Case: Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad &amp; Another Vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad &amp; Another

that provision for appeal is not a complete substitute for a personal hearing which is provided for under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. This will be evident from a perusal of clause 3 of Schedule B itself. The character of the appeal contemplated under clause 3(ii) of Schedule B is only with regard to the examination of the following aspects:--"(1 ) whether the order or approval of the plan is within the powers of the Bombay Act, and(2) whether the interests of the appellant have been substantially prejudiced by any requirement of this Act not having been complied with."13. The appeal is confined under clause 3 of Schedule B to the examination of only the twin aspects referred to above. There is no provision for entertainment of any other relevant objection to the acquisition of land. For example a person whose land is acquired may object to the suitability of the land for the particular purpose acquired. He may again show that he will be at an equal disadvantage if his land and house have to be acquired in order to provide accommodation for the poorer people as he himself belongs to the same class of the indigent. He may further show that there is a good alternative land available and can be acquired without causing inconvenience to the occupants of the houses whose lands and houses are sought to be acquired. There may be other relevant objections which a person may be entitled to take before the Commissioner when the whole matter is at large. The Commissioner will be in a better position to examine those objections and consider their weight from all aspects and may even visit the locality before submitting his report to the Standing Committee with his suggestions. For this purpose also a personal hearing is necessary. The appeal court under the Schedule B to the Bombay Act, on the other hand, is not required under clause 3 to entertain all kinds of objections and it may eve n refuse to consider the objections mentioned earlier in view of the truncated scope of the hearing under clause 3(ii) as noted above. We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission that the appeal provided for under Schedule B is a complete substitute for a right to personal hearing and as such by necessary implication ousts the applicability of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act.Mr. Shroff further submits that under the Appendix I, inter alia, section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act is made applicale in an acquisition proceeding under the Bombay Act. It is, therefore, submitted that under section 284N, sub-section (4) any acqui sition under the Bombay Act is treated as an acquisition under section 17 ( 1 ) of the Land Acquisition Act and since section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act is also brought in under the said Appendix, section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, by necessary implication, should be held as excluded from the purview of the Bombay Act. We are unable to accept this submission. Even under section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act the appropriate Government has to direct, in a case of urgency, that the provisions of section 5A shall not apply. There is no automatic exclusion of section 5A even under the Land Acquisition Act. That being the position there is no substance in the contention that because of subsection (4) of section 284N, section 5A should be held inapplicable in the case of an acquisition proceeding under the Bombay Act.14. We are clearly of opinion that section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act is applicable in the matter of acquisition of land in this case and since no personal hearing had been given to the appellants by the Commissioner with regard to their written objections the order of acquisition and the resultant confirmation order of the State Government with respect to the land of the appellants are invalid under the law and the same are quashed. It should be pointed out, it is not a case of failure of the rules of natural justice as such as appeared to be the only concern of the High Court and also of the City Civil Court. It is a case of absolute non-compliance with a mandatory provision under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act which is clearly applicable in the matter of acquisition under the Bombay Act.We should also point out that the acquisition order must be an order valid under the law and the question of appeal arises only after confirmation of the order by the State Government. If the order is, at inception, invalid, its invalidity cannot be cured by its approval of the Standing Committee or by its confirmation of the State Government.15. Besides, hearing of objections under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act to be given by the Commissioner under the Bombay Act cannot be replaced by a kind of appeal hearing by the City Civil Judge. The Bombay Act having assigned the duty of hearing objections to the Commissioner, he alone can hear them and not the City Civil Judge even assuming that all objections could be entertained by him in appeal. (See Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.(1)].16. Beneficial schemes under welfare legislation have to be executed in accordance with law which creates the schemes. The end does not always justify the means and it is no answer that the object of the scheme is such that it justifies the implementer of the law to be absolutely oblivious of the manner of enforcement even though t he manner is an integral part of the scheme, imposing under the law, restrictions on the rights of individuals. Beneficial laws have to be simple and self-contained. To introduce provisions of another Act referentially in vital matters creates avoidable difficulties and litigation highlighted by the case in hand.17. It is refreshing that this Court disposed of this matter within about four months of granting of special leave.18.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission that the appeal provided for under Schedule B is a complete substitute for a right to personal hearing and as such by necessary implication ousts the applicability of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act.Mr. Shroff further submits that under the Appendix I, inter alia, section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act is made applicale in an acquisition proceeding under the Bombay Act. It is, therefore, submitted that under section 284N, sub-section (4) any acqui sition under the Bombay Act is treated as an acquisition under section 17 ( 1 ) of the Land Acquisition Act and since section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act is also brought in under the said Appendix, section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, by necessary implication, should be held as excluded from the purview of the Bombay Act. We are unable to accept this submission. Even under section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act the appropriate Government has to direct, in a case of urgency, that the provisions of section 5A shall not apply. There is no automatic exclusion of section 5A even under the Land Acquisition Act. That being the position there is no substance in the contention that because of subsection (4) of section 284N, section 5A should be held inapplicable in the case of an acquisition proceeding under the Bombayare clearly of opinion that section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act is applicable in the matter of acquisition of land in this case and since no personal hearing had been given to the appellants by the Commissioner with regard to their written objections the order of acquisition and the resultant confirmation order of the State Government with respect to the land of the appellants are invalid under the law and the same are quashed. It should be pointed out, it is not a case of failure of the rules of natural justice as such as appeared to be the only concern of the High Court and also of the City Civil Court. It is a case of absolute non-compliance with a mandatory provision under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act which is clearly applicable in the matter of acquisition under the Bombay Act.We should also point out that the acquisition order must be an order valid under the law and the question of appeal arises only after confirmation of the order by the State Government. If the order is, at inception, invalid, its invalidity cannot be cured by its approval of the Standing Committee or by its confirmation of the Statehearing of objections under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act to be given by the Commissioner under the Bombay Act cannot be replaced by a kind of appeal hearing by the City Civil Judge. The Bombay Act having assigned the duty of hearing objections to the Commissioner, he alone can hear them and not the City Civil Judge even assuming that all objections could be entertained by him in appeal. (See Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v. Lt. Governor of Delhi &schemes under welfare legislation have to be executed in accordance with law which creates the schemes. The end does not always justify the means and it is no answer that the object of the scheme is such that it justifies the implementer of the law to be absolutely oblivious of the manner of enforcement even though t he manner is an integral part of the scheme, imposing under the law, restrictions on the rights of individuals. Beneficial laws have to be simple and self-contained. To introduce provisions of another Act referentially in vital matters creates avoidable difficulties and litigation highlighted by the case inis refreshing that this Court disposed of this matter within about four months of granting of special leave.