NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI & Ors. v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.

1.7 The challenge before this Court has been made by the appellants with respect to a stretch of land admeasuring approximately 6 kms, out of the total stretch of 131 kms. The remaining stretch of land comprising of 125 kms has been acquired, and stands vested in the Government. The respondents have stated on affidavit that pre–construction activity and earth work has been completed on most parts of the stretch. Furthermore, most of the bridges are either in progress, or have already been completed. Appellants’ counsel submitted that since the land was being acquired for a public utility project, his clients would be satisfied if they were granted compensation by awarding the current rate for acquisition of land. Admittedly, no mala fides have been alleged by the appellants against the respondents in the acquisition proceedings. The larger public purpose of a railway project would not be served if the Notification under Section 20A is quashed. The public purpose of the acquisition is the construction and operation of a Special Railway Project viz. the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor in District Surat, Gujarat. In these extraordinary circumstances, it is deemed fit to balance the right of the appellants on the one hand, and the larger public purpose on the other, by compensating the appellants for the right they have been deprived of. The interests of justice persuade to adopt this course of action. In the instant case, the relief is being moulded by granting compensation to the appellants, to be assessed under Section 20G of the said Act as per the current market value of the land. The Competent Authority is directed to compute the amount of compensation on the basis of the current market value of the land, which may be determined with reference to Section 20G(2) of the Act. [Para 12] [122-E-H]

1.8 With respect to the remaining 125 kms stretch of land, the land–owners were satisfied with the amount awarded, and have not approached this Court. Under these circumstances, despite the finding that the respondents have breached the mandatory provisions of the Act, this is not a fit case to set aside the entire acquisition proceedings. [Para 13] [124-B-C] 92 A B C D E F G H NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI v. UNION OF INDIA Union of India v. Shivraj (2014) 6 SCC 564 : [2014] 8 SCR 751 ; Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai (2005) 7 SCC 627 : [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 388 ; Om Prakash v. State of U.P. (1998) 6 SCC 1 : [1998] 3 SCR 643 ; Laxmi Devi v. State of Bihar (2015) 10 SCC 241 : [2015] 11 SCR 179 ; Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 792 : [2011] 14 SCR 1113 ; Usha Stud & Agricultural Farms (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2013) 4 SCC 210 : [2013] 5 SCR 645 ; Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 : [2010] 10 SCR 1070 ; Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 395 : [1962] Suppl. SCR 713 ; Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 705 : [2009] 13 SCR 710 ; Sethi Auto Service Station v. DDA (2009) 1 SCC 180 : [2008] 14 SCR 598 ; Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 322 : [1954] SCR 1038 ; State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh AIR 1964 SC 358 : [1964] SCR 485 ; J&K Housing Board v. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul (2011) 10 SCC 714 : [2011] 14 SCR 976 ; Kunwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P. (2007) 5 SCC 85 : [2007] 4 SCR 409 ; Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat (1995) Supp (1) SCC 596 : [1994] 1 Suppl. SCR 807 ; Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 1074 : [1967] SCR 120 ; CCE v. Orient Fabrics (P) Ltd. (2004) 1 SCC 597 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 243 ; Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. (2007) 8 SCC 705 : [2007] 6 SCR 799 ; Savitri Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2015) 7 SCC 21 : [2015] 7 SCR 512 – referred to. Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor (1875) LR 1 Ch D 426 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2014] 8 SCR 751 referred to [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 388 referred to Para 11 Para 11 93 A B C D E F G H 94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R. A [1998] 3 SCR 643 [2015] 11 SCR 179 [2011] 14 SCR 1113 [2013] 5 SCR 645 [2010] 10 SCR 1070 referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to [1962] Suppl. SCR 713 referred to [2009] 13 SCR 710 [2008] 14 SCR 598 [1954] SCR 1038 [1964] SCR 485 [2011] 14 SCR 976 [2007] 4 SCR 409 referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to [1994] 1 Suppl. SCR 807 referred to [1967] SCR 120 referred to [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 243 referred to [2007] 6 SCR 799 [2015] 7 SCR 512 referred to referred to Para 11 Para 11.2 Para 11.2 Para 11.2 Para 11.2 Para 11.3 Para 11.3 Para 11.3 Para 11.5 Para 11.5 Para 11.5 Para 11.5 Para 11.5 Para 11.5 Para 11.5 Para 11.5 Para 12 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6270- 6273 of 2019. From the Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2018 by the High Court of Gujarat in Special Leave Application Nos. 19409/2015, 12711/2016, 14000/2016 and 14001/2016. C. A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv., C. G. Sharma, Galav C. Sharma, Ms. Rohini Musa, Abhishek Gupta, Zafar Inayat, Arjun Singh, Nachiketa Joshi, Advs. for the Appellants. Sanjay Jain, ASG, Durga Dutt, Ms. Rekha Pandey, Arun Kumar Yadav, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Ms. Kumud Lata Das, Ms. Indu Kaul, Ravi Agrawal, A. P. Mayee, A. Rajarajan, Sanjeev Kr. Choudhary, Advs. for the Respondents. B C D E F G H NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI v. UNION OF INDIA The Judgment of the Court was delivered by INDU MALHOTRA, J. Leave granted.

