Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 79 (UTT)

RAJIV BERRY v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

2007-03-01

B.C.KANDPAL, P.C.VERMA

body2007
JUDGMENT (Per : Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.) By means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents with regard to their land and sought the writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notification dated 4.5.2004 issued by the Government U/S 4(1) as well as the notification dated 14.3.2005, issued U/S 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the land in question is situated within the municipal limits of Dehradun and is located in extremely well developed urban area known and described as Rajpur Road. The land in question is bounded by Rajpur Road on one side, Subhash Marg on the other and Eucalyptus Road on the third side. The entire area where the land is situated is fully developed, consisting of Government Girls Inter College, Dehradun and other residential and commercial buildings which include general community facilities including wedding halls etc. The land in question is situated in the heart of the urban conglomeration of Dehradun city and all the land is under full urban use by the owners. In the year 2000, the new State of Uttaranchal was created and the State Recognization Act, 2000 was promulgated and enforced by the Parliament. In pursuance of the creation of the new State, it was decided to accommodate part of the government activities and offices in the city of Dehradun provisionally and as an interim measure. Other important government institutions and offices, like the High Court etc. were accommodated at Nainital . Dehradun is thus being used provisionally and temporarily as the capital of the State of Uttaranchal. The same description of Dehradun as provisional capital, appears in the official records of the Home Ministry, Govt. of India, pertaining the State Reorganization. Accordingly all the perceived and projected needs and requirements of lands and buildings in and around Dehradun city would essentially have to be gauged and assessed keeping in mind the purely interim nature of such requirements, dependent upon the provisional status of the city of Dehradun as capital of Uttaranchal. It is also pleaded that near the land in dispute there is already situated the building and area currently accommodating the State Government Secretariat. The same is spread over a vast area of approximately more than two hectares. It is also pleaded that near the land in dispute there is already situated the building and area currently accommodating the State Government Secretariat. The same is spread over a vast area of approximately more than two hectares. The Vidhan Sabha and other government buildings of the State are situated on the Haridwar Road; that the State Government has already acquired 500 acres of land along the Dehradun-Saharanpur Bye-pass Road adjacent to Vidhan Sabha and another 500 acres on the Sahasdhara Road; that all this land is available with the State Government and that this land is meant for the purpose of government buildings, including Vidhan Sabha, Government Secretariat etc. 3. The petitioners further pleaded that their land has over 200 trees standing, which include extremely rare and exotic trees in abundance, like sandal wood etc; that the said land also contain large number of residential buildings, which are in use of the petitioners and other residents; that the land is fully developed urban land and that the land of the petitioners is neither rural nor village land and is situated within the Municipal limits. 4. It is the further case of the petitioners that on 5.4.2004, a notification was issued by the respondents purportedly U/S 4 of the ‘Act’. The reason for acquisition, stated in the said notification, was the general need, for public schemes and for the extension of the Secretariat to the north and south. The said notification was issued by invoking the emergency clause U/S 17 of the ‘Act’, by doing away with the statutory requirement of Section 5 of the ‘Act’. This notification further described the land under acquisition as being situated in village Uddivala Karanpur in District Dehradun admeasuring 2.301 hectares; that the land was described in terms of Khasra numbers and that the said notification further made mention of certain houses and trees situated in the land described as village land of Uddivala Karanpur. Further case of the petitioners is that the utmost malafide on the part of the respondents is demonstrated by the fact that the notification deliberately gave a wrong and misleading as to give the impression that it was rural land that was being acquired for the development purposes. In fact, the Dehradun Township was established during the turn of the century, along side the development of New Delhi. In fact, the Dehradun Township was established during the turn of the century, along side the development of New Delhi. The entire area of the township of Dehradun was within the Municipal limits established in the first decade of the century before last. All the land is part and parcel of Municipal land described and recorded in the Municipal records in terms of the urban conglomeration, with road, colonies and education institutions. The D.A.V. College, the prime graduation college was established before 1925. Hence the intention of the respondents in trying to mis-describe the land as village land, establishes their malafides. 