Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIA & ORSversusSHIV RAJ & ORS.
- Citation
- 2014 INSC 368
- Decided
- 7 May 2014
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- B S CHAUHAN
Holding
Non‑compliance with Section 5‑A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894—specifically, the failure of the same collector who heard objections to prepare the report—invalidates the acquisition, and such proceedings, being over five years old with no possession taken or compensation paid, are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, leading to dismissal of the appeals.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a large tract of land in Delhi. Tenure‑holders had filed objections under Section 5‑A, which were heard by one Land Acquisition Collector but the report was prepared by his successor, prompting the Delhi High Court to quash the acquisition on grounds of violating natural justice. The Court reiterated that Section 5‑A embeds the audi alteram partem principle, requiring the same officer who hears objections to also decide them, and that any breach vitiates the process. It further held that, because the award was made in 1987 and neither possession nor compensation has been effected, the proceedings are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Union of India were dismissed, leaving the High Court’s order quashing the acquisition intact.
Issues considered
- The validity of land acquisition proceedings where the collector who heard objections under Section 5‑A did not prepare the report
- Whether Section 5‑A of the 1894 Act incorporates the rule of natural justice and mandates the same officer to hear and decide objections
- The effect of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act on acquisition proceedings where the award is over five years old and possession or compensation has not been taken
- The applicability of earlier judgments quashing acquisition proceedings and whether they have attained finality
- The relevance of the prejudice doctrine when natural‑justice requirements are breached
Legislation cited
- General Clauses Act, 1897s. 6
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 17(4), s. 4, s. 5-A, s. 6, s. 9
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013s. 24(1), s. 24(2)
Subjects
land acquisitionSection 5‑Anatural justiceaudi alteram partemcompensationSection 24(2) 2013 Actquashing of acquisitionprejudice doctrinepublic purpose
Judgment
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 751
UNION OF INDIA & ORS A
v.
SHIV RAJ & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5478-5483 of 2014)
MAY 7, 2014
B
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. CHELAMESWAR AND
M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
c
s. 5-A - Right of land owners to fife objections - Held: The
rule of natural justice is ingrained in the scheme of s. 5-A of
the Act 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 0
Government and/or its agencies/instrumentalities to acquire
the particular parcel of land - s. 5-A embodies a very just and
wholesome principle that a person wflose property is being
or is intended to be acquired should have a proper and
reasonable opportunity of persuading the authorities E
concerned that acquisition of the property belonging to that
person should not be made.
s.5-A - Duty of Land Acquisition Collector- Held: Land
Acquisition Collector is duty-bound to objectively consider the
arguments advanced by the objector and make F
recommendations, duly supported by brief reasons, as to why
a particular piece of land should or should not be acquired
and whether the plea put forward by the objector merits
acceptance - s.5-A confers a valuable right in favour of a
person whose lands are sought to be acquired - Hearing G
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
751 H
752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS· [2014] 8 S.C.R.
A of irrelevant ones - 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
B natural justice.
s.5-A - Objections filed by tenure-holders u/s.5-A - Not
considered by the statutory authority in strict compliance of
principles of natural justice - Subsequent proceedings rightly
quashed.
c
s.5-A - Major chunk of land notified uls.4 notification -
Writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings - Land
acquisition proceedings quashed - State Government not
'Shallenging the same and the decision attained finality - For
D about a decade following the said judgment, proceedings in
other cases were also quashed and those decisions were not
challenged and thus, also attained finality - Also large
number of cases filed before Supreme Court stood dismissed
as the State did not take steps to serve the land owners - In
E such a fact scenario, where in respect of major chunk of land,
the land acquisition proceedings had been quashed long
back and which had attained finality, the scheme of planned
development cfr Delhi cannot be executed at such a belated
stage in view of the fact that vacant land in continuous stretch
F may not be available.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013:
s.24 - Proceedings initiated under Land Acquisition Act,
G 1894 - In view of sub-section (2) of s.24 of the Act of 2013, if
the physical possession of the land has not been taken by
the Acquiring Authority though the award is passed and if the
compensation has not been paid to the land owners or has
not been deposited before the appropriate forum, the
H proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 is deemed to have
UNION OF INDIA v. SHIV RAJ 753
been lapsed - In the instant case, admittedly, the award was A
made on 5. 6. 1987 and possession was not taken till date
though compensation was deposited with the Revenue
Department - Deposit of amount of compensation in state's
revenue account is of no avail and cannot be termed as
deemed payment - Therefore, proceedings initiated under the B
Act, 1894 deemed to have been lapsed - Land Acquisition
Act, 1894.
