9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 1036X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 witn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition (Civil) Nos. 2529 of 1985; 889 of 1986; 988 of 1986; 2155 of 1987; 2645 of 1987; and 2747 of 1987, by which and where under, the 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 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act 1894 ), had not been considered by the statutory authorities in strict compliance of principles of natural justice and thus, the subsequent proceedings stood vitiated, relying on the main judgment and order of the same date passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.424 of 1987 titled Chatro Devi v. Union of India. 2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that: A. The land of the respondents-tenure holders being survey no. 619/70, etc. ad measuring 50,000 big has situated in revenue village Chhatarpur, stood notified under Section 4 of the Act 1894 on 25.11.1980 for public purposes, namely, the planned development of Delhi and objections under Section 5A were invited from the persons interested within 30 days of the said Notification. B. Respondents - persons interested, filed their objections under Section 5A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder would stand vitiated. D. In view thereof, the matter was referred to the third Judge vide order dated 3.3.2005 and vide judgment and order dated 20.12.2006, the Hon ble third Judge held that in such a situation where objections had been filed and had been heard by one Collector and the report had been submitted by another Collector, the proceedings stood vitiated being in violation of principles of natural justice. E. In view of the majority opinion, as is evident from the order dated 11.5.2007, the proceedings in such an eventuality stood quashed by the impugned judgment and order. Hence, these appeals. 3. Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Geeta Luthra and Shri Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Counsel, have addressed a large number of legal and factual issues and also submitted that the judgment and order of the High Court are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the question quashing the land acquisition proceedings in such circumstances did not arise. More so, the commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the original Act did not oblige the Government to enquire into and consider any objection of the persons interested nor the Act provided for right of hearing to the person whose interest stands adversely affected. 7. In Nandeshwar Prasad v. U.P. Government, AIR 1964 SC 1217, this Court dealt with the nature of objections under Section 5-A of the Act 1894 observing as under: 13. The right to file objections under Section 5-A is a substantial right when a person s property is being threatened with acquisition and we cannot accept that that right can be taken away as if by a side wind 8. The rules of natural justice have been ingrained in the scheme of Section 5-A of the 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 embodiment of the rule 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 purpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singh Ors. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 1150; 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; Anand Singh Anr v. State of U.P. Ors., (2010) 11 SCC 242; Dev Sharan v. State of U.P., (2011) 4 SCC 769; Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 792; Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2013) 4 SCC 210; and Women s Education Trust v. State of Haryana, (2013) 8 SCC 99). 12. This Court in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao (supra), held: 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) 13. This Court in Rasid Javed Ors. v. State of U.P. Anr., AIR 2010 SC 2275 following the judgment in Gullapalli (supra), supra held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act 17. The provisions of the Act 2013 referred to here in above have been considered by a three judge bench of this court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183. In the said case, the tenure-holders had challenged the acquisition proceedings before the Bombay High Court by filing nine writ petitions, although two of such writ petitions had been filed before making the award and seven had been filed after the award. The land acquisition proceedings had been challenged on various grounds. The High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the land acquisition proceedings and issued certain directions including restoration of possession as in the said case the possession had been taken from the tenure-holders. This Court in the appeal filed by the authority for whose benefit the land had been sought to be acquired, and who had been handed over the possession as the land vested in the State, appro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in Court. X X X 21. The argument on behalf of the Corporation that the subject land acquisition proceedings have been concluded in all respects under the 1894 Act and that they are not affected at all in view of Section 114(2) of the 2013 Act, has no merit at all, and is noted to be rejected. Section 114(1) of the 2013 Act repeals 1894 Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 114, however, makes Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applicable with regard to the effect of repeal but this is subject to the provisions in the 2013 Act. Under Section 24(2) land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, by legal fiction, are deemed to have lapsed where award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of 2013 Act and possession of the land is not taken or compensation has not been paid. The legal fiction under Section 24(2) comes into operation as soon as conditions stated therein are satisfied. The applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act being subject to Section 24(2), there is no merit in the contention of the Corporation. (Emphasis supplied) 18. The judgment of Bharat Kumar v. State of Haryana Ors, 2014 (3) SCALE 393 was a reverse ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where awards were passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 5 years or more prior to 1.1.2014 as specified in Section 24(2) of the Act, to avoid any ambiguity. Since this legislation has been passed with the objective of benefiting the land-losers, this interpretation is consistent with that objective and also added as a matter of abundant caution that the period spent in litigation challenging an award cannot be excluded for the purpose of determining whether the period of five years has elapsed or not. If the possession has not been taken or compensation has not been paid due to the challenge to the land acquisition proceedings, the pendente lite period will be included to determine the five year period and including such period if the award was made five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act, then the said acquisition proceedings will be deemed to have elapsed and fresh proceedings, if so desired, will have to be initiated in accordance with the new Act. The objects and reasons of the Act 2013 and particularly clause 18 thereof fortify the view taken by this court in the judgments referred to hereinabove. Clause 18 thereof reads as under: T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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., AIR 1997 SC 2564, 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 (Supra), laid down the law applicable to other persons also whose land stood covered by the said notification/declaration. 24. In Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 296, this court again dealt with the same acquisition proceedings and observed that if a tenure holder had not filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act 1894, he cannot challe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delivered the judgment cited as 137 (2007) DLT 14. Relying on the decision in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao (Supra), the Court was of the opinion that where the objections were heard by one collector but the report was made by another, 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 procedure. 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. 28. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J. (M.Y. EQBAL) New Delhi, May 7, 2014 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1831-1836 OF 2009 Union of India Ors. Appellants Versus Chatro Devi Ors. Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 903 OF 2010 Union of India Ors.Appellants Versus Ram Singh Tyagi Ors. Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7439 OF 2009 Union of India Anr. Appellants Versus R.D. Bhanot Anr. Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8483 OF 2003 Union of India Ors. Appellants Versus Hari Ram Kakkar Respondent With CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5484-88 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 24305-24309 OF 2007) Union of India Ors. Appellants Versus K.S. Bakshi Ors. Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5489-94 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 208-213 of 2008) Union of India Ors.Appellants Versus Pt. Jai Ram Singh Anr. Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5495-98 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 1085-1088 OF 2008) Union of India Ors. Appellants Versus Ranbir Singh Ors. Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5499-501 OF 2014 (Arising out o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he limitation prescribed under the Act. 2. The facts and circumstances which have arisen in this appeal are that the land, the subject matter of the appeal, stood notified under Section 4 of the Act 1894 on 25.11.1980. The other persons whose land had also been acquired by the same notification had challenged the validity of the notification under Section 4 of Act 1894 by filing the writ petitions and its validity was upheld by the judgment and order dated 15.11.1983. It was during the pendency of the acquisition proceedings that the present appellant had purchased the land vide registered sale deeds dated 6.5.1985 and 24.5.1985. In respect of the same land, the Land Acquisition Collector submitted a report on 4.6.1985 on the objections made under Section 5A of the Act 1894 by the predecessor-in-interest and the same was accepted by the Lt. Governor of Delhi and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act 1894 was issued on 7.6.1985. In the year 1987-1988, the Land Acquisition Officer made an award in respect of the land. 3. In respect of the same land covered by the same notification, various orders in various litigations pending before the High Court had been passed. The wri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
