Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.33 seconds)
Ratna Mukherjee & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 26 September, 2014 cites

Shimnit Utsch India Pvt.Ltd. & Anr vs W.B. Tpt.Infrastructure ... on 12 May, 2010

In support of his contention, the petitioners have strongly relied on the case of Kamal trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2012) 2 SCC 25. In that case the Supreme Court had held that the proceedings under the Act are based on the principle of eminent domain and Section 5A is the only protection available to a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. It is the minimum safeguard afforded to him by law to protect himself from arbitrary acquisition by pointing out the authority concerned that the important ingredient, viz. public purpose was absent in the proposed acquisition or the acquisition is mala fide. The Act being an exproprietory legislation its provisions will have to be strictly construed. It has been further held by the Supreme Court that a hearing under Section 5A is necessary to enable the Collector to deal effectively with the objections raised against the proposed acquisition and to make a report. The report of the Collector is not an empty formality as it is required to be placed before the appropriate Government together with the collector's recommendation and the records of the case. It is only upon receipt of the said report that the Government can take a final decision on the objection. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act has to be made only after the appropriate Government is satisfied on the consideration of the report, if any, made by the Collector under Section 5A of the Act. Since the Land Acquisition Officer dealt with the objections in a light hearted manner the Supreme Court disapproved the same and held that he should have dealt with the objections carefully because a heavy responsibility lay on his shoulders. The Supreme Court after quoting from the report of the concerned Land Acquisition Officer observed that it could not be said that the officer had applied his mind to the objections raised by the appellant and he reproduced the contentions of the officers of the acquiring body. The objections taken by the appellants were rejected on a very vague ground. The Supreme Court had set aside the declaration under Section 6 of the Act and also disapproved the report filed by the Land Acquisition Officer and held that his report was utterly laconic and bereft of any recommendation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 105 - Full Document
1