1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.1129 of 2008 (Sameer s/o. Babarao Sote and anr. vs. State and Ors.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM : D.D.Sinha and Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, JJ. DATE : 6.6.2008. Heard Mr. Anand Parchure, Adv. for Petitioners and Mr.D.P.Thakre, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the grievance of the petitioners in the present Writ Petition is in respect of violation of the procedure prescribed u/s. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, in the instant case, the petitioners were not given reasonable opportunity of hearing nor the objection submitted by the petitioners in respect of land of the petitioners was entertained and the notification u/s.6 of the Act was published. It is contended that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has given complete go-bye to the statutory procedure stipulated u/s. 4-A of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore, the report submitted by the Special Land Officer u/s. 5-A to the State government is 2 invalid and unsustainable. The Assistant Government Pleader has disputed the contentions canvassed by the Counsel for the petitioners and has submitted that the petitioner was in fact called on several occasions to remain present before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Special Land Acquisition Officer specifically asked the petitioners to produce oral or documentary evidence in order to substantiate their contentions and time was also granted for this purpose. However, the petitioners failed to do so and it is submitted that the objection of the petitioners was also referred to the Acquiring Body. Concerned Gram Panchayat, after considering the status of the land, passed resolution whereby the land in question was proposed to be acquired for the purpose of extension of gaothan. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. In the backdrop of the above referred facts and circumstances and after perusal of the original record placed before us, it appears that the petitioners in fact were given opportunity of hearing since the petitioners personally appeared before the Special Land Acquisition Officer; however, they failed to produce any document or other evidence in order to substantiate the contention that the land in question is not suitable for extension of gaothan. It is true that the statutory procedure stipulated u/s. 5A cannot be taken lightly by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. There is no quarrel about the law laid down by the Apex Court in this 3 regard and it is necessary for the Special Land Acquisition Officer to follow the procedure contemplated u/s. 5-A and conduct enquiry strictly according to the said procedure by giving opportunity of hearing to the claimants and also to consider evidence placed on record, if any. Any deviation from the statutory procedure will definitely affect the Land Acquisition proceedings. However, in the instant case, it appears that the Special Land Acquisition Officer gave reasonable opportunity of hearing and also granted time to the petitioners to produce evidence : documentary or otherwise; however, the petitioners failed to do so. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had taken into consideration the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat as well as other relevant factors before submission of report u/s. 5-A of the Act. In the circumstances, the petition suffers from lack of merits. Hence, the same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE ssj