2024 Supreme(SC) 572

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surya Kant, K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Darshan Lal Bohra & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8048/2019 (Arising Out Of Slp(C) No. 20120/2017) With Civil Appeal No. 8049/2019, Civil Appeal No. 8050/2019, Civil Appeal No. 8051/2019, Civil Appeal No. 8052/2019, Civil Appeal No. 8053/2019, Civil Appeal No. 8054/2019, Civil Appeal No. 8055/2019, Civil Appeal No. 8056/2019, Civil Appeal No. 8057/2019, Civil Appeal No. 8058/2019, Civil Appeal No. 8059/2019, Civil Appeal No. 8060/2019, Civil Appeal No. 8061/2019, Civil Appeal No. 8062/2019, Civil Appeal No. 8063/2019, Civil Appeal No. 8064/2019, Civil Appeal No. 8065/2019
Decided On : 10-07-2024

The main legal point established in the given judgment is that the Collector failed to adhere to the mandate of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the objections were disposed of improperly by a Common Order after grouping them, instead of evaluating the merit of each claim separately.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 5A - Section 6(1) - The court annulled the notification dated 14.01.2015 issued under Section 6(1) of the 1894 Act, with a direction that a fresh opportunity be given to the respondents and similarly situated tenure holders before proceeding further with the land acquisition process. The court found that the Collector failed to adhere to the mandate of Section 5A as no record of authenticity as to how effectively the Gram Pradhan intimated all tenure holders was produced. The court held that the objections were disposed of improperly by a Common Order after grouping them, instead of evaluating the merit of each claim separately. The court also held that the Collector wrongly issued a corrigendum to its previous order on 03.07.2014, which had raised suspicion on the fairness of the proceedings.

Fact of the Case:

A notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act was issued for the acquisition of land measuring 83.761 hectares situated in Village Badoli Banger, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The land acquisition was intended for the 'Planned Industrial Development in Gautam Budh Nagar' by NOIDA. The landowners objected to the acquisition primarily on the ground that such lands fell within 'abadi deh'. The objections raised by the landowners were to be adjudicated by the Collector. The notice fixing the date of hearing was forwarded to 'interested persons' through the Gram Pradhan, but the date of hearing was deferred on multiple occasions. The Collector dismissed the objections and submitted a report under Section 5A(2) recommending for acquiring the subject land. A declaration under Section 6(1) of the 1894 Act was issued on 14.01.2015, for acquiring 81.819 hectares of land. The High Court annulled the notification dated 14.01.2015, with a direction that a fresh opportunity be given to the respondents and similarly situated tenure holders before proceeding further with the land acquisition process.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Collector failed to adhere to the mandate of Section 5A as no record of authenticity as to how effectively the Gram Pradhan intimated all tenure holders was produced. The court held that the objections were disposed of improperly by a Common Order after grouping them, instead of evaluating the merit of each claim separately. The court also held that the Collector wrongly issued a corrigendum to its previous order on 03.07.2014, which had raised suspicion on the fairness of the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Collector failed to adhere to the mandate of Section 5A as no record of authenticity as to how effectively the Gram Pradhan intimated all tenure holders was produced. The court held that the objections were disposed of improperly by a Common Order after grouping them, instead of evaluating the merit of each claim separately. The court also held that the Collector wrongly issued a corrigendum to its previous order on 03.07.2014, which had raised suspicion on the fairness of the proceedings.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned main judgment dated 05.01.2017 of the High Court, and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the respondents on the ground that there is non-compliance of the procedure mandated by Section 5A of the 1894 Act without any order as to costs. The court directed the compensation amount, if already not paid, fully or partly, as per the award of the Collector, to be paid to the respondents and other landowners along with interest at the statutory rate within 4 weeks. The court clarified that since the 2013 Act came into force while the land acquisition process was still pending, the respondents and other landowners/tenure holders are entitled to be paid compensation in accordance with Section 24(1) read with other relevant provisions of the 2013 Act. The court also held that the respondents shall be entitled to seek reference, if already not filed, for further enhancement of compensation and the limitation period for filing such reference shall commence from the date of pronouncement of this order.