SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. CHELAMESWAR, M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
Shiv Raj & Ors. – Respondents
[Civil Appeal Nos. 5478-5483 of 2014 arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 24297-24302 of 2007]
Decided On : 07-05-2014
AIR 1959 SC 308; AIR 1964 SC 1217 – Relied upon
(1902-1903) 7 CWN 249 – Referred
(b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 5-A – Objections by persons interested – Should be considered and recommendations made by objective application of mind to the entire record including the objections – One person hearing and another deciding renders personal hearing a mere formality – The person/officer hearing the objector must also submit the report/ take decision on the objection – In case his successor decides the case without giving a fresh hearing, the order would stand vitiated – Violation of the principles of natural justice. (Para 11, 12, 15)
AIR 1973 SC 1150; AIR 2004 SC 4307; AIR 2005 SC 3520; (2010) 11 SCC 242; (2011) 4 SCC 769; (2012) 1 SCC 792; (2013) 4 SCC 210; (2013) 8 SCC 99; AIR 1959 SC 308; AIR 2010 SC 2275; (2011) 2 SCC 258 – Relied upon
(c) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Beneficial provision – Award passed – Physical possession not taken – Compensation not paid to the land owners or not deposited before the appropriate forum – Proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 deemed to have been lapsed. (Para 18)
(2014) 3 SCC 183; 2014 (3) SCALE 393; Civil Appeal Nos. 3871-3876 of 2014 – Relied upon
(d) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Land acquisition – Award made in 1987 – Objections filed – Possession not taken – Compensation deposited with Revenue Department – Not deemed payment to beneficiaries – Appeals liable to be dismissed. (Para 20)
(e) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Acquisition – Objections filed – Heard by one land acquisition collector – Transferred – Report submitted by his successor – Proceedings vitiated – High Court quashing the proceedings – Judgment attaining finality – Attempt to reopen proceedings – Beyond comprehension as to whether the scheme of planned development of Delhi can be executed at such a belated stage – More so when vacant land in continuous stretch may not be available – Appeals liable to be dismissed. (Para 29, 30)
AIR 1997 SC 2564 – Relied upon
(2000) 7 SCC 296; AIR 2010 SC 1068 – Referred
(117) 2005 DLT 753 (FB) – Cited with approval
Civil Appeal Nos. 1831-1836 of 2009; 903 of 2010; 7439 of 2009; 8483 of 2003; 5484-88 of 2014; 5489-94 of 2014; 5495-98 of 2014; 5499-5501 of 2014 and 4374 of 2009.
(f) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Acquisition – Appeals dismissed in terms of Union of India v. Shiv Raj, Civil Appeal Nos. 5478-5483 of 2014. (Para 1, 2)
Civil Appeal No. 1579 of 2010
(g) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Authorities making award in 1987-88 – High Court dismissing appellant’s writ petition in 2007 – Authorities not taking possession of the land – Proceedings not sustainable – Appeal allowed in view of Union of India v. Shiv Raj, Civil Appeal Nos. 5478-5483 of 2014. (Para 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The land of the respondents-tenure holders stood notified under Section 4 of the LA Act 1894 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.
Respondents - persons interested, filed their objections under Section 5A of the Act 1894. However, without considering and disposing of the same, declaration under Section 6 of the Act 1894 was made. Notices under Sections 9 of the Act were also issued to the persons interested.
The tenure holders filed writ 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.
The High Court held that 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.
Civil Appeal No. 1579 of 2010
Land of many persons along with others stood notified under Section 4 of the Act 1894 on 25.11.1980. Validity of the notification was upheld.
During pendency of the acquisition proceedings the present appellant had purchased the land vide registered sale deeds dated 6.5.1985 and 24.5.1985.
The Land Acquisition Collector submitted a report on 4.6.1985 on the objections made under Section 5A of the Act 1894 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 3 1987-1988, the Land Acquisition Officer made an award in respect of the land.
The writ petition filed by the present appellant was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
There is no merit in the appeals.
JUDGMENT
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. 2529 of 1985; 889 of 1986; 988 of 1986; 2155 of 1987; 2645 of 1987; and 2747 of 1987, 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 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. admeasuring 50,000 bighas 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 of the Act 1894. However, without considering and disposing of the same, declaration under 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 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 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 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 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 ground of invalidity of inquiry under Section 5A 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 given personal hearing by one Collector but the report was submitted by his successor i.e. another Collector, the Division Bench differed in opinion whether the report could be held to be legal or not, mainly relying upon the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao & Ors. v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Anr., AIR 1959 SC 308 wherein it has categorically been held that the Authority 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.
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
Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
Nandeshwar Prasad v. U.P. Government
Munshi Singh v. Union of India
Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana
Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana
Women’s Education Trust v. State of Haryana
Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association v. Designated Authority
Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki
Bharat Kumar v. State of Haryana
Balak Ram Gupta v. Union of India
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.