TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Supreme Court: Right to be heard in land acquisition cases upheld.</h1> The Supreme Court held that the beneficiary, a society under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, had the right to be heard before withdrawal of ... - Issues Involved:1. Rights of the beneficiary of an acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act to resist withdrawal of acquisition proceedings.2. Compliance with the principles of natural justice in the context of withdrawal of acquisition.3. Validity of the reasons provided for withdrawal of acquisition.4. Procedural compliance under the Land Acquisition Act, including prior approval and public purpose.5. Justiciability of the decision to withdraw acquisition.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Rights of the Beneficiary to Resist Withdrawal of Acquisition Proceedings:The core issue was whether the beneficiary of an acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act (the Act) could resist the withdrawal of acquisition proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the beneficiary, in this case, a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1961, had a right to be heard before the acquisition was withdrawn. The Court emphasized that the principles of natural justice should be read into statutory provisions unless expressly excluded. The Court noted, 'An opportunity of being heard may allow the beneficiary not only to counter the basis for withdrawal but also, if the circumstances permitted, to cure any defect or shortcoming and fill any lacuna.'2. Compliance with the Principles of Natural Justice:The appellant argued that the withdrawal of the acquisition without notice or hearing violated the principles of natural justice. The Court agreed, citing the decision in *Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat* which recognized the right of the beneficiary to be heard. The Court stated, 'This Court has consistently held that the requirements of natural justice will be read into statutory provisions unless excluded expressly or by necessary implication.'3. Validity of the Reasons Provided for Withdrawal of Acquisition:The Court scrutinized the reasons for the withdrawal of the acquisition, which were based on the opinion of the Law Department that the appellant's registration under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act was invalid. The Court found this reasoning factually incorrect, noting that the appellant's registration had not been withdrawn or canceled. The Court stated, 'The opinion of the Law Department that none of the objects of the Appellant were within the objects specified in Section 3 was factually incorrect.'4. Procedural Compliance under the Land Acquisition Act:The Court examined whether the acquisition complied with procedural requirements, including prior approval and the public purpose requirement. The Court found that the appellant had submitted a housing scheme, and the requisite prior approval had been obtained. The Court noted, 'The material was relevant not only to the question of public purpose under Section 4 but could also form the basis of an approval under Section 3(f)(vi).'5. Justiciability of the Decision to Withdraw Acquisition:The Court held that the decision to withdraw the acquisition was justiciable and could be challenged on grounds of arbitrariness or mala fides. The Court cited *Amarnath Ashram Trust Society v. Governor of U.P.*, stating, 'Even though Section 48 of the Act confers upon the State wide discretion it does not permit it to act in an arbitrary manner.' The Court found that the withdrawal was arbitrary and not bona fide, particularly given the lack of valid reasons and the failure to provide the appellant an opportunity to be heard.Conclusion:The Supreme Court quashed the notification under Section 48(1) of the Act withdrawing the acquisition, holding that the appellant had a right to be heard, and the reasons for withdrawal were invalid. The Court allowed the appeal with costs, setting aside the High Court's decision. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and procedural requirements in land acquisition matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
