Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two writ petitions filed by landowners challenging the acquisition of their land by the State of Goa for a public purpose. The petitioners, Mrs. Estefania Dias e Pereira and Mr. Inacio Pereira (in WP 170/2011) and Mrs. Maria Viegas (in WP 460/2011), owned properties in Chinchinim, Salcete, Goa. The Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer issued notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, proposing to acquire the land. The petitioners filed objections under Section 5A of the Act, requesting a personal hearing. However, the Deputy Collector did not afford them a personal hearing and proceeded to issue a declaration under Section 6. The petitioners argued that the failure to provide a personal hearing violated the mandatory requirement of Section 5A(2) and principles of natural justice. The respondents, including the State and the beneficiaries (Santos Viegas, Luciano Viegas, and Cyril Leitao), contended that the hearing was not mandatory and that the petitioners had been given an opportunity to submit written objections. The court analyzed the language of Section 5A(2), which states that the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by a pleader. The court held that the word 'shall' indicates a mandatory duty, and the phrase 'in person or by a pleader' clearly contemplates a personal hearing. The court distinguished between a mere opportunity to file written objections and a right to be heard orally. It found that the Deputy Collector had not fixed any date for hearing and had not communicated any such opportunity to the petitioners. Consequently, the court held that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 5A. The court allowed both writ petitions, quashed the notifications under Sections 4 and 6, and directed the respondents to return possession of the land to the petitioners. The court also awarded costs of Rs. 10,000 to the petitioners in each petition.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Section 5A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Right to Object - Personal Hearing - The petitioners challenged the acquisition of their land on the ground that the Deputy Collector failed to afford them a personal hearing as required under Section 5A(2) of the Act. The court held that the provision for a personal hearing is mandatory and not directory, and the failure to provide such hearing vitiates the entire acquisition proceedings. The court relied on the principle that the right to be heard is a valuable right and must be strictly complied with. (Paras 1-10) B) Land Acquisition - Section 4 and Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Validity of Notification - The court examined whether the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were valid. It was held that since the Section 5A inquiry was defective, the subsequent notifications under Sections 4 and 6 are also invalid. The court directed the respondents to treat the acquisition proceedings as having lapsed and to return possession of the land to the petitioners. (Paras 11-15)
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 objectors.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions allowed. The notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are quashed. The respondents are directed to return possession of the land to the petitioners. Costs of Rs. 10,000 awarded to the petitioners in each petition.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Section 5A
- Right to be heard
- Personal hearing
- Natural justice
- Acquisition proceedings
- Validity of notification
- Section 4
- Section 6
