http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: NANDATAI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/09/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. FAIZAN UDDIN (J) G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This special  leave petition  arises from  the judgment and order  of the  Bombay High  Court, Nagpur Bench, made on March 8, 1996 in W.P.No. 3161 of 1983. The admitted position is  that   notification  under  Section  4(1)  of  the  Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the ’Act’) was published in  the Gazette and thereafter it was published in the locality  on September  15, 1992.  The  land  originally belonged  to   Sudam  Z.  More,  the  father-in-law  of  the petitioner. It  would appear that at a family settlement due to incompatibility  of the  petitioner in  living  with  her husband, mutual divorce was effected in consideration of her walking out  from the marital home. After divorce, 2 acres 5 gunthas of land in Survey No. 16 of Jambhakhurd was given to the petitioner.  Under Rule 1 of Rules made under the Act by Maharashtra Government,  notice was  given to the father-in- law  of   the  petitioner,  namely,  S.More.  He  filed  his objections, Admittedly,  the divorce  deed was  executed  on June  2,   1992  and  on  her  own  admission  she  made  an application to  the Patwari for  mutation on June 6, 1992 on the date  of the  issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) and  on the  date of  issue  of  notice  under  Rule  1 mutation was  not effected  and her  name was not brought on record as  an owner  of the  land. On  the other  hand,  the holder of the land was admitted her father-in-law and notice was given to him. The question arises whether the failure to give notice  vitiates the enquiry conducted under Section 5A of the  Act and  by operation  of sub-section (2) of Section 5A, the proceedings of enquiry are vitiated. It is true that sub-section (2)  of Section  5A as amended by Act 68 of 1984 envisages that  notice on the owner or persons interested on any authorised  person on  his behalf  shall be  given and a right of  hearing also  shall be  given, on objections being filed.  On   such  objections,  after  making  such  further enquiry,  if   any,  as   he  thinks   necessary,  the  Land Acquisition Officer  shall report  in respect  of  the  land

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

whether notified  under Section 4 or any different parcel of the  land   was  needed   for  the  public  purpose  to  the appropriate Government containing his recommendations on the objections together  with the record of the proceedings held by him  for decision  of the  Government. In this case since holder on  record has already been given notice and he filed his objections  after enquiry  he was heard, the omission to give notice  to the petitioner who subsequently became owner of the property does not vitiate the enquiry conducted under Section 5A  nor is  the enquiry violative of sub-section (2) of Section  5A. The  High Court,  therefore, was   right  in refusing to  interface with  the declaration published under Section 6 and notification published under Section 4.      The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.