UNION OF INDIA & Ors. v. SHIV RAJ & Ors.

A huge chunk of land covering 11 villages was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 C in the year 1980. Respondents-tenure holders filed their objections under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act. However, the declaration was made under Section 6 of the 1 ~' '•4 Act without considering and disposing of the objections. The respondents filed writ petitions before the High Court. The High Court held that where objections had been filed D and had been heard by one Collector and the report had been submitted by another collector, the proceedings stood vitiated being in violation of principle of natural justice. The instant appeals were filed challenging the order of the High Court. E Dismissing the appeals, the Court F HELD: 1. The rules of natural justice have been ingrained in the scheme of Section 5.-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with a view to ensure that before any person is deprived of his land by way of compulsory acquisition, he must get an opportunity to oppose the decision of the State Government and/or its agencies/ instrumentalities to acquire the particular parcel of land. Section 5-A(2) of the Act 1894, which represents statutory G embodiment of the n,1le of audi alteram partem, gives an opportunity to the objector to make an endeavour to convince the Collector that his land is not required for the public purpose specified in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act 1894 or that there are other valid H 754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 8 S.C.R. A reasons for not acquiring the same. Thus, section 5-A of the Act 1894 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 B concerned that acquisition of the property belonging to that person should not be made. On the consideration of the said objection, the Collector is required to make a report. The State Government is then required to apply mind to the report of the Collector and take final decision c on the objections filed by the landowners and other interested persons. Then and then only, a declaration can be made under Section 6(1) of the Act 1894. Therefore, Section 5-A of the Act 1894 confers a valuable right in favour of a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. It is trite that hearing given to a person must be an effective one and not a mere formality. Formation of opinion as regard the public purpose as also suitability thereof must be preceded by application of mind having due regard to the relevan·t factors and rejection of irrelevant ones. The State in its decision making process E must not commit any misdirection in law. It is also not in dispute that Section 5-A of the Act, 1894 confers a valuable important right and having regard to the provisions, contained in Article 300A of the Constitution of India has been held to be akin to a fundamental right. F Thus, the limited right given to an owner/person interested under Section 5-A of the Act, 1894 to object to the acquisitioil proceedings is not an empty formality and is a substantive right, which can be taken away only for good and valid reason and within the limitations G prescribed under Section 17(4) of the Act, 1894. [Paras 0 8, 9 and 10] [764-E-H; 765-A-G]

2. The Land Acquisition Collector is duty-bound to objectively consider the arguments advanced by the H objector and make recommendations, duly supported by UNION OF INDIA v. SHIV RAJ 755 brief reasons, as to why a particular piece of land should A or should not be acquired and whether the plea put forward by the objector merits acceptance. In other words, the recommendations made by the Land Acquisition Collector should reflect objective application of mind to the entire record including the objections filed B by the interested persons. [Para 11] [765-H; 766-A] J.E.D. Ezra v. Secy. of State for India (1902-1903) 7 CWN 249; Nandeshwar Prasad v. U.P. Government AIR 1964 SC 1217: 1964 SCR 425; Munshi Singh & Ors. v. Unionpflndia C AIR 1973 SC 1150: 1973 (1) SCR 973; Union of India & Ors. v. Mukesh Hans AIR 2004 SC 4307; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. Darius Shahpur Chenai and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 3520: 2005 (3 ) Suppl. SCR 388; Anand Singh & Anr v. State of U. P. & Ors. (2010) 11 SCC 242: 2010 (9) SCR 133; D Dev Sharan v. State of U. P. (2011) 4 SCC 769: 2011 (3) SCR 728; Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 792: 2011 (14) SCR 1113;- Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2013) 4 SCC 210: 2013 (5) SCR 645; Women's Education Trust v. State of Haryana (2013) 8 SCC 99; Rasid Javed & Ors. v. State of E U.P. & Anr., AIR 2010 SC 2275 : 2010 (7) SCR 535; Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association v. Designated Authority & Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 258: 2011 (1 ) SCR 198 - relied on. . F

3. The very person/officer, who accords the hearing to the objector must also submit the report/ take decision on the objection and in case his successor decides the case without giving a fresh hearing, the order would stand vitiated havirig been passed in violation of the G principles of natural justice. [Para 15] [767-C] Bharat, Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors 2014 (3) SCALE 393 - relied on.

