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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1391 of 1999

PETITIONER: Swasthya Raksha Samiti Rati Chowk                        

RESPONDENT: Chaudhary Ram Harakh Chand (D) by LRs. & Ors.                                    

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/02/2005

BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde,B.N.Srikrishna & P.K.Balasubramanyan

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

SANTOSH HEGDE,J.

       This appeal is placed for final hearing before this Bench on a  reference made by a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court.         The question involved in this appeal pertains to the nature of  enquiry to be conducted under Rule 4(2)(iii) of the Land  Acquisition (Company) Rules, 1963. The referring Bench noticed a  judgment of this Court in the case of Shyam Nandan Prasad & Ors.  vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (1993 (4) SCC 255) which held that  compliance of Rule (4) is not only mandatory but a notice of the  said enquiry should also be given to the land owners concerned.  The said judgment had noticed three earlier judgments of this  Court in the case of State of Gujarat & Anr. vs. Patel Chaturbhai  Narsibhai & Ors. (1975 (1) SCC 583), State of Gujarat & Ors. vs.  Ambalal Haiderbhai & Ors. (1976 (3) SCC 495) and General  Government Servants Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Agra vs.  Shri Wahab Uddin & Ors. (1981 (2) SCC 352) which also took  similar views.         The referring Bench, however, felt that though the enquiry  under Rule (4) is mandatory, issuance of notice to the land owners  of such enquiry is not mandatory, because they will anyway be  heard in Section 5A (L.A Act) enquiry even in regard to the  validity of the acquisition in favour of a company.

It is in view of the above doubt entertained by the Division  Bench the matter is referred to a larger Bench.  

So far as the judgments of this Court cited herein above are  concerned, they do hold that Rule (4) is not only mandatory but  that the notice of the said enquiry has to be given to the land  owners. The above judgments, however, have not taken into  consideration an earlier 5-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in  the case of Babu Barkya Thakur vs. The State of Bombay & Ors.  (1961 (1) SCR 128) wherein this Court indicated that all the  requirements of Part VII of the Act especially Section 40 could be  considered in Section 5A enquiry itself which would include all  and any objection of the land owners including the objection in  regard to the acquisition in favour of a company. This judgment of  the 5-Judge Bench of this Court in our view seems to support the  doubt entertained by the referring Bench.  

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we are  also of the opinion that since the objections that could possibly be  raised in Rule (4) enquiry can also be raised in a Section 5A  enquiry and in the absence of any specific requirement in Rule (4)  as to the issuance of notice to the land owners of being heard in

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

such an enquiry, hearing the land owners at the stage of Rule (4)  enquiry would lead only to duplication and cause delay. Since the  judgment of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Patel  Chaturbhai Narsibhai (supra) and State of Gujarat vs. Ambalal  Haiderbhai (supra) as also the judgment of General Government  (supra) are judgments of 3-Judge Bench and the said Bench having  not noticed the observations of this Court in the case of Babu  Barkya Thakur (supra). We think it appropriate to refer this matter  to a larger Bench.          For the reasons stated above, we direct the office to place  the papers of this appeal before Hon. the Chief Justice of India for  appropriate orders.