5. The petitioners also alleged that the said notification U/S 4 of the Act was challenged before the High Court in terms of writ petition No. 469 of 2004. This court vide order dated 30.10.2004 passed the following order :- “In these three writ petitions, particularly in writ petition No. 469 of 2004 (M/B) and 874 of 2004 (M/B) the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act has been challenged. So also challenge is to the notification under section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act by applying the urgency clause. In writ petition no. 480 of 2004 (M/B), there is a common challenge to the notification which provides for the acquisition of the land for extension of the Secretariat as also for the expansion of the road. These notifications are different. Mr. Sudhanshu Dhulia, Senior Advocate, in his usual fairness has shown readiness to hear the petitioners or as the case may be the persons interested, instead of going ahead with the urgency clause and more particularly dispensing with the enquiry under section 5-A. In view of the statement made, Mr. Naithani, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners withdraws the writ petitions, so far as challenge to the notification dated 5.5.2004 is concerned. In view of the urgency felt, we feel that it will be better for us to fix the programme. Public notice shall, therefore, be given within seven days from today inviting the objections. The concerned Land Acquisition Officer, who is to hear the objection, shall hear them within fifteen days. All the objections shall be filed before the Land Acquisition Officer shall dispose of the matter one way or the other after giving full opportunity of hearing etc. by December, 2004 or as the case may be earlier thereto. The concerned Land Acquisition Officer, who is to hear the objection, shall hear them within fifteen days. All the objections shall be filed before the Land Acquisition Officer shall dispose of the matter one way or the other after giving full opportunity of hearing etc. by December, 2004 or as the case may be earlier thereto. With this, we dispose of writ petition no. 469 of 2004 (M/B), 874 of 2004 (M/B) and partly writ petition no. 480 of 2004 (M/B).” 6. Consequent upon the aforesaid order the petitioners submitted their objections dated 11.11.2004, 16.11.2004 and 23.11.2004 before the court of Special Land Acquisition Officer/Collector, Dehradun. In the said objections, the petitioners challenged the acquisition proceedings as the same being vitiated for the reason that there was no legitimate, enduring or genuine public purposes for acquiring the petitioners land. The impugned acquisition was also challenged as prima facie establishing utter lack of bonafides. Replies to the said objections were filed by the respondents. Upon enquiry, the petitioners learnt that their objections were rejected by the Special land Acquisition Officer vide order dated 30.12.2004 and notification U/S 6 has been issued on 14.3.2005 by again invoking emergency clause. The petitioners also pleaded that before the government takes possession of the land, it is necessary and mandatory for them to pay 80% amount as compensation to the affected citizens. It was also alleged by the petitioners that the land adjacent to Rajpur road is being used by residents of Dehradun as shopping malls and more than 11 approved shipping malls as well as 15 hotels and restaurants have been constructed there with high quality of architectural buildings. One of the petitioners applied for the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority for establishing a shopping mall on 19.12.2002 which is still pending. Thereafter, an objection was raised by the Authority, which was removed subsequently and all permissions with regard to Fire Brigade, P.W.D. and others were cleared. It was further alleged that Khasra numbers out of which the property No. 1/10, 13/25, 27, 29, 35, 38, 45, 54, 62/82, 84/90, 92/96, 97, 139, 69/17 and 91/181 are situated at the erstwhile village of Uddiwala Karanpur. These all now form part of 24, Rajpur Road, Dehradun and are not at all situated in any rural area. It was further alleged that Khasra numbers out of which the property No. 1/10, 13/25, 27, 29, 35, 38, 45, 54, 62/82, 84/90, 92/96, 97, 139, 69/17 and 91/181 are situated at the erstwhile village of Uddiwala Karanpur. These all now form part of 24, Rajpur Road, Dehradun and are not at all situated in any rural area. That the area of 24, Rajpur Road, in which the disputed property of the petitioners are located, is fully occupied and is being used. There are buildings in the notified area, which are as old as 74 years. It was also alleged that till date, the petitioners are in actual physical occupation of the land in dispute. In case if the petitioners are dispossessed from the land in dispute they will suffer irreparable loss. The petitioners have therefore alleged that they are deeply aggrieved by the impugned acquisition notifications issued U/Ss 4 and 6 of the Act and are compelled to file the writ petition. They have no alternative efficacious remedy available. 