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
HELD: 1. The rules of natural justice have been
ingrained in the scheme of Section 5.-A of the Land
F
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
0
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
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.
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
B 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.
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
E 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
G 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
UNION OF INDIA v. SHIV RAJ 757
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 B
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
0
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 E
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 F
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] 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]
Abhey Ram & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1997
SC 2564: 1997 (3) SCR 931; Delhi Administration v. Gurdip
Singh Uban & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 296 : 2000 (2) Suppl.
SCR 496; Om Parkash v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2010
G SC 1068: 2010 (2) SCR 447 - relied on.
Case Law Reference:
1959 Suppl. SCR 319 Relied on Para 1
H
UNION OF INDIA v. SHIV RAJ 759
(1902-1903) 7 CWN 249 Relied on Para 6 A
1964 SCR 425 Relied on Para 7
1973 (1) SCR 973 Relied on Para 11
AIR 2004 SC 4307 Relied on Para 11 B
2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 388 Relied on Para 11
2010 (9) SCR 133 Relied on Para 11
2011 (3) SCR 728 Relied on Para 11
c
.
2011 (14) SCR 1_113 Referred to Para 11
2013 (5) SCR 645 Relied on Para 11
(2013) 8 sec 99 Relied on Para 11
. 2010 (7) SCR 535 ~elied on Para 13 D
2011 (1) SCR 198 Relied on Para 14
2014 (1) SCR 783 Relied on Para 17
2014 (3) SCALE 393 Relied on Para 18 E
(117) 2005 DLT 7.53 (FB) Referred to Para 22
1997 (3) SCR 931 Relied on Para 23
2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 496 Relied on Para 24
F
2010 (2) SCR447 Relied on Para 25
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
5478-5483 of 2014.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.05.2007 of the G
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WPC No. 2529 of 1985,
889 of 1986, 988 of 1986, 2155 of 1987, 2645 of 1987 and
2747 of 1987.
P. P. Malhotra, ASG •• J. S. Attri, Geeta Luthra, Sanjay H
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.
A Poddar, Vinay Bhasin, Mukul Rohatgi, Gopal Jain, Shyam
Divan, A. Sharan, Sandeep Bajaj, Siddharth Panda, D. S.
Mahra, Anshuman Nayak, Shadman Ali, Gaurav Sharma,
Chetan Chawla, Govind Kumar, Sonia Malhotra, Priyanka
Bharihoke, Yasir Rauf, Pradeep Misra, Daleep Kr. Dhayani, D.
B N. Goburdhan, Narendra Goyal, Naina Dubey, Rohit Bhardwaj,
Anil Katiyar, H. S. Raina, Bhargava V. Desai, Shreyas Mehrotra,
R. N. Karanjawala, Manik Karanjawala, Ruby Singh Ahuja,
Krishna Hariani, Rohit Sharma, Aakanksha Munjhal,
Karanjawala & Co., S. S. Khanduja, Archana Sharma,
c Meenakshi Kalra, Shobha, Yash Pal Dhingra, Indra Sawhney,
Simran Mehta, Arvfnd Minocha, Veena Minocha, Sumit Bansal,
Ateev Mathur, Richa Oberoi, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Pankaj
Gupta, Anusuya Salwan, S. Janani, Kunal Kohli, G. Umapathy,
Rakesh K. Sharma, Venkatasubramanian, S.
D Ramasubramanian, R. Mekhala, P. V. Yogeswaran, Manish
Kumar, Amit Kumar, Piyush Kaushik, N. S. Vasisht, Pradeep
Misra, Daleep Kr. Dhayani, Gagan Gupta, Ateev P. Mathur,
Vishnu B. Saharya (for Saharya & Co.), for the appearing
parties.
E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. These appeals have arisen
from the impugned judgment and order dated 11.5.2007
passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition'(Civil) Nos.
F 2529 of 1985; 889 of 1986; 988 of 1986; 2155 of 1987; 2645
of 1987; and 2747of1987, by which and whereunder, 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 SA of Land Acquisition Act, 1894
G (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.
