Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered a special leave petition arising from the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, dated March 8, 1996 in Writ Petition No. 3161 of 1983. The dispute concerned land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette and subsequently in the locality on September 15, 1992. The land originally belonged to Sudam Z. More, the father-in-law of the petitioner. Due to incompatibility in the marital home, a family settlement led to mutual divorce, and the petitioner was given 2 acres 5 gunthas of land in Survey No. 16 of Jambhakhurd after the divorce. The divorce deed was executed on June 2, 1992. The petitioner admitted that she made an application to the Patwari for mutation on June 6, 1992, the same date as the issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) and the date of issue of notice under Rule 1 of the Maharashtra Land Acquisition Rules. However, mutation was not effected, and her name was not brought on record as owner of the land. The holder on record remained the father-in-law, and notice under Rule 1 was given to him. He filed objections and was heard in the enquiry under Section 5A. The petitioner challenged the declaration under Section 6 and the notification under Section 4 before the High Court, which refused to interfere. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that failure to give notice to her as a person interested vitiated the Section 5A enquiry. The Court examined sub-section (2) of Section 5A, as amended by Act 68 of 1984, which requires notice to the owner or persons interested and a right of hearing on objections. It held that since the holder on record had already been given notice and had filed objections and been heard, the omission to give notice to the petitioner who subsequently became owner of the property did not vitiate the enquiry under Section 5A and did not violate sub-section (2). Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Enquiry under Section 5A - Notice to owner or person interested - Section 5A(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Failure to give separate notice to subsequent transferee whose name was not mutated does not vitiate the enquiry when the recorded owner was given notice, filed objections, and was heard. The Court held that since the holder on record had already been given notice and had filed objections, the omission to notify the petitioner who subsequently became owner of the property did not vitiate the enquiry under Section 5A nor was it violative of sub-section (2) of Section 5A. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether failure to give notice to the petitioner, who subsequently became owner of the property after notification under Section 4(1) and before mutation, vitiates the enquiry conducted under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, holding that since the holder on record had been given notice and filed objections and was heard, the omission to give notice to the petitioner who subsequently became owner did not vitiate the enquiry under Section 5A nor violate sub-section (2) of Section 5A. The High Court was right in refusing to interfere with the declaration under Section 6 and notification under Section 4.
Law Points
- Omission to give notice to a subsequent transferee whose name is not mutated does not vitiate enquiry under Section 5A when recorded owner was given notice and heard
- Section 5A(2) of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 as amended by Act 68 of 1984 is satisfied by notice to holder on record
- High Court right in refusing to interfere with Section 4 notification and Section 6 declaration