7. The respondents filed counter affidavit and denied the allegations of the petitioners made in the writ petition. It was alleged by the respondents that after the formation of the State of Uttaranchal the city of Dehradun was temporarily proposed the capital of this State and thereafter due to being the necessity of land for the purpose of Government, non-Government as well as for other public works the acquisition of land was proposed by the development authority in which there is no land of extension of Secretariat. The proposed land is adjoining to Secretariat which is adequate for the extension point of view and the said land is being acquired in Government interest as well as in the interest of public. It was also alleged that as the proposed land over which the building is situated that is in dilapidated condition and as such the said land is being acquired in Government interest as well as from the point of view of making extension of the Secretariat building. It was also stated that the land which is being acquired is the land of village area and is not developed land. That in compliance of order dated 30.10.2004 passed by this Court the petitioners were given full opportunity of being heard and the objections so filed were accordingly disposed of. It was also stated that the land which is being acquired is the land of village area and is not developed land. That in compliance of order dated 30.10.2004 passed by this Court the petitioners were given full opportunity of being heard and the objections so filed were accordingly disposed of. So far as the question of payment of 80% of compensation is concerned the possession of the said land shall be taken up after paying due amount of compensation according to rules. 8. The petitioners filed supplementary affidavit and contended that the Land Acquisition Officer never forwarded any report to the State Government U/S 5-A of the Act. Furthermore the L.A.O. himself proceeded to decide the objections and the conduct on his part is completely illegally and against the scheme and object of the Act. No opportunity of being heard has been afforded to the petitioners. 9. The respondents also filed short counter affidavit and refuted the allegations made by the petitioners in their supplementary affidavit. It was alleged that the order of the Land Acquisition Officer Dehradun also has approval of the Government which is evident from the order passed by the Secretary P.W.D. dated 15.4.2006. The L.A.O. after hearing all the petitioners and decided their objections vide order dated 30.12.2004. A writ No. 393 (M/B) of 2005, which also pertains to the same acquisition challenging the same notification U/S 4 of the Act and other provisions of the Act, was filed before the High Court. The said writ petition was heard and dismissed by this Court vide order 23.12.2005. That the similar petition already stands decided, hence request was made for the dismissal of the present writ petition. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. In order to decide the controversy in the instant case with regard to this aspect of the matter as to whether the notification issued U/S 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is in accordance with law or not, it will be relevant to peruse certain provisions of Land Acquisition Act, which read as follows:- “4. 11. In order to decide the controversy in the instant case with regard to this aspect of the matter as to whether the notification issued U/S 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is in accordance with law or not, it will be relevant to peruse certain provisions of Land Acquisition Act, which read as follows:- “4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon – clear away any part of any standing crop, fence or jungle : Provided that no person shall enter into any building or upon any enclosed court or garden attached to a dwelling-house (unless with the consent of the occupier thereof) without previously giving such occupier at least seven days’ notice in writing of his intention to do so. 5A. Hearing of objections – (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a company may, within thirty days from the date of the publication or the notification, object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. (2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorized by him in this behalf or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (1), or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government. The decision of the Appropriate Government on the objections shall be final. (3) For the purpose of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under this Act.. 6. The decision of the Appropriate Government on the objections shall be final. (3) For the purpose of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under this Act.. 6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose– (1) Subject to the provision of Part VII of this Act, when the Appropriate Government is satisfied after considering the report, if any, made under Section 5A, sub-section (2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorized to certify its orders and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (where-ever required) under section 5-A, sub-section (2) : [Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (1)] (i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or (ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification; Provided further that no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. [Explanation 1 – In computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under Section 4, sub-section (1), is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded. [Explanation 1 – In computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under Section 4, sub-section (1), is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded. Explanation 2 – Where the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid out of the funds of a corporation owned or controlled by the State, such compensation shall be deemed to be compensation paid out of public revenues]. (2) Every declaration shall be published in the Official Gazette, [and in two daily newspaper circulating in the locality in which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the date of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of publication of the declaration), and such declaration shall state], the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area, and where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected. (3) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a company, as the case may be; and, after making such declaration the Appropriate Government may acquire the land in a manner hereinafter appearing.” 12. The record reveals that the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.10.2004 has specifically observed that the counsel for the M.D.D.A. has shown readiness to hear the petition or as the case may be the persons interested, instead of going ahead with the urgency clause and more particularly dispensing with the enquiry U/S 5-A. The Division Bench further directed the Land Acquisition Officer to invite objections by public notice and hear them within 15 days. The Land Acquisition Officer shall dispose of the matter one way or the other after giving full opportunity of hearing. 13. In compliance of the aforesaid order the objections were invited and the Special Land Acquisition Officer dismissed all the objections and sent the matter to the appropriate Government for decision. The Land Acquisition Officer shall dispose of the matter one way or the other after giving full opportunity of hearing. 13. In compliance of the aforesaid order the objections were invited and the Special Land Acquisition Officer dismissed all the objections and sent the matter to the appropriate Government for decision. The S.L.A.O. in any case sent his recommendation on the objections together with the record of the proceedings held by him for decision of the Government U/S 5-A of the Act. The record reveals that the S.L.A.O. sent the matter to the appropriate Government vide his recommendation dated 30.12.2004 (contained in Annexure No. 9 to this petition). 14. The impugned notification U/S 6 of the Act is contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The notification runs as follows :- “In pursuance of the provisions of clause (3) of Article 34B of the Constitution of India, the Governor is pleased to order the publication of the following English Translation of notification no. 424/iii-(2)/2005-06 (Budget)/2003, dated March 14, 2005 for general information. No. 424/III-(2)/2005-06 (Budget/2003 Dated Dehradun, March, 14, 2005 NOTIFICATION In continuation of Government notification no.. 969/L.N.-1/2003-06 (Budget)/2003 Dehradun, dated May 05, 2004, issued under sub-section (1) of section 4 read with section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act no. 1 of 1894), the Governor is pleased to declare under section 6 of the said Act that he is satisfied that the land mentioned in the Schedule below, is needed for public purpose, namely for the extension Uttaranchal Secretariat on North side of the Secretariat at Dehradun and under section 7 of the said Act to direct the Collector of Dehradun to take over the possession of the said land. 2. Now therefore the Governor, being satisfied that the case is one of urgency, is further pleased under sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said Act, to direct that the Collector, Dehradun if no award under section 11 has been made, may on the expiration of fifteen days from the publication of notice mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 9, take over the possession of the land mentioned in the Schedule for the said public purpose. vuqlwph Schedule ftyk ijxuk ekStk IykV uañ yxHkx {ks=Qy gsñ,ñ esa District Pargana Mauza Plot No. Approximate area (in hectares) 1 2 3 4 5 nsgjknwu dsUæh; nwu mn~nhokyk 1 ls 10] 13 ls 25 2301 djuiqj 27] 29 ls 35] 38 ls 45] 48 ls 54] 62 ls Dehradun Central Uddiwala 82] 84 ls 90] 92] 93] Dehradun Karanpur 95] 96] 97] 139] 86@179] 91@181 ;ksx 3-402 gSñ,ñ Hkouksa dh lwph List of Buildings ekStk Hkouksa dh la[;k Mauza Numbers of Buildings mn~nhokyk djuiqj 5 edku Houses Uddiwala Kanapur 5 fVu “ksM Tin sheds osfMax Iokb.V Wedding point 15. It is pertinent to mention here that the notification U/S 6 of the Act which is contained in Annexure-7 of the writ petition, nowhere shows that the appropriate government has recorded its satisfaction after considering the report made U/S 5-A(2) of the Act. The record further reveals that there is no order by which the appropriate government has recorded its satisfaction after considering the recommendation sent by the Land Acquisition Officer. Thus the decision taken by the appropriate Government U/S 5-A of the Act is not available anywhere. 