H
UNION OF INDIA v. SHIV RAJ 761
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
2. Facts and circumstances.giving rise to these appeals A
are that:
A. The land of the respondents-tenure holders being survey
no.. 619/70, etc. admeasuring 50,000 bighas situated in
revenue village Chhatarpur, stood notified under Section 4 of B
the Act 1894 on 25.11.1980 for public purposes, namely, the
"planned development of Delhi" and objections under Section
5A were i,nvited from the persons interested within 30 days of
the said Notification.
B. Respondents - persons interested, filed their objections C
under Sectien 5A of the Act 1894. However, without considering
and disposing of the same, declaration unc:ter Section 6 of the
Act 1894 was made on 7 .6.1985. Notices under Sections 9 of
the Act 1894 were also issued on 30.12.1986 to the persons
interested. It was at this stage that the tenure holders filed writ D
petitions before the High Court challenging the acquisition
proceedings contending that proceedings could not be
continued without disposing of the objections filed by them
under Section 5A of the Act 1894. Admittedly, the Award No.
15/1987-88 was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on E
5.6.1987.
C. In respect of the land covered by the same notification
under Section 4 of the Act 1894, a very large number of writ
petitions had been filed. The said writ petitions filed on different
grounds were decided by different Benches at different points F
of time. So far as the present group of cases is concerned, the
matter was heard at length and a Division Bench of the Delhi
High Court examined the contentions raised on behalf of the
·tenure holders/persons interested which vide judgment and
order dated 3.3.2005 held that the notification under Section 6 G
of the Act 1894 was within the period stipulated for the purpose
after excluding the period during which the interim stay order
passed by the High Court remained into operation and where
. the objections have not been filed, the impugned declaration
under Section 6 of the Act 1894 could not be assailed on the H
762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.
A ground of invalidity of inquiry under Section SA of the Act 1894.
However, on the said issue in the cases where the objections
had been filed by the tenure holders and they had been giiten
personal hearing by one Collector but the report was submitted
by his successor i.e. another Collector, the Division Bench
B differed in opinion whether the report could be held to be legal
or not, mainly rel~ing upon the Constitution Bench judgment of
this Court in Gul/apa/li Nageswara Rao & Ors. v. Andhra
Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Anr., AIR 1959
SC 308 wherein it has categorically been held that the Authority
c which hears the objectors must pass the order. In case an
Authority hears the objectors and demits the office or stands
transferred, his successor should hear the parties afresh and
not giving the opportunity of fresh hearing by the successor
officer would amount to failure of principles of natural justice and
his order would stand vitiated.
0
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
E 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
F 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 Gene~k
G Ms. Geeta Luthra and Shri Sanjay Poddar, learned Seni'or
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
H circumstances did not arise. More so, the commencement of
UNION OF INDIA v. SHIV RAJ 763
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land A
Aequisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
·;<tiereinafter referred to as the Act 2013) would not take away
~· proceedings initiated under the Act 1894 by operation of
~as provided under Section 24 of the Act 2013. In the instant
ease, in case, the appeals succeed on the main ground as to B
whether the successor officer could submit the report on 5A
objections there could be no prohibition for the appellants to
proceed with the land acquisition proceedings initiated in 1980.
The objections raised were vague and had been in respect of
iimitation and were not specific in nature. None of the writ c
petitioners had raised the issue about violation of principles of
natural justice in the writ petitions, though some of them
amended their writ petitions but at ;:1 s1.1psequent stage. Some
of the writ petitions had been filed by persot'ls.who ..came into
possession of the land subsequent to Section·4·notifjcation. 0
..
4. On the contrary, Shri Mukul Rohatgi, S~ri Shyam Diwan
and Shri Vinay Bhasin, learned 'senior counsel appe~ring on
behalf of the respondents, have vehemently opposed the
appeals contending that in view of the fact that the acquisition
proceedings stood quashed finally by the impugned judgment E
dated 11.5.2007 and a period of 7 years has lapsed and the
possession is still with the tenure holders .. In view of the· Act
2013 coming into force, the proceedings have lapsed by virtue
of the provisions contained in Section 24 of the said Act. The
issues raised herein on behalf of the Union of India had not been F
·raised before the High Court. Amendments were allowed by
the High Court in a very large number of writ petitions about
violation of principles of natural justice i.e. the objections under
Section 5-A were not disposed of in accordance with law.
G
5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Section 5-A of the Act 1894 was not there in the original
statute.
H
764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.
