Petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order passed by the 2nd respondent Special Tahsildar Land LA (General) on 03/09/2013 rejecting his application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that the order had been passed without notice to the petitioner. That apart, in the impugned order it is stated that the award which is relied upon by the petitioner is not with reference to a comparable land.
3. According to the petitioner, the finding of the 2nd respondent is absolutely baseless and if statutory notice had been given, petitioner could have made available sufficient particulars to prove otherwise.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
5. Having regard to the fact that the Statute clearly prescribes issuance of notice before disposal of application under Section 28A of the LA Act, it is all the more necessary for the Land Acquisition Officer to have issued notice to the petitioner. Failure to do so, has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that I am not expressing any opinion on the merits of this case.
In the result, this writ petition is disposed of as under:
i) Ext.P3 is set aside.
ii) There shall be a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to consider Ext.P1 application in accordance with law and after issuing notice to the petitioner. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr