- (1.) Special leave granted. This appeal filed by M/s. Fomento Resorts and Hotels Limited raises the short question as to whether compliance with R. 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter called the Rules). is necessary before issuing notifications under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) It appears that the land in question was purchased by Gustavo Ranato da Cruz Pinto hereinafter referred to as the land owner and the original respondent 1 on 10th Mar. 1978. The original respondent 2 and the appellant herein on the 15th Nov. 1978 made an application under Chap. 7 of the Act for the acquisition of the said properties. The government issued on the 29th Oct. 1980 notification in respect of the land in question under S. 4 of the Act which was published in the Government Gazette dt. 30th Oct. 1980. The land owner being respondent 1 to this appeal objected to the said notification under S. 4. Subsequently government held enquiry under S. 5A of the Act and the Deputy Collector submitted the. report to the Government in March. 1981. On or about 10th Aprl, 1981, the, Deputy Collector issued notice to respondent 1 that enquiry under R. 4 of the Rules would be held on 15th Aprl, 1981. The respondent 1 filed his objections on merit by the letter dt. 4th May, 1981. On 26th Oct. 1983, agreement was executed between the government and the acquiring company that the land in question was needed for the purpose of development of tourism. The government issued notification under S. 6 of the Act which was published in the government Gazette dated 27th Oct. 1983.
(3.) The petition under Art. 226 out of which this appeal arises was filed in the Bombay High Court by respondent 1 challenging the High Court by the said notifications under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Act. The High Court of Bombay (Goa Bench) quashed the said notifications under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Act only on the ground that enquiry under R. 4 of the Rules was not held prior to the notification under S. 4 of the Act. The propriety and validity of the said decision of the High Court are under challenge in this appeal. The High Court, however, noted that the impugned notification had been challenged on several other grounds but in the view it had taken on the first ground namely that the notifications under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Act being bad for prior non-compliance with R. 4 of the Rules, the High Court felt that it was not necessary to deal with other grounds. The petition succeeded before the High Court and the notifications under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Act were quashed. This appeal is filed against the judgment of the High Court.;