Bombay High Court Quashes Rejection of Section 28-A Application for Violation of Natural Justice in Land Acquisition Matter. Failure to Issue Notice and Grant Hearing Before Rejecting Redetermination Application Under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Renders Order Void.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, whose lands were acquired for irrigation purposes, filed an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking redetermination of compensation. The Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition Officer) rejected the application without issuing any notice or granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Nagpur. The sole ground raised was the violation of natural justice. The High Court, after perusing the impugned order, found that indeed no notice was issued and no hearing was granted. The court held that such an order is unsustainable in law and must be set aside. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondent authorities to decide the application afresh after giving the petitioners a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The court also directed that the application be decided within three months from the date of the order. The petition was allowed in those terms.

Headnote

A) Land Acquisition - Redetermination of Compensation - Section 28-A Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Natural Justice - The petitioners' application under Section 28-A for redetermination of compensation was rejected without any notice or hearing. The High Court held that such rejection violates principles of natural justice and set aside the order, remanding the matter for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of hearing. (Paras 3-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the rejection of an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 without issuing notice and granting an opportunity of hearing to the applicants is sustainable in law.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent authorities to decide the application under Section 28-A afresh after giving the petitioners a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The application shall be decided within three months from the date of the order. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

Law Points

  • Natural justice
  • Right to be heard
  • Section 28-A Land Acquisition Act 1894
  • Quashing of order without notice
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (BOM) (08) 180

WRIT PETITION NO. 4977 OF 2023

2023-08-08

ANIL S. KILOR, J.

Shri D.H.Sharma for petitioners, Ms. H.N.Jaipurkar for respondent nos. 1 and 2

Devidas S/o Kawdu Channe and others

The State of Maharashtra and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging rejection of application under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 without notice or hearing.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought quashing of the order rejecting their application and a direction for fresh consideration after hearing.

Filing Reason

The application under Section 28-A was rejected without issuing notice or granting hearing to the petitioners.

Previous Decisions

The Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition Officer) rejected the application under Section 28-A without notice or hearing.

Issues

Whether rejection of an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 without notice and hearing violates principles of natural justice.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the impugned order was passed without issuing notice and without granting an opportunity of hearing, thus violating natural justice. Respondents did not contest the violation of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi

An order rejecting an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 without issuing notice and granting an opportunity of hearing to the applicant is violative of principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained.

Judgment Excerpts

It is clear that without issuing notice or without granting any hearing to the petitioners the application under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 came to be rejected. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for redetermination of compensation. The Deputy Collector rejected the application without notice or hearing. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 28-A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Rejection of Section 28-A Application for Violation of Natural Justice in Land Acquisition Matter. Failure to Issue Notice and Grant Hearing Before Rejecting Redetermination Application Under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Rende...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Petition of Educational Society and Principal, Quashes Tribunal's Reinstatement Order for Peon Appointed Without Age Relaxation. Appointment of Overaged Peon Without Required Approval Held Void Ab Initio, Confirmation Does No...