Indian Oil Corporation
v.
Amratlal Chimanlal
(High Court Of Gujarat At Ahmedabad)
Civil Revision No. 998 Of 1987 | 21-01-1988
(1) In all these Revision Applications a common issue has been raised that the acquiring body has neither given notice under Sec. 50 of the Act nor any opportunity was given to adduce any evidence in respect of the compensation claim.
(2) Case of the petitioners is that they came to know about this Award when the Government Pleader Narol called upon the acquiring body to deposit the amount that was awarded to the claimants in each case and therefore as soon as they came to know about the same certified copies were obtained and the present Civil Revision Applications have been filed by the petitioners-original acquiring body. The lands have been acquired by the Government for the purpose of acquiring body and therefore the acquiring body has to pay the compensation that has been determined by the trial Court.
(3) Record of the case was called for and from the record it transpires that no notice has been issued to the petitioners the acquiring body nor any opportunity appears to have been given to adduce evidence in respect of the compensation claim as required by Sec. 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act has been amended by the Land Acquisition (Gujarat Unification and Amendment) After 1963 (Gujarat Act No 20 of 1965) and in Sec. 50 of the principal Act in sub-sec (2) for the words may appear and adduce evidence the Words shall be called upon to appear and adduce evidence if any have been substituted. Therefore so far as Gujarat is concerned in any land acquisition proceedings held before a Collector or Court the local authority or Company concerned shall be called upon to appear and adduce evidence if any Section 50(2) as amended clearly casts duty upon the Collector or Court to call upon the local authority or the Company to appear and adduce evidence if any. If no notice is issued to the local authority or the Company as the case may be to appear and adduce evidence if any it would amount to denial of reasonable opportunity inspite of mandatory provision of Sec. 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act that the local authority or Company concerned shall be called upon to appear and adduce evidence if any. Therefore amended Sec 50(2) of the Act clearly casts upon the Court duty to call upon the local authority or the Company concerned to appear and adduce evidence if any. Non-issuance of such notice would vitiate the proceedings before the Collector or Court and the Award made in such proceedings would be illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and such Award would be liable to be quashed if grievance about non-compliance of provision of Sec. 50(2) of the Act is made by the concerned party.
(4) It would have been quite just and proper to make suitable amendment in Sec. 20 of the Act which provides for the service of notice by adding the words and local authority or the Company concerned in sub-clause (c) of Sec. 20. This would have made the position more clear. However Sec. 50(2) of the Act clearly casts a duty upon the Collector or the Court to call upon the local authority or the Company concerned to appear and adduce evidence if any. Therefore. issuance of notice by the Court to the local authority or the Company concerned calling upon it to appear and adduce evidence if any is obligatory. In the instance case it is apparent that the acquiring body has not been served with any notice and has not been called upon to appear and adduce evidence if any so far as the proceedings in the trial Court are concerned. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimants fairly conceded after going through the record of the case which was called for in the present case that no notice appears to have been issued to the acquiring body in the present case and there does not appear that any opportunity was given to adduce evidence if any to the acquiring body. The matter has been heard on the question of notice and has not been heard on merit and the above concession has been made by the learned Counsel for the claimants only so far as issuance of notice by the Court was concerned.
(5) In view of the amendment in Sec. 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act the duly is cast upon the Court to issue a notice to the acquiring body to appear and adduce evidence if any. Moreover in view of the fact that the Government is a party through the Land Acquisition Officer to the acquisition proceedings it is the moral duty of the Government who is acquiring the land on behalf of the acquiring body to inform the acquiring body about the proceedings in the Court with regard to the determination of amount of compensation 50 that the acquiring body may appear before the court and adduce evidence if any and if it so desires. Apparently in the instant case no such notice appears to have been issued to the acquiring body and hence the Award in these cases deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(6) In the result these Revision Applications are allowed. The judgment and award dated 29-4-1987 made in Land Acquisition Case No. 124 of 1986 and the judgment an award dated 1-5-1987 made in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 406 to 408 of 1986 are quashed and set aside only on this limited ground of none-issuance of notice as required under Sec. 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act as aforesaid to the acquiring body. Learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners will file appearance in the said matters under Sec. 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act on or before 15-2-1988 and the petitioner will also file written statement if so desired. Thereafter the matter will be heard and disposed of on merit and the parties will be at liberty to produce evidence if any in respect of their case. In view of the fact that the Awards were already passed and they are set aside on this limited ground it will be in the interest of all parties concerned to direct that the matter b: disposed of as early as possible. Hence it is directed that the matters should be disposed of as early as possible preferably by 30-6-1988. Rule is accordingly made absolute in all these Revision Applications. There shall be no order as to costs. Application allowed.
Advocates List
For the Appearing Parties Nitin Amin, R.P. Bhatt, Advocates.
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.C. BHATT
Eq Citation
1988 GLH (1) 562
AIR 1989 GUJ 32
(1988) 1 GLR 358
LQ/GujHC/1988/7
HeadNote
Municipalities, Municipal Corporations and Notified Area Councils — Land Acquisition — Notice to acquiring body — Mandatory nature of — Held, in view of amendment in S. 50(2) of LA Act, duty is cast upon Court to issue a notice to acquiring body to appear and adduce evidence, if any — Moreover, in view of fact that Government is a party through LA Officer to acquisition proceedings, it is its moral duty to inform acquiring body about proceedings in Court with regard to determination of amount of compensation so that acquiring body may appear before Court and adduce evidence, if it so desires — In instant case, no such notice appears to have been issued to acquiring body and hence award quashed — Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Ss. 50(2) & 20 — Constitution of India, Art. 226