‘Land can’t be taken without intimation’
As the acquisition of land for development projects is becoming a rather controversial issue, the Supreme Court in an important verdict has expanded the ambit of “acquisition notice” holding that the government must have wide publicity of it in at least two newspapers circulated in the area where the landowners live apart from serving the same to them and publishing it in the official gazette.
The verdict seems to be a radical step by the apex court as earlier its emphasis was on serving of the notice under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the land owners by the government.
A bench of Justices H.L. Dattu and A.R. Dave gave the verdict on the appeal of some landowners from Maharashtra.
Their land was acquired for the central ordinance department (COD) in Mumbai for which the process was issued in 1975 and the final award was passed in 1986.
The apex court quashed the acquisition order on the ground that the mandatory notice required to be issued under section 4(1) of the Act to make the landowners aware of the government plan, was not met as the authorities had not given proper publicity to the acquisition notification. The bench said if the government “fails” to follow the mandatory provisions of section 4(1) of the Act to make the landowners aware of its plan in advance, “in our opinion, the entire acquisition proceedings requires to be declared as null and void.”
Therefore, the authorities were bound to notify the affected persons also through media by “publishing” the acquisition notification in at least two local newspapers of the area where the land is located apart form notifying it in the official gazette, the SC ruled. Since the verdict came after 26 years of the final award, the top court restricted the claim of the landowners only to 50 per cent of the land located in Malad and Borivali areas and the COD was allowed to retain the remaining 50 per cent.
The award was challenged by some landowners led by Ismail Nadiadwala initially in the civil court of Mumbai but the protracted legal battle was taken to the apex court by his legal heirs after his death.
They approached the apex court after the Bombay high court had dismissed their petition.
According to their appeal, the government had not issued any notice to them and the award was passed on September 23, 1986 only after hearing Ibrahim Nadiadwala, a co-owner with Ismail Nadiadwala, who was not issued any notice.
Post new comment