A In J.E.D. Ezra v. Secy. of State for India (1902-1903) 7
CWN 249, the Calcutta High Court expressed its inability to
grant relief to the owner of the property whose land was sought
to be acquired without giving any opportunity of hearing
observing that there was no provision in the Act requiring
s observance of the principles of natural justice. It was subsequent
to the said judgment that the Act was amended incorporating
Section 5-A w.e.f. 1.1.1924. The Statement of Objects and
Reasons for the said amendment provided that the original Act
did not oblige the Government to enquire into and consider any
c 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
D 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 prop.erty is being
threatened with acquisition and we cannot accept that that
E 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 1
F 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
G 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 reasons for not acquiring the
same. Thus, section 5-A of the Act 1894 embodies a very just
H and wholesome principle that a person whose property is being
UNION OF INDIA v. SHIV RAJ 765
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
or is intended to be acquired should have a proper and A
reasonable opportunity of persuading the authorities concerned
that acquisition of the property belonging to that person should
not be made.
On the consideration of the said objection, the Collector B
is required to make a report. The State Govemment is then
required to apply mind to the report of the Collector and take
final decision 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. C.
9. 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
0
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 E
provisions, contained in Article 300A of the Constitution of India
has been held to be akin to a fundamental right.
10. Thus, the limited right given to an owner/person
interested under Section 5-A of the Act, 1894 to object to the F
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.
11. The Land Acquisition Collector is duty-bound to G
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
H
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] "8 S.C.R.
A 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.
(See: Munshi Singh & Ors. v. Union of India, AIR 1973·
8
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
C 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) s sec 99).
D 12. This Court in Gul/apalli 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
E
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. n
F
(Emphasis added)
13. This Court in Rasid Javed & Ors. v. State .of U.P. &
Anr., AIR 2010 SC 2275 following the judgment in Gul/apal/i
G (supra), supra held that a person who hears must decide and
·that divided responsibility is destructive of the concept of
hearing is too fundamental a proposition to be doubted.
14. A similar view has been re-iterated by this Court in
Automotive'Tyre Manufacturers Association v. Designated
H
UNION OF INDIA v. SH1V"RAJ 767
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
Authority & Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 258, wherein this Court dealt A
with a case wherein the Designated Authority (DA) under the
relevant Statute passed the final order on the material collected
by his predecessor in office who had also accorded the hearing
to the parties concerned. This court held that the order stood
vitiated as it offended the basic principles of natural justice. B
15. 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 C
decides the case without giving a fresh hearing, the order would
stand vitiated having been passed in violation of the principles
of natural justice.
16. Before proceeding further, it is desirable to refer to the
relevant statutory provisions of the Act 2013 which reads as : D
"24. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in
any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -
(a) Where no award under Section 11 of the said Land E
Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this
Act relating to the determination of compensation shall
apply or
(b) Where an award under said Sectiqn 11 has been F
made, then such proceedings shall continue under the
provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said
Act has not been repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),
in case of land acquisition proceedings Initiated under the G
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 where an award under the said
section 11 has been made five years or-more prior to the
commencement of this Act but the physical possession of
.the land has not been taken or the compensation .has not
H
768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.
A been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have
lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses,
shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh
in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Provided that where an award has been made and
8
compensation in respect of a majority of land holding has
not been deposited in the 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
c of th is Act"
17. The provisions of the Act 2013 referred to hereinabove
have been considered by a three judge bench of this court in
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand
D 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
E 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-
F 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, approached this Court but the Court did not enter into
the merit regarding the correctness of the judgment impugned
therein rather held that it was not so necessary to deal.with the
G correctness of the judgment in view of the provisions of the Act
2013 which provide for re-compulsory acquisition of land from
the very beginning. The Court held as under:
"11. Section 24(2) also begins with non obstante clause.
H
UNION OF INDIA v. SHIV RAJ 769
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
This provision has overriding effect over Section 24(1). A
Section 24(2) enacts that in relation to the land
acquisition proceedings initiated under 1894 Act, where
an award has been made five years or more prior to the
commencement of the 2013 Act and either of the two
contingencies is satisfied, viz.; (i) physical possession B
of the land has not been taken or (ii) the compensation
has not been paid, such acquisition proceedings shall be
deemed f1J have lapsed. On the lapse of such acquisition
proceedings, i( the appropriate government still chooses
to acquire the land which was the subject matter of c
acquisition under the 1-894 Act then it has to initiate the
proceedings. afresh under the 2013 Act. The proviso
appended to S&ation .24(2) deals with a situation where
in respect of the acquisition initiated under the 1894 Act
an award has been made and compensation in respect
0
of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in
the account of the beneficiaries then all the beneficiaries
specified in Section 4 notification become entitled to
compensation under 2013 Act.
