Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by a tenant, Sam Hiring Co., against the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.893/92. The dispute arose from acquisition proceedings initiated under the Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Act, 1976 for a plot in City Survey No.56, where the superstructure was in a dilapidated condition. The Bombay Housing and Area Development Board framed a scheme for reconstruction and allotment to occupants. Notices under Section 5-A were issued to interested persons including the appellant. The appellant objected that its tenement, where it carried on business, was an independent building not part of City Survey No.56 and therefore not liable to be demolished or acquired. The Executive Engineer submitted a report on this objection, and the Land Acquisition Officer, after considering the report, proposed proceeding with acquisition. Except the appellant's structure, all other structures had been demolished in 1981, and construction had not yet started. The appellant challenged the acquisition before the High Court, which dismissed the challenge, holding that the shed was part of City Survey No.56 and that there was no violation of natural justice. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave and heard the matter. The main legal issues were: (i) whether the structure was an independent building not liable to acquisition; (ii) whether the Land Acquisition Officer violated natural justice by not giving a further hearing after the Executive Engineer's report and not allowing cross-examination; and (iii) whether the officer was required to give findings on each objection. The appellant argued that under Section 2(7) read with Section 2(9) and Chapter VIII, the building was non-cess payable and thus not liable to acquisition if reconstruction value was Rs.500 per sq.mt or below; that no independent hearing was given after the report; and that the officer should have considered all objections and given findings. The respondent contended that the shed was part of City Survey No.56, the definition of 'building' under Section 2(7) included a shed, and the officer had considered the objections properly. The Court held that under Section 2(7), 'building' includes a tenement, house, out-house, stable, shed, hut and every other such structure; therefore the appellant's shed was part of City Survey No.56 and liable to acquisition. The High Court had noted the appellant's counsel conceded that the shed was part of the plot. The Court found that the Land Acquisition Officer was an administrative authority under Section 5-A, not judicial or quasi-judicial; he had given an opportunity of hearing and considered the objections, and after getting the Executive Engineer's report, which was beneficial to the appellant, no further hearing or cross-examination was required. The officer was not required to elaborately deal with each objection. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal with no costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Definition of 'Building' - A shed or tenement occupied separately is included in 'building' under Section 2(7) of the Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Act, 1976 - The appellant's shed was part of City Survey No.56 and liable to acquisition; the Division Bench's finding based on the definition and concession was upheld - Held that the structure is part of the building and the finding of dilapidated condition requiring reconstruction is a finding of fact (Paras 1-2). B) Natural Justice - Administrative Function Under Section 5-A - Land Acquisition Officer acts as an administrative authority, not quasi-judicial; after receiving the Executive Engineer's report which was beneficial to the objector, no further hearing or cross-examination was required - The opportunity of hearing was given and objections considered; principles of natural justice were complied with - Held that there was no violation (Paras 2-3). C) Administrative Law - Scope of Objection Consideration - The Land Acquisition Officer need not elaborately deal with each objection or give findings on each before submitting proposal; he need only consider objections and give hearing if asked - Here he considered objections and called for factual report, sufficient compliance - Held that no error of law warranting interference (Para 3). D) Statutory Interpretation - Relevance of Cess Status - Section 2(9) and Chapter VIII of the Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Act, 1976 - Once the structure is part of the building, the fact that tenant independently pays cess or is non-cess payable is irrelevant - Held that the contention based on non-cess payable building does not exempt the structure from acquisition (Para 2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the structure occupied by the appellant is an independent building not part of City Survey No.56 and therefore not liable to acquisition; whether the Land Acquisition Officer violated natural justice by not giving a further hearing after the Executive Engineer's report and not allowing cross-examination; whether the Land Acquisition Officer was required to give findings on each objection before submitting proposal for acquisition.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the structure was part of City Survey No.56 and liable to acquisition; the Land Acquisition Officer considered the objections and called for the Executive Engineer's report, which was beneficial to the appellant, so no further hearing or cross-examination was required; the officer was not required to elaborately deal with each objection; no error of law warranting interference. No costs.
Law Points
- A 'building' under Section 2(7) of Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Act
- 1976 includes a shed
- hut
- and every other such structure
- Land Acquisition Officer under Section 5-A acts as an administrative authority and need not give further hearing after obtaining a favourable report
- principles of natural justice are satisfied if objections are considered and an opportunity of hearing is given
- the officer need not elaborately deal with each objection
- the status of a tenant as cess payer under Section 2(9) or Chapter VIII is irrelevant once the structure is part of the building.
