Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mariquinha D'Costa (since deceased, represented by legal representatives), filed a writ petition challenging notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, issued on 01.09.2008 and 23.09.2009 respectively, proposing to acquire 50 sqmts of her property bearing Survey No.115/23P at Deussua, Chinchinim, Goa, for construction of a road. The petitioner filed objections under Section 5A on 10.10.2008, raising several grounds including that the proposal was not genuine or bona fide, the area proposed was not minimal, the road would reduce the setback of her residential house and touch its outer wall, and that alternative alignment was possible through other survey numbers. The respondents did not provide a personal hearing to the petitioner before disposing of the objections. The court noted that the record did not indicate any compliance with the requirement of a personal hearing under Section 5A. The court held that the right to be heard under Section 5A is a valuable right and its non-compliance vitiates the acquisition proceedings. The court allowed the petition, quashed the notifications, and directed the respondents to consider the objections afresh after providing a personal hearing to the petitioner. The court also noted that the acquisition was for a road and that the petitioner's objections raised serious issues regarding the necessity and alignment of the road.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Section 5A Hearing - Compliance - The court considered whether the acquisition proceedings were vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, specifically the failure to provide a personal hearing to the objector. The petitioner had filed objections under Section 5A, but the record did not show that a personal hearing was afforded. The court held that the requirement of a personal hearing under Section 5A is mandatory and its non-compliance renders the acquisition proceedings invalid. (Paras 2-8) B) Land Acquisition - Public Purpose - Road Construction - The court examined whether the acquisition of the petitioner's land for road construction served a public purpose. The petitioner contended that the road would only benefit one residential house and that alternative alignment was possible. However, the court did not decide on this issue as the petition was allowed on the ground of non-compliance with Section 5A. (Paras 2-4) C) Land Acquisition - Section 4 Notification - Validity - The court considered the validity of the Section 4 notification issued on 01.09.2008. The petitioner challenged the notification on various grounds, but the court did not rule on these as the petition was allowed on the Section 5A ground. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 5A, specifically the failure to provide a personal hearing to the objector.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and directed the respondents to consider the objections afresh after providing a personal hearing to the petitioner.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Section 5A
- Right to be heard
- Personal hearing
- Natural justice
- Public purpose
- Acquisition of land for road
