Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)Shri Mandir Sita Ramji vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors on 6 August, 1974
9. No doubt, the impugned 5-A proceedings show, that all the objections raised by the petitioner were duly considered and rejected as unacceptable. In the light of the language used in Section 5-A(2) of the Act, a duty is cast on the Collector to give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person, Even, though wife of the petitioner had reached the place of enquiry on 13.9.1091 and waited till 1.00 p.m. she was not heard because of the absence of the respondent. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, mere considering the objection of the land owner may not be sufficient and the land owner or his authorised person or his pleader must be heard in person before taking any decision with regard to the objections made. It is settled law that whenever a statute provides certain thing to be done, the same have to be done strictly. As observed by their Lordships in Mandi Sita Ramji v. Governor of Delhi, , the observance of the procedure laid down by the statute before depriving a person of his property is necessary to generate the feeling that rule of law prevails in this country. Accordingly, I hold that giving personal hearing to the owner of the land who is sought to be acquired is a mandatory requirement under Section 5-A. Further the proceedings under Section 5-A of the Act are quasi judicial and not merely executive. The denial of an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner to make his objections vitiates the impugned order passed by the respondent. When the provisions of Section 5-Ai of the Act have been fully complied with, undoubtedly declaration made by the Government under Section 6 of the Act and all subsequent proceedings are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
1