State of Gujarat & Anr. Vs. Bashir Munir & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 124 of 1973
Petitioner: State of Gujarat & Anr.
Respondent: Bashir Munir & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 124 of 1973
Judges: M.P.THAKKAR & MURARI MOHON DUTT
Date of Judgment: Jan 08, 1988
Head Note:
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894:
Sections 4, 6, 23 and 24 – Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963; Rule 4 – An acquisition for company – Acquisition of land for expansion and modernisation of a textile mill – Non determination of compensation amount by the Collector as required under the rule – No enquiry held was held and the owners were not afforded an opportunity of being heard – Violation of principles of natural justice – Non-compliance of mandatory provisions cannot be taken exception to – Quashing of notifications by the High Court upheld.
Cases Reffered:
1. State of Gujrat and Ors.V.
Ambalal Haidderbhai, ETC 1976 Suppl. SCR. 33.
Ambalal Haidderbhai, ETC 1976 Suppl. SCR. 33.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. The question which arises in this appeal by certificate granted in view of the valuation of the subject matter pertains to the validity of notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act issued by the State Government on 9-9-1969 and 15-7-1970 respectively. The land was placed under acquisition with the object of acquiring the said land “for the purpose of expansion and modernisation of the Nutan Mills Ltd., which is engaged in textile industry work, which is for a public purpose”. Since this was an acquisition for the company, sub-rule 2 of rule 4 of Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 was required to be complied with. The said rule requires the Collector to “determine, having regard to the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act, the approximate amount of compensation likely to be payable in respect of the land which, in the opinion of the Collector, should be acquired for the Company”. Moreover, the said Rule also requires the Collector to “ascertain whether the Company offered a reasonable price (not being less than the compensation so determined) to the persons interested in the land proposed to be acquired”. The learned counsel for the Appellant is unable to show that either the first, or the second requirement has been complied with. So far as the first requirement is concerned, the Collector had not issued any notice to the petitioners. Nor had he held any enquiry for the purpose of determining the approximate amount of compensation likely to be payable to the owners of the land. So far as the second requirement is concerned the learned counsel for the appellant is unable to show that the Collector had ascertained whether or not the Company had offered reasonable price to the persons interested in the land in question within the meaning of Rule 4(2)(iii). Admittedly there was non-compliance in respect of the mandatory provisions embodied in Rule 4. The High Court following an earlier decision rendered in Special Civil Applications Nos. 116 of 1967, 1621 & 1622 of 1967 on 17/18th April, 1970 by another Division Bench, has allowed the petition instituted by the owners of the land and quashed the notifications. The view taken by the High Court was affirmed by this Court in STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. V. AMBALAL HAIDERBHAI, ETC (1976 Suppl. SCR p. 33). In that case, an enquiry had been made as required by the provisions contained in Rule 4(2). However, the owners of the land were not heard in the said enquiry. This Court has taken that view that even when an enquiry is conducted, if the owners of the land who were affected by the enquiry are not afforded reasonable opportunity in regard to the enquiry, it would amount to violation of principles of natural justice and the acquisition made pursuant to such an enquiry would be vitiated. In the present case the facts are much worse. It is not established even that an enquiry was held. Admittedly no notice was issued to the petitioners and they were not heard. Under the circumstances, the view taken by the High Court that the notifications issued by the State Government deserved to be quashed for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions cannot be taken exception to. It need not be said that the decision in the present case will not preclude the State Government from placing the land under acquisition under a fresh notification in accordance with law if so desired.
2. In the this view of the matter, the appeal must fail. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
1. The question which arises in this appeal by certificate granted in view of the valuation of the subject matter pertains to the validity of notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act issued by the State Government on 9-9-1969 and 15-7-1970 respectively. The land was placed under acquisition with the object of acquiring the said land “for the purpose of expansion and modernisation of the Nutan Mills Ltd., which is engaged in textile industry work, which is for a public purpose”. Since this was an acquisition for the company, sub-rule 2 of rule 4 of Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 was required to be complied with. The said rule requires the Collector to “determine, having regard to the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act, the approximate amount of compensation likely to be payable in respect of the land which, in the opinion of the Collector, should be acquired for the Company”. Moreover, the said Rule also requires the Collector to “ascertain whether the Company offered a reasonable price (not being less than the compensation so determined) to the persons interested in the land proposed to be acquired”. The learned counsel for the Appellant is unable to show that either the first, or the second requirement has been complied with. So far as the first requirement is concerned, the Collector had not issued any notice to the petitioners. Nor had he held any enquiry for the purpose of determining the approximate amount of compensation likely to be payable to the owners of the land. So far as the second requirement is concerned the learned counsel for the appellant is unable to show that the Collector had ascertained whether or not the Company had offered reasonable price to the persons interested in the land in question within the meaning of Rule 4(2)(iii). Admittedly there was non-compliance in respect of the mandatory provisions embodied in Rule 4. The High Court following an earlier decision rendered in Special Civil Applications Nos. 116 of 1967, 1621 & 1622 of 1967 on 17/18th April, 1970 by another Division Bench, has allowed the petition instituted by the owners of the land and quashed the notifications. The view taken by the High Court was affirmed by this Court in STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. V. AMBALAL HAIDERBHAI, ETC (1976 Suppl. SCR p. 33). In that case, an enquiry had been made as required by the provisions contained in Rule 4(2). However, the owners of the land were not heard in the said enquiry. This Court has taken that view that even when an enquiry is conducted, if the owners of the land who were affected by the enquiry are not afforded reasonable opportunity in regard to the enquiry, it would amount to violation of principles of natural justice and the acquisition made pursuant to such an enquiry would be vitiated. In the present case the facts are much worse. It is not established even that an enquiry was held. Admittedly no notice was issued to the petitioners and they were not heard. Under the circumstances, the view taken by the High Court that the notifications issued by the State Government deserved to be quashed for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions cannot be taken exception to. It need not be said that the decision in the present case will not preclude the State Government from placing the land under acquisition under a fresh notification in accordance with law if so desired.
2. In the this view of the matter, the appeal must fail. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