1. The present Civil Appeals have been filed to challenge the Final Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the Gujarat High Court, whereby the Special Civil Application Nos. 19409 of 2015, 12711 of 2016, 14000 of 2016, and 14001 of 2016 have been dismissed.

2. Since a common issue arises in all 4 Civil Appeals, they are being disposed of by the present common Judgment and Order.

3. The factual matrix in which the present Civil Appeals have been filed is as under :

3.1.

3.2.

3.3. On 08.02.2011, a Notification was issued under Section 20A of the Railways Act, 1989 [hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”] by the Ministry of Railways notifying its intention to acquire the lands specified in 18 Villages, situated in District Surat, Gujarat for the public purpose of construction of the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor. The total land under acquisition was a stretch of 131 kms. The land owned by the Appellants, comprising of approximately 6 kms, was included under the Notification. The Appellants along with other land-owners filed written Objections between 06.04.2011 and 07.04.2011 under Section 20D(1) of the Act before the Competent Authority/ Special Land Acquisition Officer, Surat [hereinafter referred to as “the Competent Authority”], Surat to challenge the proposed acquisition. The Competent Authority vide letter dated 15.07.2011, informed the land-owners that the acquisition was for a necessary public purpose i.e. the development of the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor. It was stated that compensation would be paid to all affected land-owners in accordance with Sections 20F and 20G of the Railways Act, 1989. 95 A B C D E F G H 96 A B C D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.

3.4.

3.5.

3.6.

3.7.

3.8.

3.9.

3.10. The land-owners were asked to remain present with necessary proofs at the time of personal hearing, the date of which would be intimated to them. The Competent Authority vide letter dated 19.07.2011, directed the land-owners to appear for a personal hearing on the Objections on 30.07.2011. The land-owners appeared before the Competent Authority on 30.07.2011 for personal hearing, and submitted further written Objections on 31.07.2011. The Competent Authority submitted its Report to the Central Government under Section 20E(1) of the Act on 03.01.2012. On 06.02.2012, the Ministry of Railways issued a Notification under Section 20E(1) of the Railways Act, 1989 stating that 59 Objections had been received in respect of the proposed acquisition, which had been considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority. On 06.02.2013 and 07.02.2013, Awards were passed by the Competent Authority under Section 20F of the Railways Act, 1989. On 13.08.2013, Shri Ghanshyamsinh Gambhirsinh Vashi, a land-owner, filed an RTI Application before the Competent Authority seeking a certified copy of the Order passed on the Objections filed by the land-owners. The Competent Authority replied to the said RTI Application on 05.09.2013, and stated that the reply to the Objections raised by the land-owners had already been communicated vide letter dated 15.07.2011. The Appellants herein challenged the acquisition proceedings by filing Special Civil Application Nos. 19409 of 2015, 12711 of 2016, 14000 of 2016, and 14001 of 2016 before the Gujarat High Court. The principal ground of challenge raised by the Appellants was that no Order had been passed on the Objections in accordance with Section 20D(2) of the said Act. NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI v. UNION OF INDIA [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

3.11.

