LexM/S. KAMAL TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS MANAV INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD.) versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 529 M/S. KAMAL TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS MANAV INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD.) v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 10878 of 2011) DECEMBER 13, 2011 [G.S. SINGHVI AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] A B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 5A, 4 and 6 - Acquisition of premises for public purpose - Notification and C declaration ulss. 4 and 6 - Challenge to - Writ petition seeking quashing of the Notification - On the ground that report by the Second Land Acquisition Officer was vitiated due to non-compliance of s. 5A(2) and non-application of mind by the concerned officer to the objections u/s. 5A(1) - Dismissed D by the High Court - On appeal, held: Owners were not given any hearing as contemplated under s. 5A(2) which was their substantive right- Report submitted by the Second Land Acquisition Officer was utterly laconic, bereft of any recommendations and not satisfactory - Thus, Notification u/ E s. 4 and declaration u/s. 6 quashed and set aside. s.5A - Right under - Scope of - Held: Proceedings under the LA Act are based on the principle of eminent domain - s. 5A is the only protection available to a person whose lands are sought to be acquired- s.5A(1) gives a right F to any person interested in any land which has been notified that the land is needed for a public purpose to raise objections - Under s.5A(2), Collector has to give the objector an opportunity of being heard - Collector if necessary, can make further inquiry and make a report to the appropriate G Government containing his recommendations on the objections for the decision of the appropriate Government - Hearing contemplated u/s.5A(2) is necessary to enable the Collector to deal effectively with the objections raised against 529 H 530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A the proposed acquisition and make a report - Report of the Collector is not an empty formality - Thereafter, declaration uls. 6 has to be made only after the appropriate Government is satisfied on consideration of the report made by the Collector under Section 5A(2) - Said Act being an ex- B proprietary legislation, its provisions are to be construed strictly. The State of West Bengal requisitioned the floors of the appellant Company along with owner companies under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises C Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947. The appellant came to know that the State Government · instead of releasing the said floors from requisition was planning to acquire the said premises in exercise of its . powers under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The D appellant along with the owner companies filed writ petition seeking direction to the State to release the said floors from requisition. The State Government issued a Notification dated 29/711997 under Section 4 of the LA Act stating that the said floors are needed for the public E purpose and published the same in the Government Gazette. The objections were raised under Section 5A of the LA Act. The Second Land Acquisition Officer issued a notice fixing date of hearing of the objections but adjourned the hearing as requested by the appellant. The F Second Land Acquisition Officer however, refused to adjourn the matter any further. He rejected the second request. It was the appellant's case that while they were waiting for further communication about the date of hearing, the State Government issued a declaration dated G 24/10/1997 under Section 6 of the LA Act wherein it was stated that the Government was satisfied that the said floors were needed for the public purpose and the same was published in the Gazette on 29/1011997. The Special Land Acquisition Officer proceeded to submit report H dated 30/9/1997. The appellants along with the owner KAMAL TRAD. PR. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS MANAV INV & TRAD. CO. 531 LTD.) v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL companies filed writ petition praying for quashing A Notifications dated 29/7/1997 on the grounds that the report submitted by the Second Land Acquisition Officer was vitiated due to violation of the rule of hearing enshrined in Section SA(2) of the LA Act and non- application of mind by the concerned officer to the B objections filed under Section SA(1) of the LA Act. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed both the writ petitions. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal and the same was also dismissed. Therefore, the appellant fi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.