16. The learned counsel for the respondents has tried to invite our attention towards Annexure-S-A-1 annexed with the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 on 25.4.2006, and has submitted that the government has issued the notification U/S 6(1) after considering the recommendation sent by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. This document annexed as above is dated 15.4.2006, but as we have already stated above that the respondents have failed to show us any order passed by the appropriate government taking the decision on the recommendation sent by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, U/S 5-A of the Act. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention towards the decision of Union of India and others Vs. Mukesh Hans reported in (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 14, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under :- “25. Section 5-A contemplates a right of hearing to any person interested in the land and provides for filing of objections which objections will have to be heard by the authorized officer by providing an opportunity of hearing to such interested persons. Section 5-A contemplates a right of hearing to any person interested in the land and provides for filing of objections which objections will have to be heard by the authorized officer by providing an opportunity of hearing to such interested persons. As noted above, the reports submitted after this inquiry may not be binding on the appropriate Government but the same is necessary to be considered by the appropriate Government, at the same time the report cannot be left out of consideration.” 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed in the aforesaid decision that – “26. Section 6 contemplates the making of a declaration as to the requirement of the land for a public purpose. This declaration in the normal course will have to be made only after the report of the inquiry officer under Section 5-A is considered by the appropriate Government. This declaration is required to be published in the Official Gazette”. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in an another decision reported in 8(1973) 2 SCC 337, Munshi Singh Vs. Union of India, has noticed the object and importance of section 5-A and has held as under :- “7. Section 5-A embodies a very just and wholesome principle that a person whose property is being or is intended to be acquired should have a proper and reasonable opportunity of persuading the authorities concerned that acquisition of the property belonging to that person should not be made. .... The legislature has, therefore, made complete provisions for the persons interested to file objections against the proposed acquisition and for the disposal of their objections. It is only in cases of urgency that special powers have been conferred on the appropriate Government to dispense with the provisions of Section 5-A: “ 20. Section 5-A of the Act consists of two parts, viz. hearing of objections by the Collector and decision of the government on the objections on the basis of the Collector’s report and both the part must be strictly complied with. It is not disputed that section 5-A of the Act confers a valuable right in favour of a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. hearing of objections by the Collector and decision of the government on the objections on the basis of the Collector’s report and both the part must be strictly complied with. It is not disputed that section 5-A of the Act confers a valuable right in favour of a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300-A of the Constitution, the state in exercise of its power of imminent domain, may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation, therefore, must be paid. 21. The Hon’ble Apex Court further in a case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Darius Shapur Chenai and others reported in (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 627 has held as under :- “8. The conclusiveness contained in Section 6 of the Act indisputably is attached to a need as also to the purpose and in this regard ordinarily, the jurisdiction of the court is limited but it is equally true that when an opportunity of being heard has expressly been conferred by a statute, the same must scrupulously be complied with. For the said purpose, Sections 4, 5-A and 6 of the Act must be read conjointly. The court in a case, where there has been total non-compliance or substantial non-compliance with the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act, cannot fold its hands and refuse to grant a relief to the writ petitioner. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act renders a declaration to be a conclusive evidence. But when the decision-making process itself is in question, the power of judicial review can be exercised by the court in the event the order impugned suffers from well-known principles viz. illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. Moreover, when a statutory authority exercises such enormous power it must be done in a fair and reasonable manner. 