SAM HIRING CO. versus A.R. BHUJBAL AND ORS .

SAM HIRING CO. versus A.R. BHUJBAL AND ORS .

The shed occupied by the appellant is part of City Survey No. 56 within the meaning of 'building' under the Act and is thus liable to acquisition for reconstruction; the requirement for natural justice was satisfied as a hearing was given and the Executive Engineer's report was considered, making further opportunities or cross-examination unnecessary; the Land Acquisition Officer fulfilled his administrative duty and was not obligated to address every objection in detail.

Parties
Appellant: Sam Hiring Co.; Respondents: A.R. Bhujbal and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 January 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From Bombay High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Notice Under Section 5 a, Building Acquisition and Demolition, Tenancy Rights, Natural Justice in Acquisition Proceedings
Land Acquisition Property Law Notice Under Section 5 a Building Acquisition and Demolition Tenancy Rights Natural Justice in Acquisition Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sam Hiring Co.

Appellant

A.R. Bhujbal and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From Bombay High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the building occupied by the appellant is part of City Survey No. 56 and liable to be acquired?
  2. 2 Whether further hearing or cross-examination after the Executive Engineer's report was required under principles of natural justice?
  3. 3 Whether the Land Acquisition Officer is obliged to address each objection in detail?

Ratio Decidendi

The shed occupied by the appellant is part of City Survey No. 56 within the meaning of 'building' under the Act and is thus liable to acquisition for reconstruction; the requirement for natural justice was satisfied as a hearing was given and the Executive Engineer's report was considered, making further opportunities or cross-examination unnecessary; the Land Acquisition Officer fulfilled his administrative duty and was not obligated to address every objection in detail.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • No costs.