3.12. The Appellants prayed for quashing and setting aside the Notification issued under Section 20A on 08.02.2011, and the Declaration issued under Section 20E on 06.02.2012. During the pendency of the proceedings, the High Court vide Interim Order dated 12.07.2018, directed the Respondents to file an Affidavit giving specific details pertaining to the disposal of the Objections after personal hearing was granted on 30.07.2011. The Chief Project Manager, Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited filed Affidavit dated 17.07.2018 on behalf of the Respondents before the High Court, wherein it was stated that : “4. I state that the clarification/reply given vide letter dated 15/7/2011 does not indicate the decision/order/predetermination of the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority has merely clarified the purpose of acquisition and provision of Railway Amendment Act 2008 to be considered while awarding compensation. On the contrary, in the said letter dated 15/7/2011, the Competent Authority has clearly informed the objector to remain present with all the relevant documents on a date which was to be intimated later. …

8. I state that the Competent Authority, after hearing all the objectors of land under acquisition, has passed two orders dated 28//11/ 2011 and 3/1/2012 disallowing all the objections raised by the objectors in public interest. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure VI Colly. Are the copies of the orders dated 28/11/2011 as well as 3/1/2012.”

3.13. The High Court vide Final Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2018 dismissed the Special Civil Applications filed by the Appellants. 97 A B C D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R. The Court took the view that in matters involving highly technical and scientific fields, courts would be extremely slow in overruling the decision taken by the Government after due deliberation. Unless it was pointed out that relevant considerations were not properly weighed, or that the decision was blatantly mala fide, courts would not attempt to substitute their understanding of such complex subjects for that of the Government. The Appellants failed to produce any material to support their objection that the proposed railway line was not advisable. It was, however, held that Section 20D of the Act confers a valuable right on a person interested in the land under acquisition, to raise objections, and be heard on such objections. The objections raised by a person interested have to be considered and disposed of, after a hearing is given by the competent authority. If the objections received by persons interested have not been disallowed by the competent authority, it would not be open for the Central Government to proceed to issue the Declaration under Section 20E(1) of the Act. The High Court recorded its concern about the manner in which the entire matter was dealt with by the Respondents. The land-owners were informed that their objections were not valid even prior to the personal hearing took place. After the personal hearing took place on 30.07.2011, the Competent Authority disposed of the objections on the office file, but never conveyed the decision to the objectors. The Competent Authority had not fulfilled the important stage of disposal of the objections prior to the Declaration being issued under Section 20E. It was further observed that the Competent Authority gave a completely wrong reply to the RTI Application filed by the land-owners. This was an act of utter carelessness which had serious ramifications. 98 A B C D E F G H NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI v. UNION OF INDIA [INDU MALHOTRA, J.] The Competent Authority vide Report dated 03.01.2012, informed the Chief Project Manager, Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited that all the Objections raised by the Appellants were heard at length, and orally answered. The Special Civil Applications were dismissed by the High Court, and the Competent Authority was directed to pay Costs of Rs. 50,000/- in each of the Special Civil Applications.

3.14. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment, the Appellant – Land-owners filed the present Civil Appeals.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and perused the pleadings and written submissions filed by the parties.

5. Mr. C. A. Sundaram, Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants inter alia submitted that :

5.1.

5.2.

5.3.

