Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mohd. Siddiq Patel vs Union Of India on 5 November, 2014

                  WRIT PETITION No.3318/2014                               1




5.11.2014

        Shri    Raghvendra     Kumar,       learned    counsel     for   the
petitioners.
        Though the writ petition is admitted in terms of the
order dated 13/5/2014, yet looking to the short question
involved in the writ petition, with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally.
        The award dated 11/7/2013 is sought to be challenged
only    on      the   ground   that   the     Sub     Divisional   Officer,
(Revenue)/respondent No.2 while exercising the power and

authority as Land Acquisition Officer under the National Highway Act, 1956 has not looked into the objections raised by the petitioners in the matter of acquisition of the land and has passed the award. The documents of objection are placed on record of the present writ petition, in which an endorsement was made that the same was received by the Land Acquisition Officer on 19/7/2012. However, in the award, it is simply stated that no objection has been filed by anybody. It is contended that such a fact recorded in the award is patently incorrect to the knowledge of respondent no.2 and therefore, the award itself is bad in law.

Though the writ petition was admitted and notices were issued to the respondents, yet no return has been filed to show that such stand taken by the petitioners in the writ petition is incorrect. Even otherwise, on the objection (Annexure P-3) endorsement is made by the Sub Divisional Officer under his signature that the said document was received by him on 19/7/2012. If that was the situation, the objection was to be considered by the Sub Divisional Officer while passing the award, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the objector.

WRIT PETITION No.3318/2014 2

That being so, the award dated 11/7/2013, so far as it relates to the petitioners, is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Shahpur, District Betul, who is the competent authority under the National Highway Act, 1956, to look into the objections raised by the petitioners and to decide the same in terms of the law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and to pass the award afresh.

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. However, there shall be no orders as to costs.

(K.K. Trivedi) Judge rv