the property is reflective of total non-
application of mind by the competent authority -
Division 
Bench of High Court by going into merits of objections raised 
by appellants, has substituted itself for Land Acquisition 
Collector which was clearly impermissible - Judgments of F 
single Judge and Division Bench of High Court are set aside 
- Notification issued uls 4(1) would be deemed to have lapsed 
with passage of time - Time allowed to Management to shift 
the school at alternate site, and further directions issued. 
The appellant had leased the land In question to one 
G 
'KH', who set up a school thereon. The appellant filed a 
title suit for eviction of 'KH' on the ground of breach of 
condition of lease. During the pendency of the suit, 'KH' 
constituted a trust for running the school and handed 
489 
H 
490 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 
A over the management of the school to the trust. The suit 
was decreed and the decree was consistently sustained 
by appellate courts including the Supreme Court. 
Thereafter, the management of the school approached 
the State Government for acquisition of the land in 
B question. The State Government issued a notification 
dated 9.6.2005, u/s 4(1) of the Act. The appellant filed 
objections dated 22.6.2005 u/s 5A(1) of the Act. The Land 
Acquisition Collector recommended that the land be 
acquired for the purpose of school. The Joint Secretary 
c to the State Government approved the recommendation 
and the State Government issued declaration u/s 6(1) of 
the Act. The appellant challenged the notification issued 
u/s 4(1) and the declaration issued u/s 6(1) in a writ 
petition on the grounds that neither the Land Acquisition 
0 Collector nor the State Government applied mind to the 
objections filed u/s 5A(1) and the exercise undertaken in 
terms of s.5A(2) read with s.6(1) was an eye wash. The 
Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. The Division 
Bench of the High Court went into the merits of the 
E objections and rejected the same. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The ambit and s1:ope of s.5A of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 has been considered by this Court 
F in several judgments. If the report prepared by the Land 
Acquisition Collector in the instant case is scrutinized in 
the light of the principles laid down in the judgments of 
this Court, the Single Judge and the Division Bench of 
the High Court committed serious error by approving the 
G acquisition proceedings ignoring that the report was 
prepared in clear violation of mandate of s.5A and the 
State Government mechanically accepted the report 
leading to the issuance of declaration u/s 6(1). In the 
original and supplementary objections filed by the 
H appellant, it had claimed that the entire exercise of 
GOJER BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED v. STATE OF 491 
WEST BENGAL 
acquisition was vitiated due to malafides and colourable 
A 
exercise of power. The history of litigation between the 
parties was also cited by the appellant to substantiate its 
plea that the acquisition proceedings were initiated only 
after the management of the school lost legal battle up 
to this Court. It was also pleaded that the acquisition was 
B 
meant to bye-pass the direction given by this Court to the 
management of the school to handover the possession 
of the school. The Land Acquisition Collector did not deal 
with any of the objections and summarily rejected the 
same as if compliance of s.5A(2) was an empty formality. c 
The State Government also did not apply mind and 
mechanically approved the one line recommend

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