5.4. The Objections raised by the Appellants were not decided in accordance with the provisions of Section 20D(2) of the Act. The non-compliance of the same would render the entire acquisition proceedings null and void. It was further submitted that the Reply dated 05.09.2013 given by the Respondents to the RTI Application filed by the land-owners, clearly showed that there was no application of mind on the part of the Respondents. The said Reply simply stated that the Order disposing of the Objections raised by the land-owners had already been communicated to them on 15.07.2011. The letter dated 15.07.2011 cannot be construed to be an Order as contemplated by Section 20D(2) of the Act, since it was issued prior to the personal hearing which took place on 30.07.2011, and filing of the final objections on 31.07.2011. The letter dated 15.07.2011 was not an Order, but merely a direction to the Appellants to remain present with necessary proofs and documents at a time and date which would be subsequently intimated. 99 A B C D E F G H 100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R. A

5.5.

5.6. It was submitted that even though the land-owners were granted a personal hearing, there was no order passed either allowing or disallowing the objections as per the mandate of S. 20 D(2) of the Act. The orders dated 28.11.2011 and 03.01.2012 were not communicated to the land-owners. They were merely notations made on the internal files of the Competent Authority. The rejection of the Objections vide an endorsement or file noting would not constitute an order in the eyes of the law. An order passed by a statutory authority must be a speaking order supported by cogent reasons, which is required to be communicated to the objectors.

6. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India inter alia submitted that :

6.1.

6.2.

6.3. The land acquisition proceedings in the present case have been undertaken in compliance with Chapter IV A of the Railways Act, 1989. Chapter IV A of the Railways Act, 1989 is a self- contained code. The Court should not resort to, or seek the aid of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to interpret the provisions of the Railways Act, particularly since Section 20N of the Act makes the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 inapplicable to acquisitions under the Railways Act. The process for filing objections under Section 20D(2) of the Act is two-fold. First, the Competent Authority permits objections to be filed within 30 days of the publication of the Notification under Section 20A by the Central Government notifying its intention to acquire land. Thereafter, the Competent Authority has the discretion to call for a personal hearing in order to conduct a further enquiry if deemed necessary.

6.4. In the present case, the Objections raised by the Appellants were received in writing on 06.04.2011. The Competent Authority after considering the said B C D E F G H NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI v. UNION OF INDIA [INDU MALHOTRA, J.] 101 Objections, passed an Order on 15.07.2011 which was communicated to each of the Appellants. Thereafter, personal hearing was granted on 30.07.2011, which was in the nature of a further enquiry. The Objections raised by the Appellants in the personal hearing on 30.07.2011 were almost identical to those raised earlier on 06.04.2011. The Objections raised by the Appellants had effectively been dealt with vide letter dated 15.07.2011, which was communicated to each of the Appellants.

6.5. It was further submitted that no order was required to be passed after the personal hearing dated 30.07.2011, because no fresh material came on record.

7. The issues which arise for our consideration are : i) Whether the provisions of Section 20D(2) have not been complied with by the Competent Authority in the present case? ii) If so, what would be the consequences of the non compliance of Section 20D(2) with respect to the acquisition proceedings, and the rights of the Appellants?

