Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Yusuf Ali S/o Khader Shah Faqeer, is the legal heir of the original petitioner Khadarsha Faqeer. The original petitioner had filed W.P.No.9052/2006 seeking implementation of an order dated 29.06.2000 passed by the Tahasildar, Humnabad. That writ petition was disposed of on 01.04.2008 directing the respondents to implement the said order. However, the order was not implemented. Subsequently, the 4th respondent (Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Basavakalyan) passed an order dated 08.02.2011 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was challenged in the present writ petition. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without issuing any notice under Section 4(1) of the Act, and without conducting an inquiry under Section 5-A. The respondents argued that the order was valid. The court examined the records and found that no notice under Section 4(1) was served on the petitioner, and no opportunity of hearing was given. The court held that the mandatory requirements of Sections 4(1), 5-A, and 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were not complied with, and the impugned order was liable to be quashed. The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 08.02.2011.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Notice under Section 4(1) - Mandatory Requirement - The court held that service of notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is mandatory and failure to serve such notice vitiates the entire acquisition proceedings. The petitioner was not served with the notice, and the impugned order was quashed. (Paras 3-5)
B) Land Acquisition - Section 5-A Inquiry - Opportunity of Hearing - The court held that the failure to conduct a proper inquiry under Section 5-A and to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the acquisition order violates principles of natural justice. (Paras 3-5)
C) Land Acquisition - Section 9 Notice - Service of Notice - The court held that notice under Section 9 of the Act must be served on the person interested, and non-service renders the acquisition invalid. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 08.02.2011 passed by the 4th respondent (Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Basavakalyan) is valid when the mandatory notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not served on the petitioner, and whether the acquisition proceedings are vitiated for non-compliance with Section 5-A and Section 9 of the Act.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.02.2011 passed by the 4th respondent (Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Basavakalyan) vide Annexure-D bearing No. PÀABC¦Ã®ÄB¹Dgï-36B2010-11 is quashed.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Section 4(1) notice
- Section 5-A inquiry
- Section 6 declaration
- Section 9 notice
- mandatory compliance
- natural justice
- writ of certiorari
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (08) 41
W.P.No.85908/2012 (KLR-RR)
Sri A. Syed Habeeb (for petitioner), Smt. Arati Patil (HCGP for respondents 1-5)
Yusuf Ali S/o Khader Shah Faqeer (legal heir of Khadarsha Faqeer)
State of Karnataka, Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer (Bidar), Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer (Basavakalyan), Tahasildar (Humnabad), Mallappa @ Mallikarjun, Sharanappa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the impugned order dated 08.02.2011 passed by the 4th respondent (Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Basavakalyan).
Filing Reason
The petitioner alleged that the impugned order was passed without issuing any notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and without conducting an inquiry under Section 5-A, violating principles of natural justice.
Previous Decisions
Earlier, the original petitioner had filed W.P.No.9052/2006 seeking implementation of an order dated 29.06.2000 passed by the Tahasildar, Humnabad. That writ petition was disposed of on 01.04.2008 directing the respondents to implement the order, but it was not implemented.
Issues
Whether the impugned order dated 08.02.2011 is valid when no notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was served on the petitioner?
Whether the acquisition proceedings are vitiated for non-compliance with Section 5-A and Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without issuing any notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and without conducting an inquiry under Section 5-A, and therefore the order is illegal and liable to be quashed.
The respondents argued that the order was valid and in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the mandatory requirements of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 regarding service of notice, and the inquiry under Section 5-A, are fundamental to the validity of acquisition proceedings. Failure to comply with these provisions renders the acquisition order invalid and liable to be quashed.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner herein is legal heir of original petitioner Khadarsha Faqeer S/o Hilal Shah Faqeer, who initiated proceedings before this Court initially in W.P.No.9052/2006 seeking direction to the respondents in the said writ petition to implement the order passed in proceedings No.HBD/KCIA/CR-3/2000-2001 dated 29.06.2000 by 5th respondent-Tahasildar of Humnabad.
It is seen that the said order was not implemented. Hence, the present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 08.02.2011 passed by the 4th respondent.
Procedural History
The original petitioner Khadarsha Faqeer filed W.P.No.9052/2006 seeking implementation of an order dated 29.06.2000 passed by the Tahasildar, Humnabad. The writ petition was disposed of on 01.04.2008 directing the respondents to implement the order. The order was not implemented. Subsequently, the 4th respondent passed an order dated 08.02.2011 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was challenged in the present writ petition W.P.No.85908/2012.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4(1), Section 5-A, Section 6, Section 9
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
