2014 (5) TMI 1036 - SC - Indian Laws

Land Acquisition by Government for public purposes namely the 'planned development of Delhi' - Objections under Section 5A of the Act 1894 - Principle of Natural Justice - High Court has quashed the land acquisition proceedings in view of the fact that the objections filed by the respondents-tenure holders under Section 5A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had not been considered by the statutory authorities in strict compliance of principles of natural justice - Held that - 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 relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones. The State in its decision making process 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. Thus, the limited right given to an owner/person interested under Section 5-A of the Act, 1894 to object to the acquisition 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 prescribed under Section 17(4) of the Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector is duty-bound to objectively consider the arguments advanced by the objector and make recommendations, duly supported by brief reasons, as to why the particular piece of land should 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 by the interested persons. This Court in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao 1959 (8) TMI 42 - Supreme Court of India , held that Personal hearing enables the authority concerned to watch the demeanour of the witnesses and clear up his doubts during the course of the arguments, and the party appearing to persuade the authority by reasoned argument to accept his point of view. If one person hears and another decides, then personal hearing becomes an empty formality. We therefore hold that the said procedure followed in this case also offends another basic principle of judicial procedure. (Emphasis added) . In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that 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 having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The facts are not in dispute. A huge chunk of land covering 11 villages was notified under Section 4 of the Act 1894 in 1980. A large number of people had filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act 1894 and it has been admitted on oath by the officer of the appellant department that in almost all these appeals, the tenure holders or their processor in interest had filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act 1894. This is also not in dispute that most of the objections were heard by one land acquisition collector and after his transfer, the report had been submitted by his successor. In Balak Ram Gupta v. Union of India 1987 (5) TMI 370 - DELHI HIGH COURT , 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 stand covered by the same notification/declaration, same award and the objections 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 had been allowed and the land acquisition proceedings arising out of the same notification/declaration had been quashed. Subsequently, in Abhey Ram & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 1997 (4) TMI 498 - SUPREME COURT ,this Court dealt with the same issue arising out of the same acquisition proceedings and held that the judgment of quashing the acquisition proceedings would apply only to the land of those persons who had challenged 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 Ram Gupta , laid down the law applicable to other persons also whose land stood covered by the said notification/declaration. 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 flagrant violation of law and in such a fact-situation, the prejudice doctrine for non-observation thereof would not be attracted. We do not see any cogent reason to differ from such a view. No judgment had been brought to our notice on the basis of which it can be held that the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao 1959 (8) TMI 42 - Supreme Court of India is not a good law. 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 been filed before the Delhi 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 v. Union of India & Ors. 1987 (5) TMI 370 - DELHI HIGH COURT , proceedings in other cases have also been quashed and those decisions have not been challenged and have thus, also attained finality. A large number of cases filed before this court and particularly SLP (C) Nos. 208, 211 & 212 of 2008 stood dismissed vide order dated 10.12.2008, as the petitioners did not take steps to serve the respondents therein as is evident from the Office Report dated 25.6.2013. In such a fact scenario, where in respect of major chunk of land, the land acquisition proceedings had been quashed long back and which has attained finality, it is beyond our comprehension as to whether the scheme of planned development of Delhi can be executed at such a belated stage in view of the fact that vacant land in continuous stretch may not be available. In view of above, we do not see any force in these appeals even on merit and the same are liable to be dismissed. In view of the findings and particularly in view of the interpretations given to Section 24(2) of the Act 2013 in the judgments referred to herein above, it is not necessary to entertain any other ground whatsoever at the behest of the appellants. Thus, the appeals are devoid of any merit and are dismissed. - Decided against the appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-consideration of objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Validity of the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
4. Impact of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 on ongoing proceedings.
5. Legal implications of the successor officer submitting the report on objections.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-consideration of Objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The respondents, who were tenure holders, filed objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, these objections were not considered before the declaration under Section 6 was made. The High Court quashed the land acquisition proceedings citing non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, as the objections were not duly considered by the statutory authorities.

2. Validity of the Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The declaration under Section 6 was made without disposing of the objections filed under Section 5A. The High Court held that the notification under Section 6 was within the stipulated period after excluding the period during which the interim stay order was in operation. However, the validity of the inquiry under Section 5A was questioned since the objections had been heard by one Collector and the report was submitted by his successor.

3. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The Supreme Court reiterated that Section 5A of the Act confers a valuable right to the landowners to object to the acquisition proceedings. The principle of "audi alteram partem" (hear the other side) is ingrained in Section 5A to ensure that the landowners get an opportunity to oppose the acquisition. The Court emphasized that the same officer who hears the objections must also submit the report, failing which the order would stand vitiated due to the violation of principles of natural justice, as held in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation.

4. Impact of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013:
The appellants contended that the commencement of the Act, 2013, would not nullify the proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894. However, the respondents argued that since the acquisition proceedings were quashed and possession remained with the tenure holders, the proceedings lapsed under Section 24 of the Act, 2013. The Supreme Court upheld that if the award was made five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act, 2013, and possession was not taken or compensation not paid, the proceedings would lapse.

5. Legal Implications of the Successor Officer Submitting the Report on Objections:
The Court held that the successor officer submitting the report on objections without giving a fresh hearing violates the principles of natural justice. The original officer who hears the objections must submit the report. The Court referred to several precedents, including Munshi Singh v. Union of India and Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association v. Designated Authority, to reinforce that the procedure followed must ensure an effective hearing and objective application of mind.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's decision to quash the land acquisition proceedings due to non-compliance with Section 5A and violation of principles of natural justice. The Court also emphasized that the provisions of the Act, 2013, would apply, leading to the lapse of acquisition proceedings if the conditions under Section 24(2) were met. The judgment underscores the necessity of adhering to procedural fairness and the statutory rights of landowners during acquisition proceedings.