8. Relevant Statutory Provisions To determine the issues raised by the Appellants in the present proceedings, the statutory provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 as amended in 2008, would require to be considered. The statutory provisions for acquisition of land for a Special Railway Project are contained in Chapter IV A of the Railways Act, 1989. Chapter IV A is a complete self-contained code for the acquisition of land. Chapter IV A was incorporated vide Amendment Act 11 of 2008. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Railways (Amendment) Act, 2008 states that : “2. There is a need to provide for land acquisition provisions in the Railways Act, 1989 to empower the Central Government in the Ministry of Railways for land acquisition on fast track basis for the special railway projects on the lines of the land A B C D E F G H 102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H acquisition provisions available in the National Highways Act, 1956.” Chapter IV A comprises of Section 20A to 20P of the amended Act. The relevant provisions under Chapter IV A are set out hereinbelow for ready reference : “20A. Power to acquire land, etc. (1) Where the Central Government is satisfied that for a public purpose any land is required for execution of a special railway project, it may, by notification, declare its intention to acquire such land. (2) Every notification under sub-section (1), shall give a brief description of the land and of the special railway project for which the land is intended to be acquired. (3) The State Government or the Union territory, as the case may be, shall for the purposes of this section, provide the details of the land records to the competent authority, whenever required. (4) The competent authority shall cause the substance of the notification to be published in two local newspapers, one of which shall be in a vernacular language. 20D. Hearing of objections, etc. (1) Any person interested in the land may, within a period of thirty days from the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 20A, object to the acquisition of land for the purpose mentioned in that sub-section. (2) Every objection under sub-section (1), shall be made to the competent authority in writing, and shall set out the grounds thereof and the competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard, either in person or by a legal practitioner, and may, after hearing all such objections and after making such further enquiry, if any, as the competent authority thinks necessary, by order, either allow or disallow the objections. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, “legal practitioner” has the same meaning as in clause (1) of sub- NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI v. UNION OF INDIA [INDU MALHOTRA, J.] 103 section (1) of section 2 of the Advocates Act, 1961(25 of 1961). A (3) Any order made by the competent authority under sub- section (2) shall be final. 20E. Declaration of acquisition (1) Where no objection under sub-section (1) of section 20D has been made to the competent authority within the period specified therein or where the competent authority has disallowed the objections under sub-section (2) of that section, the competent authority shall, as soon as may be, submit a report accordingly to the Central Government and on receipt of such report, the Central Government shall declare, by notification, that the land should be acquired for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) of section 20A. (2) On the publication of the declaration under sub-section (1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. (3) Where in respect of any land, a notification has been published under subsection (1) of section 20A for its acquisition, but no declaration under sub-section (1) of this section has been published within a period of one year from the date of publication of that notification, the said notification shall cease to have any effect: Provided that in computing the said period of one year, the period during which any action or proceedings to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 20A is stayed by an order of a court shall be excluded. (4) A declaration made by the Central Government under sub- section (1) shall not be called in question in any court or by any other authority. 20G. Criterion for determination of market-value of land (1) The competent authority shall adopt the following criteria in assessing and determining the market-value of the land,— B C D E F G H 104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H (i) the minimum land value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899(2 of 1899), for the registration of sale deeds in the area, where the land is situated; or (ii) the average of the sale price for similar type of land situated in the village or vicinity, ascertained from not less than fifty per cent, of the sale deeds registered during the preceding three years, where higher price has been paid, whichever is higher. (2) Where the provisions of sub-section (1) are not applicable for the reason that:— (i) the land is situated in such area where the transactions in land are restricted by or under any other law for the time being in force in that area; or (ii) the registered sale deeds for similar land as mentioned in clause (i) of sub-section (1) are not available for the preceding three years; or (iii) the minimum land value has not been specified under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899(2 of 1899) by the appropriate authority, the concerned State Government shall specify the floor price per unit area of the said land based on the average higher prices paid for similar type of land situated in the adjoining areas or vicinity, ascertained from not less than fifty per cent, of the sale deeds registered during the preceding three years where higher price has been paid, and the competent authority may calculate the value of the land accordingly. (3) The competent authority shall, before assessing and determining the market-value of the land being acquired under this Act,— (a) ascertain the intended land use category of such land; (b) take into account the value of the land of the intended category in the adjoining areas or vicinity, for the purpose of determination of the market-value of the land being acquired. NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI v. UNION OF INDIA [INDU MALHOTRA, J.] 105 (4) In determining the market-value of the building and other immovable property or assets attached to the land or building which are to be acquired, the competent authority may use the services of a competent engineer or any other specialist in the relevant field, as may be considered necessary by the competent authority. (5) The competent authority may, for the purpose of determining the value of trees and plants, use the services of experienced persons in the field of agriculture, forestry, horticulture, sericulture, or any other field, as may be considered necessary by him. (6) For the purpose of assessing the value of the standing crops damaged during the process of land acquisition proceedings, the competent authority may utilise the services of experienced persons in the field of agriculture as he considers necessary. 20I. Power to take possession (1) Where any land has vested in the Central Government under sub-section (2) of section 20E, and the amount determined by the competent authority under section 20F with respect to such authority by the Central Government, the competent authority may, by notice in writing direct the owner as well as any other person who may be in possession of such land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the competent authority or any person duly authorised by it in this behalf within a period of sixty days of the service of the notice. (2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with any direction made under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall apply— A B C D E F (a) In case of any land situated in any area falling within the metropolitan area, to the Commissioner of Police; G (b) In case of any land situated in any area other than the area referred to in clause (a), to the Collector of a district, H 106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H And such Commissioner or Collector, as the case may be, shall enforce the surrender of the land, to the competent authority or to the person duly authorised by it. 20J. Right to enter into land where land has vested in Central Government Where the land has vested in the Central Government under section 20E, it shall be lawful for any person authorised by the Central Government in this behalf, to enter and do other act necessary upo0n the land for carrying out the building, maintenance, management or operation of the special railway project or part thereof or nay other work connected therewith. 20N. Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 not to apply Nothing in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall apply to an acquisition under this Act.”

