Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt Manni Devi vs State Of Raj And Ors on 8 July, 2011
Author: Dalip Singh
Bench: Dalip Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1997 of 2009. Smt. Manni Devi wife of Shri Rameshwar VERSUS The State of Rajasthan and Others 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1996 of 2009. Godu son of Shri Birda VERSUS The State of Rajasthan and Others 3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2233 of 2009. Gopi Ram son of Shri Baxa and another VERSUS The State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order :::: 08.07.2011 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. R.K. Mathur, Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Mumtaz, Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. J.K. Singhi, Senior Counsel, assisted by ] Mr. Anuroop Singhi ] Mr. S. Zakawat Ali, Dy.Govt.Counsel ] For Respondents Mr. Ramgopal Khinchi, on behalf of ] Mr. Dinesh Yadav, A.A.G., ] **** By the Court :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The question, which has been raised in these writ petitions, which is common to all these three petitions, is that after the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act the petitioners submitted their objections under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, but the same were not considered and no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners.
Learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Sumer Khan & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, reported in 2009 (3) WLC (Raj.) 363, wherein this Court after considering the entire case law has held that the right of hearing of the objections under Section 5-A is essential to the objectors and the contention of the respondents-State that it was an empty formality was rejected vide Paragraph Nos.27, 28 & 29 of the report.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent J.D.A. - Shri J.K. Singhi contested the aforesaid position and submitted that in fact no objections under Section 5-A of the Act were filed by the petitioners in the instant case.
In view of the above, it is submitted that the question of affording an opportunity of hearing does not arise and there is no violation of the principles of natural justice on account of not affording an opportunity of hearing in the facts and circumstances of the case.
To the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of the Court to the averments made in the reply filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Jaipur and Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Development Scheme, Jaipur, wherein Para Nos.8 & 9 of the reply, it has been stated as follows :
8. THAT contents of para No.8 of the writ petition are replied in the manner that after publication of notice, objections were called for and the objections were filed by the petitioner and the same were sent for further proceeding before the Government under Section 5-A of the Act.
9. THAT contents of Para No.9 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated by the petitioner. It is respectfully submitted that before acquiring the land in dispute, the answering respondents have issued the notification under Section 4[1] of the Act, and the petitioner filed the objection in this regard, hence it is incorrect to state by the petitioner, that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him.
[Emphasis supplied] On the basis of the above, it is contended that the respondents Land Acquisition Officer himself has admitted that the objections were filed by the petitioners to the notification under Section 4 of the Act.
Learned counsel for the respondents-JDA submitted that in the report, which has been prepared during the course of the proceedings before issuance of the notification under Section 6 of the Act there is a clear mention that in fact no objections under Section 5-A of the Act were filed. The said report is dated 14.08.2008.
Before this Court, there is on oath averment made in the reply filed by the respondents No.1 and 2, including the LAO, wherein the fact regarding filing of the objections under Section 5-A of the Act has been admitted by the respondents. There is nothing to show that in fact the hearing was granted to the petitioner before considering the objection.
The mere mention in the report dated 14.08.2008 that no objections under Section 5-A of the Act were filed could not stand in the way of the relief of the petitioners in the face of the categorical averments made in the reply to the writ petition filed before this Court by the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Accordingly, in the light of the judgment in Sumer Khan & Others [supra] all these writ petitions deserve to be allowed. The declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act qua the petitioners, who are aggrieved is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents will be at liberty to proceed further based upon the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in terms of Section 5-A sub-section 2 of the Land Acquisition Act in accordance with law.
Consequently, all these writ petitions stand allowed as indicated above.
The application for vacation of interim order stand disposed of.
Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that a date may be fixed for the appearance of the petitioners before the concerned Officer i.e. Land Acquisition Officer for the purposes of hearing of the objections and the petitioners may be directed to appear before the Land Acquisition Officer on 25.07.2011 and for this purposes no further notice would be liable to be issued to the petitioner.
It is, therefore, directed while allowing these writ petitions that the petitioners would appear before the Land Acquisition Officer for hearing of their objections filed under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act on 25.07.2011.
These writ petitions are allowed as aforesaid.
Let a copy of this judgment be kept in each file.
(Dalip Singh) J.
Ashok/