RAMBHAI LAKHANBAI BHAKT versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 272 · Decided: 10-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAMBHAI LAKHANBAI BHAKT 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 
·-' 
APRIL 10, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Section 5A(2}-Land Acquisition-Notice calling upon the owner to 
c file objections in person or through Advocate-Notice also stating that at the 
time of hearing the objections he will be personally heard--l'etitioner filing 
objections by post-Consideration of objection-Awar~Subsequent cha/-
lenge by owner to Notification under section 4( 1) and declaration under 
section 6-Ground that non affording of personal hearing was violative of 
D 
Section 5A(2)-Held not valid. 
Section 6--l'ublication of declaration-Period of limitation--Computa-
tion for. 
In land acquisition proceedings a notice under section SA of the 
\ 
E Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued to the petitioner asking him to file 
objections in respect of the acquisition either personally or through his 
Advocate. The notice also stated that at the time of hearing objections he 
or his advocate would be heard personally. However, the petitioner neither 
personally appeared nor through an advocate bnt sent his objections by 
post. After considering the objections the Government issued a declaration 
F under Section 6. 
The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the Notification issued 
under section 4(1) as well as the declaration under section 6 before the 
High Court on the ground that since no personal hearing was given to him 
G 
it was violative of sub-section (2) of Section SA. 
In this Court it was contended for the petitioner that (i) when the 
petitioner had filed his objections, the Land Acquisition Officer was 
obliged to give further notice fixing a specified date for adduction of 
I 
evidence and personal hearing and since that was not done, it was violative 
f-
H of sub-section(2) of Section SA; and (ii) since the declaration under section 
272 
R.L.£HAKTv. STATE OF GUJARAT 
273 
6 was published beyond one year it was invalid In law. 
A 
"" 
Dismissing the petition, this Court 
HELD: 1. It is unexceptional that when an opportunity of hearing is 
obliged to be given as enjoined under sub-section (2) of section SA of the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the petitioner is entitled to appear and be B 
heard personally or through authorised representative or an advocate, on 
filing the objection to the acquisition. [276-H, 277-A) 
2. Admittedly, the petitioner had not appeared, either in person or 
----
through advocate but had chosen to file his objections through post. It 
would be obvious he did not intend to avail the benefit of bearing while c 
submitting objections. The petitioner having chosen to send the objections 
through post and when the notice did indicate that he was to appear either 
in person or through advocate or authorised representative along with 
objections but failed, then there would be no need to give any further date 
of hearing. Therefore, no fault could be laid at the door or Land Acquisi· D 
tion Officer for not giving opportunity of hearing. [277-F, H, 278-B) 
I 
Shyam Nandan Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. [1993) 4 SCC 
~ 
255 and Sir Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad and Anr. v. The Municipal Cotpora-
tion of the City of Ahmedabad and Anr., [1976) 3 SCC 719, referred to. 
3. Under clause (2) of section 6 the declaration shall be published E 
within one year from the date of the publication of the notification under 
s.4(1). That section clearly adumbrates that one year has to be counted 
from the date of the publication namely In the Gazette or last of the dates 
of publication envisaged thereunder, excluding the time during which 
further proceedings were stayed by the High Court. The last date is F 
referred to as the date of the publication of the notification to reckon one 
year. It would be seen that declaration under section 6 was published 
within one year. of the last of the dates of local publication under sec-
tion4(1). [278-D, El 
> 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition {C) G 
No. 378 of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.94 of the Gujarat High 
-I 
Court in S.C.A. No. 7965 of 1992. 
Anil B. Diwan, Anii Nauriya and Ms. Indu Goswamy for the H 
274 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995] 3 S.C.R. 
A Petitioner. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner at length, we find 
that it is not a fit case for interference. It is seen that admittedly a notice 
B was issued under Section SA to the pet

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