Fraud in Decision Making Process leading to Section 6 Declaration
Land Acquisition Act 1894
The Objections under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were filed by the Secretary of a Cooperative House Building Society on behalf of all its members(I was one of the Members). This Objection was considered as valid objection qua the lands and qua all the members by the Land Acquisition Collector/s.
The Land Acquisition Collector heard the objector Society Secretary and and recommended that the Lands constructed and under construction and vacant be exempted from the Section 6 Declaration.
However, the Joint Site Inspection Committee chaired by the MUDA Administrator (to be the beneficiary of the acquisition) recommended that the constructed houses be released but vacant lands in Society be acquired.
The Land Acquisition Collector was transferred out. The Report prepared by him was sent by the successor Land Acquisition Collector , three days after the former's transfer, to the Administrator of MUDA instead of to the State Government.
The MUDA Administrator moved a note
mis -representing to State Government the lands recommended to be released from the acquisition as if recommended by the Land Acquisition Collector.
Thus in the Section 6 Declaration the lands recommended to be acquired/ released by the Joint Site Inspection Committee found its way.
The State maintained in all replies that the Land Acquisition Collector's recommendations were accepted by the State Government.
Upon challenge in the High Court the State contends that the since the individual members did not file objections , they can not challenge.
My questions are:-
1. Can the objections filed by the House Building Society- filed on behalf of its members- duly accepted as such- be later on negated by the State in the legal arguments?
2. Is there any fraud on power on behalf of the Administrator, MUDA to have termed the recommendations actually made by the Joint Site Inspection Committee as that of the Land Acquisition Collector?
email : [deleted]