TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Opportunity to be heard emphasized in land acquisition process. Collector's recommendations not binding. Statutory procedures crucial.</h1> <h3>Shri Mandir Sita Ramji Versus Lt. Governor of Delhi</h3> Shri Mandir Sita Ramji Versus Lt. Governor of Delhi - 1974 AIR 1868, 1975 (1) SCR 597, 1975 (4) SCC 298 Issues:1. Opportunity of being heard under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.2. Duty of the Land Acquisition Collector to hear objections and make recommendations.3. Interpretation of the term 'attached to a religious institution' in the context of land acquisition.4. Compliance with statutory procedures and the role of the Collector in land acquisition cases.Analysis:The case involved a writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Court of Delhi to quash a notification issued under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellant, a registered society, objected to the acquisition of land belonging to a religious trust. The Land Acquisition Collector did not provide an opportunity for the appellant to be heard regarding the objections filed under section 5A of the Act, leading to the quashing of the notification by a Single Judge of the Court. However, a Division Bench overturned this decision, prompting the appellant to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court emphasized the mandatory nature of affording an opportunity to be heard under section 5A by the Collector. The Court clarified that while the Collector's recommendation is not binding on the Government, the Collector must still hear objections and make recommendations before the Government decides on the acquisition. The case highlighted the importance of following statutory procedures to uphold the rule of law in the country.Regarding the interpretation of the term 'attached to a religious institution,' the Court disagreed with the Division Bench's view that the objection raised only a question of law. The Court held that since the objection involved mixed questions of law and fact, the Collector was obligated to inquire into the objection and make recommendations as per section 5A. Failure to do so indicated a dereliction of duty on the part of the Collector, regardless of the ultimate decision-making authority lying with the Government.In conclusion, the Supreme Court quashed the declaration under section 6 of the Act and directed the Land Acquisition Collector to conduct an inquiry into the objection after providing the appellant with an opportunity to be heard. The Court stressed the importance of adhering to statutory procedures in land acquisition cases and set aside the Division Bench's order, allowing the appeal without costs.This judgment underscores the significance of procedural fairness, the duty of the Collector to hear objections, and the necessity of following statutory requirements in land acquisition matters to uphold the principles of justice and the rule of law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
