Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 849

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.
Nareshbhai Bhagubhai & Ors – Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6270 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 32055 of 2018)
WITH
Ravibhai Vallabhbhai Sutariya & Ors – Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6271 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 32056 of 2018)
WITH
Ishwerbhai Bhikabhai Patel & Ors – Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6272 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 32057 of 2018)
WITH
Vallabhbhai Chanabhai Ahir & Ors – Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6273 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 32058 of 2018)
Decided On : 13-08-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. C.G. Sharma, Adv. Mr. G.C. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Kumud Lata Das, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
Chapter IVA of the Railway Act is a complete self-contained Code for land acquisition.
Right of landowners to file objections under section 20D is not a general right to file objections as under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Order of competent authority on objections of landowners cannot precede hearing of objections.
In absence of an order on objections no further steps can be taken for acquisition.
Hearing of objections must be effective and not mere formality.
A statutory authority discharging a quasi-judicial function is required to pass a reasoned order after due application of mind.
Uncommunicated file notings would not constitute a valid order.
A party cannot take contradictory stands before High court and Supreme Court.
An expropriatory act/provision must be construed strictly.

Headnote:
(a) Railway Act, 1989 - Chapter IV A: Section 20A to 20P - Chapter IVA a complete self-contained Code for land acquisition. (Para 9)
       (b) Railways Act, 1989 - Section 20D - Objections by landowners - Scope limited to the purpose for which the acquisition is made - It is not a general right to file objections as under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (Para 9)
       (c) Railways Act, 1989 - Section 20D - Order required to be passed by Competent Authority “after hearing” the landowners - It cannot precede hearing of objections - An order passed prior to personal hearing and enquiry by the Competent Authority would be contrary to the statute - Would be invalid, and vitiated by a predetermined disposition. (Para 9, 11)
       (d) Railways Act, 1989 - Section 20D - Instantly no decision passed on objections, allowing or disallowing the same - No communication sent to landowners - No further steps could be taken for acquisition. (Para 10)
       (e) Railways Act, 1989 - Section 20D - Provision mandatory conferring a substantive and valuable right on the landowners to object to the proposed acquisition, before they are forcibly divested of their right, title and interest in the land by an expropriatory legislation - Pari materia to Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Rules of natural justice ingrained in the provision - Hearing must be effective - Cannot be reduced to an empty formality. (Para 11)
       (f) Administration of justice - Judicial propriety - A statutory authority discharging a quasi-judicial function - Required to pass a reasoned order after due application of mind. (Para 11)
       (g) Administration of justice - Judicial propriety - Valid order - Must be reasoned and duly communicated to the parties - Uncommunicated file notings would not constitute a valid order. (Para 11)
       (h) Administration of justice - Stand of parties - Stand taken by respondents before High Court and Supreme Court - Completely contradictory - Not acceptable. (Para 11)
       (i) Railways Act, 1989 - Section 20D - The Act being expropriatory its provisions are to be construed strictly - If the Act mandates doing a thing in a particular manner, it has be done in that manner and no other manner - Section 20D mandates passing of an order on objections of landowners after hearing them - Order cannot be passed prior to hearing - And the order must be reasoned - In absence of an order passed under Section 20D(2), subsequent steps taken in the acquisition would consequentially get invalidated. (Para 11)
       (j) Railways Act, 1989 - Section 20D(2) - Absence of valid order on objections - 125 km stretch of land out of a total of 131 km already acquired - Preconstruction activities in progress including bridges - Not advisable to quash notification u/s 20A and set aside the entire acquisition proceedings - Respondents directed to pay compensation to appellants at current market rates. (Para 12, 13)
       Facts of the case:
       A Notification was issued under Section 20A of the Railways Act, 1989 by the Ministry of Railways notifying its intention to acquire the lands specified in 18 Villages, situated in District Surat, Gujarat for the public purpose of construction of the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor.
       The total land under acquisition was a stretch of 131 kms. The land owned by the Appellants, comprising of approximately 6 kms, was included under the Notification.
       The Appellants along with other landowners filed written Objections under Section 20D(1) of the Act before the Competent Authority/ Special Land Acquisition Officer, Surat to challenge the proposed acquisition.
       The Competent Authority informed the landowners that compensation would be paid to all affected landowners in accordance with Sections 20F and 20G of the Railways Act, 1989.
       The landowners appeared before the Competent Authority on 30.07.2011 for personal hearing, and submitted further written Objections on 31.07.2011.
       The Ministry of Railways issued a Notification under Section 20E(1) stating that 59 Objections had been received in respect of the proposed acquisition, which had been considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority.
       Awards were passed by the Competent Authority under Section 20F of the Railways Act, 1989.
       Shri Ghanshyamsinh Gambhirsinh Vashi, a landowner, filed an RTI Application before the Competent Authority seeking a certified copy of the Order passed on the Objections filed by the landowners.
       The Competent Authority replied to the said RTI Application on 05.09.2013, and stated that the reply to the Objections raised by the landowners had already been communicated vide letter dated 15.07.2011.
       The Appellants herein challenged the acquisition proceedings by filing Special Civil Application Nos. 19409 of 2015, 12711 of 2016, 14000 of 2016, and 14001 of 2016 before the High Court.
       The High Court dismissed the Special Civil Applications filed by the Appellants.
       Finding of the Court:
       The acquisition proceedings are vitiated for non-compliance of section 20D(2).
       Result: Appeals allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