x x x E
19. Now, this is admitted position that award was made
on 31.01.2008. Notices were issued to the landowners to
receive the compensation and since they did not receive
the compensation, the amount (Rs. 27 crores) was F
deposited in the government treasury. Can it be said
that deposit of the amount of compensation in the
government treasury is equivalent to the amount of
compensation paid to the landowners/persons
interested? We do not think so. In a comparatively G
recent decision, this Court in lvo Agnelo Santimano
Fernandes and Ors. v. State of Goa and Anr. (2011) 11
SCC 506, relying upon the earlier decision in Prem Nath
Kapur v. National Fertilizers Corpn. of India Ltd. (1996)
2 sec 71, has held that the deposit of the amount of the
H
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R
A compensation in the state's revenue account is of no
avail and the liability of the state to pay interest subsists
till the amount has not been deposited in Court.
x x
B 21. The argument on behalf of the Corporation that the
subject land acquisition proce'edings have been
concluded in ~If. 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.
c Section 114(1) of the 2013 Act repeal§ 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 tf'/e provisions in
the 2013 Act. Under Section 24(2) land acquisition
D 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
E 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)
F 18. The judgment of Bharat Kumar v. State of Haryana &
Ors,· 2014 (3) SCALE 393 was a reverse case wherein the land ,
owner had lost before the High Court 'The Court held:
"Sub-section (2) of Section 24 commences with a non-
G obstante clause. It is a beneficial provision. In view of this
provision, if the physical possession ofthe land has not
been taken by the Acquiring Authority though the award is
passed and if the compensation has not been paid to the
land owners or has not been deposited before the
H
UNION OF INDIA v. SHIV RAJ 771
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
appropriate forum, the proceedings initiated under the Act, A
1894 is deemed to have been lapsed."
(See also: Bimla Devi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.,
Civil Appeal Nos. 3871-3876 of 2014 decided on 14.3.2014)
19. In order to ·clarify the statutory provisions .of the Act 8
2013 with respect to such lapsing, the Government of India,
Ministry of Urban Development, Delhi Division, came up with
a circular dated 14.3.2014 wherein on the ba$iS of the legal
· opinion of the Solicitor General of India, it has been clarified
as under: C
"3. Interpretation of five years period:
"With regard to this issue viz., inte.rpretation of five years
period two situations have been envisaged in cases where D
the acquisition has been initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 viz., (1) parties w~ose lands have
been acquired have refused to accept the compensation
and (2) parties whose lands have been acquired having
just parted with physical possession of the land. However,
in both the above situations, as on 1.1.2014, the period E
of 5 years Would not have ended and in such cases, the
advisory seeks to clarify that the new law shall apply only
if the ~ituation of pendency continues unchanged for a
period thal equals to or exceeds five years. In my view, it
should be further clarified that in none of the cases the F
period of five years would have elapsed pursuant to an
award made under Section 11 from the date of
commencement of the Act and that the benefit of Section
24(2) will be available to those cases which are_ pending
and wher.e during pendency, the situation has remained G
unchanged with physical possession not being handed
over or compensation not having been accepted and the
period equals to or exceeds fi"e years.
4. Limitation:
H
772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 8 S.C.R.
A As regards this item relating to the period spent during
litigation would also be accounted for the purpose of
determining whether the period of five years has to be
counted or not, it should be clarified that it will apply only
to cases where awards were passed under Section 11 of
B 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
c of abundant caution that the period spent in litigation
challenging an award cannot be excluded for the purpo$e
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 perioc;t
D
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
E 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
F under:
"The benefits under the new law would be available in all
the cases of land acquisition under the Land Acquisition.
Act, 1894 where award has not been made or
possession of land has not been taken."
