SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Dinesh And Others Etc. – Appellants
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh And Others Etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 6441-6445 Of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 28410-28414 of 2023)
Decided On : 15-05-2024
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 15[Analogous to Section 5-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894] – Acquisition of land – Hearing of objections – SDO has been conferred powers to act only as Land Acquisition Officer under land acquisition notification – SDO who rejected objections of appellants, was never specially designated by appropriate Government to perform functions of Collector under the Act – Neither District Collector could act as appropriate Government in regard to acquisition in question nor was he authorised to delegate powers to SDO – State Government is mandated to take a decision on objections as per Section 15(3) of Act – These mandatory requirements of Statute were not followed in the case – Proceedings are hit by non-compliance of Sections 15(2) and 15(3) of Act of 2013 – Neither was land acquisition notification issued by District Collector nor was acquisition limited to a particular district – As such, District Collector could not have exercised powers of appropriate Government by virtue of proviso to Section 3(e) of Act of 2013 which authority continued to vest in State Government – Mere fact that final award had been issued during pendency of petitions would not save acquisition proceedings because hearing of objections is a sacrosanct act treated akin to a fundamental right – Final award declared to be illegal and quashed qua appellants’ lands. (Paras 21, 23, 27, 29 and 30)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeals by special leave have been filed by appellants herein for assailing common final judgment and order dated 13th October, 2023 passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench in a batch of writ petitions whereby, petitions filed by appellants to assail proceedings of acquisition of appellants’ land were dismissed.
Findings of Court:
Even if, for sake of arguments, SDO is treated to be an officer authorised to hear objections made under Section 15(2) of Act, apparently, final decision on such objections would have to be taken by appropriate Government as per Section 15(3) of the Act which is lacking in this case.
Result : Appeals allowed.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeals by special leave have been filed by the appellants herein for assailing the common final judgment and order dated 13th October, 2023 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench in a batch of writ petitions whereby, the petitions filed by the appellants to assail the proceedings of acquisition of the appellants’ land were dismissed.
3. The State of Madhya Pradesh published a notification dated 27th May, 2022 under Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Act of 2013’) proposing to acquire lands of Village Jamodi, Tehsil Pithampur, District Dhar, Madhya Pradesh of which appellant’s lands also formed a part. The lands were sought to be acquired for the purposes of establishing a Multi-Model Logistics Park under the Bharatmala Project of the Government of India.
4. The appellants submitted their objections to respondent No. 1-Collector under Section 15 of the Act of 2013 on 1st September, 2022. However, no response was forthcoming on such objections whereupon the appellants filed fresh objections on 23rd December, 2022 to the Collector-respondent No. 1.
5. The objections were not considered by the respondent No. 1-Collector, but rather the same were taken up by respondent No. 2 being the Anuvibhagiya Adhikari(Revenue) Evam Bhu Arjan Kshetra, Pithampur, District Dhar, Madhya Pradesh(hereinafter being referred to as ‘SDO’). The appellants also submitted written arguments on their objections on 31st December, 2022. However, the objections filed by the appellants were rejected by the SDO by order dated 27th February, 2023 and it was directed that the department should publish a declaration under Section 19 of the Act of 2013.
6. As a consequence, a declaration along with summary of rehabilitaation and resettlement was published on 10th March, 2023 under Section 19 of Act of 2013. Respondent No. 2-SDO published information under Section 21 of the Act and notices were issued to the appellants regarding the acquisition of their land by communication dated 8th August, 2023.
7. Being aggrieved by the rejection of their objections by an officer not having jurisdiction, the appellants and similarly situated land owners preferred numerous writ petitions before the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking quashing of the afore-stated land acquisition proceedings. The writ petitions came to be filed on 11th September, 2023 and during the pendency thereof, a final award came to be passed by respondent No. 2-SDO on 3rd October, 2023. The High Court, by order dated 13th October, 2023 proceeded to dismiss the writ petitions preferred by the appellants without considering the merits by simply observing that the same had been rendered infructuous owing to the passing of the final award. The said order is assailed in these appeals by special leave.
8. The appellants have posed a pertinent question of law for assailing the legality and validity of the land acquisition proceedings and the order passed by the High Court. The said question of law is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference: -
“Question No.4: Whether the Hon'ble High Court erred in not deciding the writ petition which specifically objected to the authority of the Respondent No.2 to hear and decide objections filed under section 15 of the Act of 2013 and direct publication of declaration and summary of Rehabilitation and Resettlement?”
9. Notice of the appeals was issued to the respondents, who have filed their counter affidavit stating therein that the Collector is deemed to be the “appropriate Government” under the proviso to Section 3(e) of the Act of 2013 and that he being the appropriate Government has got power under Section 3(g) of the Act to designate any officer to perform the functions/exercise powers vested with the Collector for the purpose of the land acquisition proceedings. Taking recourse to the said pro
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai and Others
Kalumiya Karimmiya v. State of Gujarat
Delhi Admn. v. Gurdip Singh Uban
State of M.P. v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma
Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan
CCE v. Orient Fabrics (P) Ltd.
Shiv Singh and Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others
Om Prakash and Another v. State of U.P. and Others
Acquisition of land – Hearing of objections – SDO has been conferred powers to act only as Land Acquisition Officer under land acquisition notification – Hearing of objections is a sacrosanct act tre....
The Collector or the Officer empowered in this behalf can only hear the objections, make an enquiry, and forward his report with recommendations to the State Government, which is the appropriate Gove....
The court affirmed that the SDOs had the authority to decide objections in land acquisition under the Act, and the process followed was in compliance with statutory requirements.
Merely because Collector failed to revise market value based on prevalent market value of land, the entire proceedings would not be vitiated, for reason that, petitioners are not going to sustain any....
Point of Law : Any person interested in the land can raise objections relating to : (a) the area and suitability of the land proposed to be acquired (b) justification offered for public purpose and (....
Personal hearing is a statutory requirement under Section 21(2) of the Act; failure to provide this violates natural justice and invalidates any acquisition award.
Point of law: Under sub-section (4) of Section 11, any person aggrieved by the order made under sub-section (3) or in appeal or revision can file a civil suit to contest the order. The vendors had co....
Compliance with the Land Acquisition Act, including the deposit of compensation and evidence of physical possession, is crucial for the validity of acquisition proceedings.
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.