4. Sub-section (2) of Section 24 commences with a H 756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R. B A non-obstante clause. It is a beneficial provision. In view of this provision, if the physical possession of the land has not been taken by the Acquiring Authority though the award is pass~d and if the compensation has not been paid to the land owners or has not been deposited before the appropriate forum, the proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 is deemed to have been lapsed. Admittedly, the award was made on 5.6.1987 and possession was not taken till date though compensation has been deposited with the Revenue D~partment, which cannot be termed c as 'deemed payment' as has been held in case of *Pune Municipal Corporation. [Paras 18 and 20] [770-G-H; 771- A; 773-B] *Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183: 2014 (1) D SCR 783 - relied on. E

5. In **Balak Ram Gupta v. Union of India, Full Bench of High Court of Delhi quashed the land acquisition proceedings in the said case exclusively on the ground that objections filed by the petitioner therein had been heard by one Land Acquisition Collector, however, the report was submitted by another. The land covered in these instant appeals stood covered by the same notification/declaration, same award and the objections F had been dealt with by the same land acquisition collector and the report had been submitted by the same successor. Admittedly, the appellants accepted that judgment, and the same attained finality as the said judgment was never challenged by filing any S.L.P .. before this court. In the light of aforesaid judgment, a large number of writ petitions were allowed and the land acquisition proceedings arising out of the sarne notification/declaration were quashed. Subsequently, this Court dealt with the same issue arising out of the same acquisition proceedings and held that the judgment of H quashing the acquisition proceedings would apply only G UNION OF INDIA v. SHIV RAJ 757 B to the land of those persons who had challenged A acquisition proceedings and not to all. the land covered by the said notification/declaration. The. appellants had been under the impression that the judgment delivered by the Full Bench in **Balak Rain Gupta, laid down the law applicable to other persons also whose land stood covered by the said notification/declaration. In the instant batch of writ petitions filed before the High Court, relying on the ciecision in ***Gullapalli Nageswarcr Rao, the Court was of the opinion that where the objections were heard by one collector but the ·report was made by another, c such procedure was not in strict compliance of requirements of Section 5-A of the Act 1894. The issue of prejudice caused to a party in case of. violation of principles of natural justice arises in cases dealing with un-codified proc;edure. The mandatory language of Section 5-A of the Act 1894 made it essential that the collector who hears the land owner must submit the report and, hence, no question of prejudice could be said to be· applicable in determining the violation of principles of natural justice. In the instant cases, there had been challenge to the acquisition proceedings on various grounds inclUding the manner in which objections under Section 5-A of the Act 1894 had been decided. In some cases, the High Court allowed amendment to the writ petitions and such order had never been challenged by the appellants. In a. case where on the basis of submissions advanced in the court on behalf of the parties, the court summons the original record to find out the truth, pleadings remain insignificant. In the instant cases, the. High Court was satisfied after examining the original record that objections had been dealt with in G flagrant violation of law and in such a fact-situation, the prejudice doctrine for non-observat!on thereof would not be attracted. Here is no cogent reason to differ from such a view. [Paras 22, 23, 2(' and 28] [773-F-H; 774-A-D; 775- G-H; 776-A-E] E 0 F H 758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 8 S.C.R. A ***Gullapalli Nageswara Rao & Ors. v. Andhta Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Anr., AIR 1959 SC 308: 1959 Suppl. SCR 319 - relied on. _.. **Balak Ram Gupta v,. Union of India (117) 2005 DLT 753 (FB) - referred to. 8

6. It is evident from the record that in respect of a major chunk of land which stood covered under the same Section 4 notification, the land acquisition proceedings had been quashed in a batch of 74 Writ Petitions having C been filed before the High Court and the appellants, for the reasons best known to it, did not challenge the same and resultantly, the same has attained finality. For about a decade following the said judgment in **Balak Ram Gupta, proceedings in other cases were also quashed D and those decisions were not challenged and have thus, also attained finality. A large number of cases filed before this court stood dismissed vide order dated 10.12.2008, as the petitioners did not take steps to serve the respondents. In such a fact scenario,' where in respect of E major chunk of land, the land acquisition proceedings had been quashed long back and which has attained finality, the scheme of planned development of Delhi cannot be executed at such a belated stage in view of the fact that vacant land in continuous stretch may not be F available. [Para 29] [776-F-H; 777-A-C]