Sunday, May 19th 01:00 AM IST

MATCH

CORNER

Full Schedule

RCB vs CSK | May 18th, 2013
CSK 082 6 8.0
RUNS
WKTS
OVERS

Land acquisition illegal if owners are not notified: SC

Jun 29, 2012

New Delhi: Land acquistion proceedings will become illegal if government fails to observe the mandatory requirement of issuing public notices to the affected parties, the Supreme Court has held, quashing Maharashtra government’s acquisition of a piece of land for a defence unit.

A bench of justices HL Dattu and AR Dave said that besides notifying the acquisition in the official gazette, the authorities were bound to notify the affected persons through media notifications in at least two newspapers in the local region.

The SC struck down the acquisition of a plot of land by the government. Reuters

“Since the mandatory requirement as required under Section 4(1) of the Act is not complied with by the
respondents, while acquiring the land in question, in our opinion, the entire acquisition proceedings requires to be declared as null and void.

“We restrict the claim of the appellants only to 50 per cent of the land in question, namely, land in Survey No.119/3 Pt situated at Village Malad, Taluka, Borivali, District Bombay Suburban,” the bench said in an order.

Petitioner Kulsum Nadiadwala and other legal heirs of one Ismail Nadiadwala had filed the appeal in the apex court challenging a Bombay High Court order refusing to quashing the acquistion.

On October 1975, the state government had issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to acquire certain pieces of land situated in different villages for the purpose of establishing Central Ordinance Depot.

According to the appellants, they were the legal heirs of deceased Ismail Nadiadwala and the land was jointly owned by him with Ibrahim Nadiadwala.

But the authorities issued no notice to the them and, after hearing only Ibrahim Nadiadwala, an award came to be passed by the state government on 23 September, 1986.

The apex court agreed with the legal heirs’ contention that the authorities ought to have issued public notice at the time of the acquisition.

The bench cited the apex court’s earlier ruling in the J&K Housing Board v. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul (2011), wherein, it was observed that all the formalities of serving notice to the interested person, stipulated under Section 4 of the Act, has to be mandatorily complied with in the manner
provided therein, even though the interested persons have knowledge of the acquisition proceedings.

Section 4(1) of the Act, stipulated that a notification to that effect shall be published in the official gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such
notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality.

PTI

Firstpost encourages open discussion and debate, but please adhere to the rules below, before posting. Comments that are found to be in violation of any one or more of the guidelines will be automatically deleted:

Personal attacks/name calling will not be tolerated. This applies to comments directed at the author, other commenters and other politicians/public figures

Please do not post comments that target a specific community, caste, nationality or religion.

While you do not have to use your real name, any commenters using any Firstpost writer's name will be deleted, and the commenter banned from participating in any future discussions.

Comments will be moderated for abusive and offensive language.

Please read our comments and moderation policy before posting