Sheshrao and Others vs The Land Acquisition Officer/Sub-Divisional Officer and Others

V.A. Naik, J.—RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

By this petition, the petitioners challenge the notifications published by the State Government under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 19.09.2013 and 16.10.2014 respectively, as being violative of the mandatory provisions of Section 5-A and Section 6(2) of the Act of 1894.

The State Government published a notification under Section 4 of the Act in the official gazette on 19.09.2013 expressing its intention to acquire the lands of the petitioners for the rehabilitation of village Adole Budruk. The Section 6 notification was published on 16.10.2014. After the issuance of notification under Section 4 , the petitioners remained present before the Land Acquisition Officer on 25.07.2014 and sought time to file the objections. Since time was granted till 30.07.2014, the petitioners remained present in the office of the Land Acquisition Officer on 30.07.2014 for the whole day but the officer was out of station and the clerk in the office refused to accept the objections. An adjournment date was not provided and when some of the petitioners contacted the concerned clerk, they were informed that a date was not given by the Land Acquisition Officer and they would be informed about it. With the aforesaid case the petitioners have filed the instant petition seeking the aforesaid relief.

Shri Kshirsagar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the Section 4 and Section 6 notifications are liable to be quashed and set aside, as the Section 6 notification is not published by the State Government within a period of one year from the date of publication of the Section 4 notification, as required by the provisions of Section 6 of the Act. It was stated that the Section 4 notification was published on 19.09.2013 and the Section 6 notification was published on 16.10.2014. The learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, reported in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and Another Vs. Makrand Singh and Others, and Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Bihar and Others, , to substantiate his submission. It is then stated that the petitioners were not given an opportunity to file objections and the mandatory provisions of Section 5-A of the Act were breached. It is submitted that the roznama after 30.07.2014 is not maintained.

Shri Fulzele, the learned Additional Government Pleader, submitted that the Section 4 notification was firstly published in the official gazette on 19.09.2013 and chawdi publication was made on 27.09.2013. It is, however, fairly admitted that the Section 6 notification was published in the official gazette on 13.11.2014, though the proposal was forwarded to the office of the Collector on 06.09.2014 for presenting it to the Divisional Commissioner. It is stated that though time was granted to the petitioners on 25.07.2014 to file the objections till 30.07.2014, the petitioners did not remain present on 30.07.2014 and did not file their objections.

Shri Jagtap, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, states that the acquiring body is not at fault as a substantial amount has been deposited towards the acquisition of the land and village Adole Budruk needs to be rehabilitated.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the documents annexed to the petition and the affidavit-in-reply of the respondent No. 1, it appears that the prayers made by the petitioners need to be granted. It is well settled that a declaration under Section 6 of the Act would be non est if it is not published within a period of one year from the date of the last publication of the Section 4 notification. The Section 4 notification was lastly published on the chawdi, according to the respondents, on 27.09.2013. It is not disputed that the Section 6 notification was not published in the official gazette till 16.10.2014. Since the first proviso to Section 6 of the Act is mandatory, the Section 6 notification published on 16.10.2014 is a nullity. It would be worthwhile to refer to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, reported in Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Bihar and Others, , in this regard. Also, the period of one year needs to be computed from the date of the last publication of the Section 4 notification to the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 in the official gazette as laid down in the judgment reported in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and Another Vs. Makrand Singh and Others, . Since the mandatory provisions of Section 6 of the Act are not followed, the Section 4 and Section 6 notifications are liable to be quashed and set aside.

We also find from a perusal of the roznama of the proceedings maintained by the Special Land Acquisition Officer that the petitioners were neither granted an opportunity to file the objections nor were they heard by the Special Land Acquisition Officer before issuance of the Section 6 notification. Admittedly, the petitioners were granted time till 30.07.2014 to file the objections. It is the case of the petitioners that they went to the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer to lodge the objections but, the Special Land Acquisition Officer was out of station and their objections were not accepted by the clerk. The respondents claim that the petitioners did not remain present in the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 30.07.2014. It is difficult to believe the case of the respondents. On the other hand, the case of the petitioners appears to be credible. The roznama is not maintained after 25.07.2014. If the petitioners were not present on 30.07.2014, there was no reason for not maintaining the roznama for 30.07.2014 and recording the absence of the petitioners. The fact that the roznama is not maintained after 25.07.2014, clearly goes to show that the mandatory provisions of Section 5-A are not followed and the petitioners are not provided an opportunity to register their objections. The Section 6 notification is liable to be set aside on this ground also.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned notifications under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Act of 1894 are quashed and set aside.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.