Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Sukhdeo Maruti Shete and Dattatraya Maruti Shete, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in respect of Gat No. 45P, admeasuring 11 and 22 R, situated at village Bori Khurd, Taluka Junnar, District Pune. The principal grievance was that during the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, they had offered alternative land belonging to them in lieu of the land sought to be acquired from Gat Nos. 421 and 389, but the Land Acquisition Officer proceeded to acquire the land without accepting the alternative offer. The court noted the relevant dates of the acquisition proceedings: the notification under Section 4 was issued, and the petitioners filed objections under Section 5-A. The court observed that the offer of alternative land is not a statutory requirement under the Act, and the acquiring authority has the discretion to accept or reject such offers. Since the land was needed for the Kukadi Project, a public purpose, the non-consideration of the alternative offer did not vitiate the acquisition proceedings. The court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no merit in the challenge.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Section 5-A Inquiry - Alternative Land Offer - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 5-A - Petitioners offered alternative land during inquiry under Section 5-A, but the officer proceeded to acquire the land without considering the offer. Court held that the offer of alternative land is not a statutory requirement and non-consideration does not invalidate acquisition when land is needed for a public purpose. (Paras 1-3) B) Land Acquisition - Public Purpose - Kukadi Project - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The land was acquired for the Kukadi Project, a public purpose. Court held that the acquisition cannot be challenged merely on the ground that alternative land was offered, as the acquiring authority has discretion to accept or reject such offers. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the failure of the Land Acquisition Officer to consider the petitioners' offer of alternative land during the Section 5-A inquiry vitiates the acquisition proceedings.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the non-consideration of the alternative land offer does not vitiate the acquisition proceedings as the land was needed for a public purpose.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Section 5-A inquiry
- alternative land offer
- public purpose
- acquisition proceedings
- writ jurisdiction