G
(Emphasis added)
20. However, the aforesaid appeals have to be decided
in the light of above settled legal propositions. The admitted
H facts of the case remains that the Respondents-Tenure Holders
UNION OF INDiA v. SHIV RAJ· 773
[DR. B.S: CHAUHAN, J.].
had filed objections under. Section 5A of the Act 1894 as A
admitted in the affidavit filed by Smt. Usha Chaturvedi, Deputy
Secretary (Land Acquisition), Land and Building Department,
Vikas Bh~wan, New Delhi, fil!':ld in January 2014 before this
court. The award no. 15/87-88Jiad been made on 5.6.1987 and
possession has not been takeh till date though compensation B
· has been deposited with the Revenue Department, which
cannot be termed as 'deemed payment' as has been held in
case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. (Supra).
21. Therefore, the appeals are liable to be dismissed in C
terms of the judgments referred to hereinabove.
However, Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned ASG, has insisted
that the matters should also be decided on merit by examining
the correctness of the judgment and order impugned.
D
22. 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 objectians
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 E
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 oflndia, (117) 2005 DLT 753 (FB); full Bench F
oftiigh Court of Delhi quashed. the land acquisition
pro.ceedings 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 G
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.
H
774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R.
A 23. Admittedly, the appellants accepted that judgment and
the same attained finality as the said judgmen't was never
challenged by filing any S.L.P. before this court. In the fight of
aforesaid judgment, a large number of writ petitions had been
allowed and the land acquisition proceedings arising out of the
s 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
c 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/
0
declaration.
24. In Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban & Ors.,
(2000) 7 sec 296, this court again dealt with the same
acquisition proceedings and observed that if a tenure holder
E had not filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act 1894, he
cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings on the ground that
objections had not been disposed of in accordance with law.
25. In Om Parkash v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2010 SC
F 1068, this Court dealt with the cases arising out ofthe same
acquisition proceedings, however, this batch of matters had
expressly been separated from that batch and in those cases,
the acquisition proceedings were not quashed on the ground
that the acquisition proceedings had been challenged at a
G belated stage.
26. In the present batch of writ petitions filed before the
High Court, the matter came to be heard by a Division Bench.
One of the Hon'ble Judges vide his separate judgment was of
the opinion that the proceedings would not lapse on the ground'
H
UNION OF INDIA v. SHIV' RAJ 775
[DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act 1894 had been A
made after a period of more than three years for the reason
that it was covered by sub-section (2) i.e. on account of various
stay orders passed by different courts at different times in
relations to the said proceedings. Further, though principles of
natural justice is an inbuilt element of procedure but per se B
violation of these principles would not ipso facto vitiate the
proceedings unless any prejudtce is shown to have been
caused to the parties, which was not the pleaded case of the
objectors. Also judicial review of administrative decision was
impressible except on very limited grounds i.e. absence of any c
material forming the basis of decision making and the courts
could not go into the question as to what material weighed
before the authority.
The other Hon'ble Judge t:omprising the Bench vide his
separate and dissenting judgment was of the opinion that the D
decision in Balak Ram .Gupta (Supra) was still a good law. On
the issue as to validity of the inquiry under Section 5-A of the
Act 1894, His Lordship was of the opinion that inquiry under
Section 5-A of the Act 1894 was a substantial right and could
not be taken 'CJ.way as a side wind. Relying on earlier judgments E
of the High Cour:_t of Delhi, the Hon'ble Judge was of the
opinion that a report on objections should be made by the
same collector who had the opportunity to hear such objections
and any deviation would vitiate the further proceedings. As the
Hon'ble Judges differed, the matter was referred to a third F
Hon'ble Judge.
27. In pursuance to the above reference, the matter came
up before the third Hon'ble Judge, who delivered the judgment
cited as .J 37 (2007) DLT 14. Relying on the decision in G
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 H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 8 S.C.R
A 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
s 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 HiQ.h Court allowed
C 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
D 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.
E 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 Gul/apal/i Nageswara Rao (Supra) is not
a good law.
F 29. 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
G 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 bf India & Ors., 37
(1989) DLT 150, proceedings in other cases have also been
quashed and those decisions have not been challenged and
H
UNION OF INDIA v. SHIV RAJ 777
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
have thus, also.attained finality. A large number of cases filed A
before this court and particularly SLP (C) Nos. 208, 211 & 212
of 2008 stood dismissed vide crder 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 B
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.notbe available. c
30. In view of above, we do not see any force in these
~ppeals 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
j1,.1dgments referred to herein above, it is not necessary to D
entertain any other ground whatsoever at the pehest of the ·
appellants. Thus, the appeals are devoid of any merit and are
dismissed. No order as to costs.
' Devika Gujral Appeals dismissed. E
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "land acquisition"Sign in to search