9. The scheme of Chapter IV A is as follows : i) ii) The Central Government is empowered under Section 20A to issue a preliminary Notification, notifying its intention to acquire land for a public purpose required for the execution of a special railway project. Section 20D provides for filing of objections and grant of personal hearing. The provision is in two parts : a) Sub-section (1) states that any person interested in the land, may within a period of 30 days from the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 20A, file objections to the acquisition of land for the purpose mentioned in that sub-section. b) Under sub-section (2) of Section 20D, the mandate of the statute is that : Every objection shall be made in writing to the Competent Authority; The Competent Authority is mandated to give an opportunity of hearing to the Objector, either in person or by a legal practitioner; NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI v. UNION OF INDIA [INDU MALHOTRA, J.] 107 iii) iv) v) vi) vii)

9.1. That “after hearing” all objections, and after making such further enquiry, if any, the Competent Authority may either allow or disallow the objections by an order. c) Sub-section (3) of Section 20D states that an order passed by the Competent Authority under Section 20D (2) shall be final. Sub-section (1) of Section 20E provides that if no objections are received, or if the objections are disallowed, then the Competent Authority shall submit a report to the Central Government. On receipt of such report from the Competent Authority, the Central Government shall declare by notification, that the land should be acquired for the purpose mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 20A. On the publication of the declaration under Section 20E(1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. Sub-section (3) of Section 20E states that if the declaration is not published within a period of one year from the date of publication of the Notification under Section 20A(1), the Notification shall cease to have any effect. Sub-section (4) of Section 20E states that the declaration made by the Central Government under sub-section (1) shall not be called in question in any court of law or by any authority. A reading of the aforesaid statutory provisions shows that the land-owner or interested person has been granted a limited right to file objections under Section 20D of the Railways Act, 1989. The scope of the objections is limited to the purpose for which the acquisition is made. It is not a general right to file objections as under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A B C D E F G H 108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R. A

9.2. The statute has mandated a strict procedure to be followed under Section 20D with respect to the submission and hearing of objections. The statute mandates that the order is required to be passed by the Competent Authority “after hearing” the land-owners. The order cannot precede the hearing of objections. If an order is passed prior to the personal hearing, and enquiry by the Competent Authority, it would be contrary to the statute, invalid, and vitiated by a pre-determined disposition.