Chapter IVA of the Railways Act is a comprehensive, self-contained code specifically governing land acquisition for railway projects (!) (!) .
The right of landowners to file objections under Section 20D is limited to the purpose of the acquisition and does not extend to a general right to object as under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (!) (!) .
The procedure under Section 20D mandates that the competent authority must give an opportunity for a hearing and pass a reasoned, final order allowing or disallowing objections after such hearing. An order must be communicated to the landowners; file notings alone do not constitute valid orders (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
An order passed prior to the personal hearing or without an explicit decision on objections is invalid. The order cannot precede the hearing, and failure to pass a final, communicated order on objections vitiates the acquisition process (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Internal file notings or internal communications, which are not formally communicated as orders, do not constitute valid decisions affecting the rights of landowners (!) (!) (!) .
The provisions of the Railways Act, 1989, being expropriatory, must be strictly construed, and procedural compliance is mandatory for validity (!) (!) .
The authority discharging a quasi-judicial function is required to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice, including providing an effective hearing and issuing a reasoned, self-contained order (!) (!) (!) .
Any contradictory stand taken by the respondents before different courts undermines the integrity of the proceedings and affects the legitimacy of the process (!) .
In cases where the order on objections is not passed or is invalid, subsequent steps in the land acquisition process may be invalidated. However, if most of the land has already vested in the government and preconstruction activities are underway, courts may balance the interests by awarding compensation based on current market rates rather than quashing the entire proceedings (!) (!) (!) .
Even when procedural lapses are identified, courts may choose to grant relief by providing compensation, especially when the larger public purpose is not in question, and no mala fide is established (!) (!) .
The ultimate goal is to ensure that natural justice is observed, and procedural requirements are strictly followed to uphold the legality of land acquisition proceedings, but courts also consider equitable remedies in the interest of justice (!) (!) .
The relief granted in this case is specific to the appellants and does not set a precedent for other landowners who have not challenged the proceedings (!) .

Please let me know if you need further clarification or assistance.

JUDGMENT :

INDU MALHOTRA, J.

Leave granted.

1. The present Civil Appeals have been filed to challenge the Final Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the Gujarat High Court, whereby the Special Civil Application Nos. 19409 of 2015, 12711 of 2016, 14000 of 2016, and 14001 of 2016 have been dismissed.

2. Since a common issue arises in all 4 Civil Appeals, they are being disposed of by the present common Judgment and Order.

3. The factual matrix in which the present Civil Appeals have been filed is as under :

3.1. On 08.02.2011, a Notification was issued under Section 20A of the Railways Act, 1989 [hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”] by the Ministry of Railways notifying its intention to acquire the lands specified in 18 Villages, situated in District Surat, Gujarat for the public purpose of construction of the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor.

The total land under acquisition was a stretch of 131 kms. The land owned by the Appellants, comprising of approximately 6 kms, was included under the Notification.

3.2. The Appellants along with other landowners filed written Objections between 06.04.2011 and 07.04.2011 under Section 20D(1) of the Act before the Competent Authority/ Special Land Acquisition Officer, Surat [hereinafter referred to as “the Competent Authority”], Surat to challenge the proposed acquisition.

3.3. The Competent Authority vide letter dated 15.07.2011, informed the landowners that the acquisition was for a necessary public purpose i.e. the development of the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor. It was stated that compensation would be paid to all affected landowners in accordance with Sections 20F and 20G of the Railways Act, 1989.

The landowners were asked to remain present with necessary proofs at the time of personal hearing, the date of which would be intimated to them.

3.4. The Competent Authority vide letter dated 19.07.2011, directed the landowners to appear for a personal hearing on the Objections on 30.07.2011.

3.5. The landowners appeared before the Competent Authority on 30.07.2011 for personal hearing, and submitted further written Objections on 31.07.2011.

3.6. The Competent Authority submitted its Report to the Central Government under Section 20E(1) of the Act on 03.01.2012.

On 06.02.2012, the Ministry of Railways issued a Notification under Section 20E(1) of the Railways Act, 1989 stating that 59 Objections had been received in respect of the proposed acquisition, which had been considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority.

3.7. On 06.02.2013 and 07.02.2013, Awards were passed by the Competent Authority under Section 20F of the Railways Act, 1989.

3.8. On 13.08.2013, Shri Ghanshyamsinh Gambhirsinh Vashi, a landowner, filed an RTI Application before the Competent Authority seeking a certified copy of the Order passed on the Objections filed by the landowners.

3.9. The Competent Authority replied to the said RTI Application on 05.09.2013, and stated that the reply to the Objections raised by the landowners had already been communicated vide letter dated 15.07.2011.

3.10. The Appellants herein challenged the acquisition proceedings by filing Special Civil Application Nos. 19409 of 2015, 12711 of 2016, 14000 of 2016, and 14001 of 2016 before the Gujarat High Court.

The principal ground of challenge raised by the Appellants was that no Order had been passed on the Objections in accordance with Section 20D(2) of the said Act.

The Appellants prayed for quashing and setting aside the Notification issued under Section 20A on 08.02.2011, and the Declaration issued under Section 20E on 06.02.2012.

3.11. During the pendency of the proceedings, the High Court vide Interim Order dated 12.07.2018, directed the Respondents to file an Affidavit giving specific details pertaining to the disposal of the Objections after personal hearing was granted on 30.07.2011.

3.12. The Chief Project Manager, Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited filed Affidavit dated 17.07.2018 on behalf of the Respondents b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 849

Cases Referred (19)