9. It is trite that hearing given to a person must be an effective one and not a mere formality. Formation of opinion as regards the public purpose as also suitability thereof must be preceded by application of mind as regards consideration of relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones. The State in its decision-making process must not commit any misdirection in law. Formation of opinion as regards the public purpose as also suitability thereof must be preceded by application of mind as regards consideration of relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones. The State in its decision-making process must not commit any misdirection in law. It is also not in dispute that in Article 300-A of the Constitution it has been held to be akin to a fundamental right. 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the same judgment has further held as under :- “15. Section 5-A of the Act is in two parts. Upon receipt of objections, the Collector is required to make such further enquiry as he may think necessary whereupon he must submit a report to the appropriate Government in respect of the land which is the subject-matter of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The said report would also contain recommendations on the objections filed by the owner of the land. He is required to forward the records of the proceedings held by him together with the report. On receipt of such a report together with the records of the case, the Government is to render a decision thereupon. It is now well settled in view of a catena of decisions that the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act need not contain any reason. (See Kalumiya Karimmiya v. State of Gujarat and Delhi Admn. V. Gurdip Singh Uban). 16. However, considerations of the objections by the owner of the land and the acceptance of the recommendations by the Government, it is trite, must precede a proper application of mind on the part of the Government. As and when a person aggrieved questions the decision-making process, the court in order to satisfy itself as to whether one or more grounds for judicial review exist, may call for the records whereupon such records must be produced. The writ petition was filed in the year 1989. As noticed hereinbefore, the said writ petition was allowed. This Court, however, interfered with the said order of the High Court and remitted the matter back to it upon giving an opportunity to the parties to raise additional pleadings.” 23. The Apex Court has further observed in the aforesaid judgment– “19. The writ petition was filed in the year 1989. As noticed hereinbefore, the said writ petition was allowed. This Court, however, interfered with the said order of the High Court and remitted the matter back to it upon giving an opportunity to the parties to raise additional pleadings.” 23. The Apex Court has further observed in the aforesaid judgment– “19. Furthermore, the State is required to apply its mind not only on the objections filed by the owner of the land but also on the report which is submitted by the Collector upon making other and further enquiries therefore as also the recommendations made by him in that behalf. The State Government may further inquire into the matter, if any case is made out therefore, for arriving at its own satisfaction that it is necessary to deprive a citizen of his right to property. It is in that situation that production of records by the State is necessary.” 24. In view of the aforesaid decision of law as well as after considering several decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court and on perusal of the material available before us, it can be safely inferred that the appropriate government did not make any decision on the consideration report of the S.L.A.O. U/S 5-A. The notice/declaration issued U/S 6 of the Act, therefore, does not stand in the eye of law. 25. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that it is not necessary that the declaration U/S 6 of the Act must contain reasons or refer to the objections for every particular land. 26. We are in agreement with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents, but as we have already observed that the record/material available before us, does not indicate that the appropriate government had acted blindly in issuing the notification. There is no material which may suggest that the appropriate Government had in fact issued the notification U/S 6 of the Act, after examining the report submitted by the officer concerned. 27. For the reasons stated above, we allow the writ petition and quash the notification dated 4.5.2004 issued by the government U/S 4(1) contained in Annexure-2 as well as the notification dated 14.3.2005 contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition. 27. For the reasons stated above, we allow the writ petition and quash the notification dated 4.5.2004 issued by the government U/S 4(1) contained in Annexure-2 as well as the notification dated 14.3.2005 contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Since if any, notification is issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the same would be beyond one year, as that cannot be issued in view of proviso (ii) appended to sub-section 1 of section 6 of the Act. 28. However, it will be open for the government to issue fresh notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Act.