SAM HIRING CO. versus A.R. BHUJBAL AND ORS .

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 475 · Decided: 12-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
• 
) 
' ., 
SAM HIRING CO. 
v. 
A.R. BHUJBAL AND ORS . 
JANUARY 12, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, I 894 : 
Sections 2(7), 2(9), 5-A-Notice under S.5-A---Plea that the tenement in 
ivhich business was carried on was not part o.f the survey No. which was 
acquired-Independent.from that and a 11on-cess payable buildi11g-Ther4ore 
11ot liable to be demolished for acquisition-Was only a tenant and the shed 
part ~f the building--Held, it being .finding of fact no interference called 
for-Need to give.further opportunity a.fter Executive Engineer's report--Does 
not arise-No need to call the Executive Engineer.for cross-examination--Land 
Acquisition Officer not a judic;ial ,or quasi-judicial authority-Hence not re-
quired to elaborately deal with each of the objectio11s and submit his 
report-Since opportunity of hearing given, principle of natural justice com-
plied with. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2503 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.2.94 of the Bombay High Court 
in W.P. No. 2745 of 1987. 
S.K. Dholakia, Mr. Manoj Wad, Ms. Usha Reddy and Ms. J.S. Wad for 
the Appellant. 
M.L. Verma, D.N. Mishra and Sukumaran, for the Respondent No. 10. 
M.N. Shroff, Sanjay Parikh, Ms. Anita Shenoi and D.M. Nargolkar for 
the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We have heard the learned counsel on both sides. This appeal arises 
from the order of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court made in 
Appeal No. 893/92. The facts lying in short compass are stated as under: 
The appellant is the tenant of the land which is a part of City Survey 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
No. 56, which was sought to be acquired under the Maharashtra House & Area H 
475 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
476 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1996] 1 S.C.R. 
Development Act. 1976, (for short, 'Act'). The superstructure in City Survey 
No. 56 was in a dilapidated condition. Therefore, the Bombay Housing and 
Area Development Board had examined the position and decided that a 
scheme was required to be framed under the Act for reconstruction and 
thereafter for allotment to the persons in occupation. When the acquisition 
proceedings were initiated after finalisation of the scheme, notices were given 
.under Section 5-A to the interested persons including the appellant. The 
appellant had raised the contention that the tenement in which it was carrying 
on the business was not part of the City Survey No. 56. It is an independent 
building and, therefore, it is not liable to be demolished for acquisition. Based 
upon that objection, a report was called for from the Executive Engineer who 
submitted the report thereon to the Land Acquisition Officer. After considering 
the report, he submitted a proposal for proceeding with the acquisition. It is 
not in dispute that except this structure, all other structures have been 
demolished in 1981 and the construction is yet to start. Ever since all others 
are, unfortunately, in transit camp. 
Shri S.K. Dholakia, the learned senior counsel for the appellant, has 
contended that by operation of the provisions of Section 2(7) read with Section 
2(9), the building in occupation of the appellant is non-cess payable building. 
Consequently, the building which is in exclusive possession in Chapter VIII, 
is not liable to be proceeded with, if the value of the reconstruction is Rs. 500 
per sq. mt. or below. Since a certificate in that behalf has already been issued 
in support thereof the action taken for demolition and acquisition is not 
according to law. After the report submitted by the Executive Engineer, the 
Land Acquisition Officer had not given any independent hearing nor called the 
Executive Engineer for cross-examination. Therefore, it is violative of the 
principles of natural justice. The third contention raised is that the Land 
Acquisition Officer should have considered all the objections and given 
finding on each of the objections before submitting his proposal for further 
action. Shri M.L. Verma, the learned senior counsel resisted all these conten-
tions. 
Having given consideration to the respective contentions, the question 
G 
arises whether the structure on which the appellant is tenant is an independent 
building in City Survey No. 56? Before the Division Bench of the High Court, 
the counter-part of Shri S.K. Dholakia, had conceded that the principal 
contention raised was that the shed only "is not liable to 

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