Case: Parshottam Jadavji Jani Vs. State Of Gujarat &amp; Ors

2. The appellant is the owner of Survey Nos. 219/1 and 121 situated on the outskirts of Mahuva in Bhavnagar District. By notification, dated April 25, 1969, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the State Government declared that the above-mentioned lands were needed for the public purpose of construction of an Industrial Estate by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation or were likely to be needed for that purpose. On May 3, 1969 a notice was issued to the appellant by S.O. Collector, Officer on Special Duty, Land Acquisition, informing the appellant that if he had any objection to the acquisition of the lands, he might file objections on or before August 16, 1969. He was further informed that the Officer will hear him or his at the time of filing the objections. The appellant filed his objections. He took various points, but we are only concerned with one. He took various points, but we are only concerned with one. He pointed out that the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation "has come out with ambitious projects for the establishment of the industrial estate though, in fact, the land already acquired by the Corporation is in excess of the requirement of the Corporation. I say that the Corporation is not in possession of such material as would establish genuineness for the establishment of an industrial estate at Mahuva. I, therefore, claim that the responsible officer should be cross-examined by me for the purpose of showing that the proposed acquisition is not for public purpose and that there is no need to acquire the present lands. The other suitable lands are available and the Corporation has not availed of the same and that the acquisition needs to be dropped. I say that the contiguous lands to the lands under the first notification are available and it would be more suitable than the present land. I, therefore, submit that the proposed acquisition is mala fide inasmuch as may lands are preferred to the other land-owners available immediately near the lands required under the first notification".He accordingly prayed :"(a) That the officers of the said Corporation which have sought the acquisition and/or such Officer I name hereafter be summoned for the purposes of cross-examination.(b) That personal hearing be granted."3. It appears that hearing was fixed for September 18, 1969; this date was extended from time to time till November 18, 1969. The appellant did not appear on these dates nor did he apply for any extension of time. His written objections dated August 12/18, 1969 and dated September 18, 1969 were considered and included in the report, under Section 5-A to theHigh Court relying on its earlier decision in Chandalal v. State ((1963 (4) GLR 326.)  held that the inquiry under Section 5-A(2) is an administrative inquiry and objector is not entitled to cross-examine any officer or members of the acquiring body".

Court's reasoning:
5. Under Section 55 of the Land Acquisition Act certain rules have been made for the guidance of officers in dealing with objections lodges under Section 5-A of the Act.It seems to us that the rules have been complied with. The appellant was given an opportunity to be heard personally. He chose not to avail himself of that opportunity. The appellant cannot under these rules claim to cross-examine officers of the Corporation, and in our opinion the prayer to cross-examine officers was rightly rejected. Indeed it was a strange request. The officers had not given any evidence before the Collector and we are unable to see what principle entitles the appellant to claim this right. When rules have been framed regulating the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, it is not necessary to consider whether the enquiry is administrative or quasi-judicial and whether rules of natural justice have been complied with, and accordingly we say nothing on this point.