10. In the present case, it is the admitted position that after the personal hearing took place on 30.07.2011, no decision was passed on the objections submitted by the land-owners, either allowing or disallowing their objections; nor was any communication sent to them. This is confirmed by the Affidavit of the Competent Authority dated 18.07.2018 filed before the High Court (pgs. 296 – 301, Volume II), wherein it is stated as follows :- “7. It is respectfully submitted that personal hearing was fixed in between 30.07.2011 to 18.08.2011 and 21.10.2011 to 03.01.2012 and alongwith the objections raised by the petitioners, in total 88 objectors are given opportunity of hearing in the aforementioned time period, and as the date qua the present petitioners was fixed for providing hearing on 30.07.2011, the personal hearing was provided wherein the same kind of objections were raised as raised by way of objection application dated 06.04.2011 and therefore the objection was recorded in the hearing memo dated 30.07.2011 and after completion of the hearing proceedings qua all the objectors, on 28.11.2011 and 03.01.2012 respectively the noting was prepared by endorsing that all the objections are rejected and therefore the proposal was submitted before the Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation for further procedure. I crave leave to produce the original file at the time of hearing of the present matter.

8. It is most humbly and respectfully submitted that so far as the averment regarding reply dated 05.09.2013 under RTI application is concerned, I say and submit that the applicants B C D E F G H NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI v. UNION OF INDIA [INDU MALHOTRA, J.] 109 have asked for certified copy of the decision taken for hearing provided to the objector, wherein vide reply dated 05.09.2013 the reply was given from the office of the answering respondent by stating that “the reply to the objection application given by you against Notification under the provisions of Section 20A of the Railway Amendment Act has already been given to you by this office (copy is enclosed). Moreover, necessary hearing in that behalf has also been afforded to you. No order regarding objection application is passed after such hearing, because reply regarding objection application has already been given to you.”

10.1.

10.2. (emphasis supplied) It is abundantly clear that in the absence of an order being passed as contemplated by Section 20D of the said Act, no further steps could have been taken by the Competent Authority in the acquisition in question. During the hearing of the Special Civil Applications, the High Court called for the office files of the Respondent. On a perusal of the files, the Court chanced upon a hand- written note sent by the Competent Authority to the Chief Project Manager, Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited, which is set out hereinbelow : “Finally after due consideration and taking in to view the nationwide infrastructure, long lifetime permanent utility and hence public utility is greater than that of person, all the 59 objection were disallowed by order by the undersigned and their applications for objection were filed at this end.” The file noting in the office files of the Competent Authority cannot be considered to be an order on the objections.

11. Section 20D is a mandatory provision which confers a substantive and valuable right on the land-owners, to object to the proposed acquisition, before they are forcibly divested of their right, title and interest in the land by an expropriatory legislation. A B C D E F G H 110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H The right to file objections under Section 20D of the Railways Act, 1989 is pari materia to Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 even though the scope of objections may be more limited. The judgments rendered by this Court on the nature of the right to object under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are equally applicable to the Railways Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 20D mandates the Competent Authority to give the objectors an opportunity of hearing, either in person or through a legal practitioner. The Competent Authority after hearing all objections, and after making such further enquiry, if any, is mandated to pass an order either allowing or disallowing the objections. There are a catena of judgments passed on Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which are relevant for the interpretation of Section 20D(2) of the said Act. This Court has held that the rules of natural justice have been ingrained in the scheme of Section 5-A of the 1894 Act with a view to ensure that before any person is forcibly deprived of his land by way of compulsory acquisition, he must be provided with an opportunity to oppose the decision of the Government.1 This Court has held that the hearing given to a person must be an effective one, and not a mere formality. Formation of opinion with regard to the public purpose, as also suitability thereof, must be preceded by application of mind having due regard to the relevant factors. Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 confers a valuable right on the land-owners. Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300-A of the Constitution, the right to raise and file objections has been held to be akin to a fundamental right.2 In Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai,3 this Court held that: “6. It is not in dispute that Section 5-A of the Act confers a valuable right in favour of a person whose lands are sought