Judgment :

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The importance of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), which represents statutory embodiment of one of the facets of the rules of natural justice, i.e., audi alteram partem, has been highlighted in several judgments of this Court including Nandeshwar Prasad v. U.P. Govt. (1964) 3 SCR 425, Munshi Singh v. Union of India (1973) 2 SCC 337, Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 1 SCC 133, Shyam Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar (1993) 4 SCC 255, Union of India v. Mukesh Hans (2004) 8 SCC 14, Krishan Lal Arneja (2004) 8 SCC 453, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai (2005) 7 SCC 627, Essco Fabs (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2009) 2 SCC 377, Babu Ram v. State of Haryana (2009) 10 SCC 115, Anand Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 11 SCC 242, Dev Sharan v. State of U.P. (2011) 4 SCC 769, Radhy Shyam v. State of U.P. (2011) 5 SCC 553, Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 792, Kamal Trading (P) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal (2012) 2 SCC 25, Surinder Singh Brar v. Union of India (2013) 1 SCC 403, and Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana 2013 (5) SCALE 118.

3. In Raghbir Singh Sehrawat's case, this Court referred to earlier precedents and observed:

"In this context, it is necessary to remember that the rules of natural justice have been ingrained in the scheme of Section 5-A 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. At the hearing, the objector can make an effort to convince the Land Acquisition Collector to make recommendation against the acquisition of his land. He can also point out that the land proposed to be acquired is not suitable for the purpose specified in the notification issued under Section 4(1). Not only this, he can produce evidence to show that another piece of land is available and the same can be utilised for execution of the particular project or scheme. Though it is neither possible nor desirable to make a list of the grounds on which the landowner can persuade the Collector to make recommendations against the proposed acquisition of land, but what is important is that the Collector should give a fair opportunity of hearing to the objector and objectively consider his plea against the acquisition of land. Only thereafter, he should make recommendations supported by brief reasons as to why the particular piece of land should or should not be acquired and whether or not the plea put forward by the objector merits acceptance. In other words, the recommendations made by the Collector must reflect objective application of mind to the objections filed by the landowners and other interested persons."

4. In Kamal Trading (P) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal (supra), this Court made the following observations:

"It must be borne in mind that the proceedings under the LA Act are based on the principle of eminent domain and Section 5-A is the only protection available to a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. It is a minimal safeguard afforded to him by law to protect himself from arbitrary acquisition by pointing out to the authority concerned, inter alia, that the important ingredient, namely, "public purpose" is absent in the proposed acquisition or the acquisition is mala fide. The LA Act being an expropriatory legislation, its provisions will have to be strictly construed.

Hearing contemplated under Section 5-A(2) is necessary to enable the Collector to deal effectively with the objections raised against the proposed acquisition and make a report. The report of the Collector referred to in this provision is not an empty formality because it is required to be placed before the appropriate Government together with the Collector's recommendations and the rec