JUDGMENT D.D. Sinha, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned AGP for the respondents.
2. The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the instant case, after the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is published, the petitioners have taken objections to the acquisition of land. It is submitted that petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the owners of Survey No. 28/1, admeasuring 2.58 hectare. Petitioner Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 are the owners of Survey No. 28/2, admeasuring 3.26 hectare. Petitioner No. 8 is the owner of Survey No. 30/3A, admeasuring 1.49 hectare. Petitioner Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 are the owners of Survey No. 33/4, admeasuring 1.88 hectare and petitioner Nos. 13, 14 and 15 are the owners of Survey No. 34/1, admeasuring 1.27 hectare. All these lands are situated at village Palaswada. It is contended that the owners of these survey numbers have submitted separate objections in respect of the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the objections were raised on the ground of suitability of land, nature of land under acquisition, convenience of the people of the village etc. It is contended that the Special Land Acquisition Officer without following the principles of natural justice prepared the report under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act in spite of the objections submitted by the petitioners. Since the report under Section 5A of the Act is violative of principles of natural justice, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing present writ petition challenging the procedure adopted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer as well as validity of the report prepared by Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act.
3. Mr. Gordey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, further contended that in the instant case on 24-4-1998 this Court by interim order granted temporary injunction prohibiting the respondents from proceeding with the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands referred to hereinabove, and therefore, Section 6 notification could not be issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer since the land acquisition proceedings are stayed. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the report prepared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 5A is dehors of the rules of natural justice, the same may be quashed and set aside. The Special Land Acquisition Officer may be directed to reconsider the objections already submitted by the petitioners afresh in respect of the land acquisition proceedings and to take decision according to law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
4. Mrs. Jog, learned AGP, has submitted that the objections submitted by the petitioners/landowners were identical in nature and were also considered by the Land Acquisition Officer before preparing the report under Section 5A of the Act. It is, therefore, contended that the said report is not violative of principles of natural justice.
5. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. In the normal circumstances we would not have shown any indulgence particularly when Section 4 notification was published in the year 1997, however, this Court granted interim relief vide order dated 24-4-1998 whereby the land acquisition proceedings are stayed till this date. While considering the grievance of the petitioner in respect of the report prepared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 5A of the Act, we have specifically asked the learned AGP to verify from the original record as to whether after filing of the objections by the petitioners to the land acquisition proceedings after Section 4(1) notification was published, any inquiry was conducted under Section 5A of the Act by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and whether the petitioners were given reasonable opportunity of hearing before preparing the report under Section 5A? Mrs. Jog, learned AGP, after verifying the original record of the land acquisition case informed the Court that there is no mention in the order-sheet dated 19-9-1997 that the opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It is, therefore, evident that the Land Acquisition Officer has not adhered to the rules of natural justice and therefore, the report prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 5A is inconsistent with the principles of natural justice. It is no doubt true that the State Government is entitled to acquire the land for public purpose. However, for safeguarding the interest of the land-holders, inquiry under Section 5A is required to be conducted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It is incumbent on the Special Land Acquisition Officer to follow the rules of natural justice before preparing the report under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act by giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the land-holders whose lands are being acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and who have raised objections. The inquiry under Section 5A though is summary in nature, however, is not the empty formality and therefore, the same should not be conducted in a casual manner and without following rules of natural justice.
6. In the instant case, in view of the abovereferred fact, we are of the view that the report under Section 5A prepared by the Special Land Acquisition Act is violative of principles of natural justice and therefore, the same is not sustainable in law. Hence, it is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for reconsideration of the objections already submitted by the petitioners in regard to their respective lands afresh, on its own merit and take a decision thereon after following the rules of natural justice, as early as possible in any case not beyond the period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The Special Land Acquisition Officer to issue notices to the petitioners within one week from the date of receipt of this order thereby the petitioners should be informed about the date, place and time of hearing.
Rule made absolute in above terms. No order as to cost.