SHRI MANDIR SITA RAMJI versus LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: [1975] 1 S.C.R. 597 · Decided: 06-08-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
' 
B 
• 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
) 
H 
5 97 
SHRI MANDIR SITA RAMJI 
1'. 
LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. 
August 6, 1974 
[A. N. RAY, C. J. AND K. K. MATHEW J.] 
Land Acquisition A.ct (1 of 1894) s. 5A-Opportunity of being heard to the objector 
to notification under s. 4-Shou/d be given by the Collector and not by appropriate 
Government . 
The Delhi Administration issued a notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisi-
tion Act, 1894, stating that certain land was needed for a public purpose. The 
appellant-Society filed an objection under s. SA that a part of the land belonged to 
a religious trust. The Land Acquistition Collector then called for a report, but 
later, without any consciousness of his having done so, submitted his report to the 
Delhi Administration stating that the appellant had raised an objection and the 
decision may be taken after inspection of the site. The Delhi Administration did 
not give any hearing to the appellant but issued the declaration under s. 6 including 
the land with respect to which the appellant filed objection. 
The appellant challenged the s. 6-notification and a Single Judge of the High 
Court quashed it. On appeal, the Divisional Bench came to the conclusion that the 
appellant should have been given an opportunity of being heard and directing the 
Delhi Administration to give an opportunity of being heard to the appellants ad-
journed the disposal of the appeal. 
1 
1 
...... - The first respandent thereafter heard the appellant and rejected its objection. 
The Divisional Bench then took up the appeal and dismissed the writ petition hold-
ing that it was not necessary that the Land Acquisition Collector should have heard 
the appellar1t under s. 5A. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, and quashing the declaration under s. 6, 
: 
HELD : (1) The power to hear the objection under S. SA is that of the Collector 
and not of the appropriate Government; and the duty of affording such opportunity 
of being heard by the Collector unde~ t~e section is mandatory. Therefore, a 
decision by the Government on th.e ObJectton, when the Collector afforded no op-
portunity of being heard, to the obJector, would not be proper.[599D-E] 
(2) Merely because the Government may not accept the Collector's recommenda-
tion it could not be said that he need not make his recommendation and leave it 
to the Government to Cecide the matter. The fact that the Collector is not th~ auth-
ority to decide on the objection does not exonerate him from his duty to hear the 
objector and make his recommendation. [599E-F] 
(3) The Divisional Bench of the Hi!lh Court was wrong in holding that the 
objection was only a question of Jaw and that therefore the Collector could decline 
to make his report and leave it to the appropriate government to decide the ques-
tion. The objection raised is a mixed question of law and fact and the Land Ac-
quisition Collector should have inquired into it and his failure to do so would show 
that be declined to exercise his jurisdiction under the section. When a procedure 
is prescribed by the legislature, it is not for the Court to substitute a different one 
ac.cording to its notions of justice. (600C-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Ne. 1726 of 1972. 
From the Judgment and Order dated the 9th May, J 972 cf the 
Delhi High Court at New Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No. 377 of 
1971. 
J. K. Jain and T. V. S. Narasimhachari, for the appellant. 
L. N. Sinha, Solicitor General of India, S. N. Prasad, and R.N. 
Sachthey, for the respondents No. 1-3. 
6-M J85 Sup cm 
598 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1975] 1 s.c.R. 
' 
A 
' 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
I
MATHEW, J.-The appellant filed a writ petition before the High 
)>-. 
Court of Delhi for quashing a notification dated November 7, 1968, 
issued under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called 
the 'Act'). A .learned Single Judge of the Court quashed the notifica-
• 
tion mainly on the ground that the Land Acquisition Collector gave 
no opportunity to the appellant of being heard in respect of the ob-
n 
jections filed under s. SA of the Act. The respondent (Lt. Governor of 
Delhi) filed a Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench. The 
Division Bench allowed the appeal. This appeal, by certificate, has 
b~en filed against that judgment. 
) 
The Delhi Administration issued a notificat'on under s. 4 of the 
Act on November 13, 19S9 stating that land measuring abont 34070 
c 
acres was needed for 

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