Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: T.D. Deshmukh, H.D. Chavan, Sagar Kursija, S.S. Mohanty.
For the Respondents: H.S. Venegaonkar, Aayush Kedia.

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• The petitioners challenged the acquisition of their land under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, contending that the process violated natural justice because the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) report was not made available and their objections were not properly considered. (!)
• The Court found that the mandatory procedures for acquisition were not followed, specifically noting that the notification under Section 4 was not published and the SIA report under Section 6 was not published or uploaded as required. (!) (!) (!)
• The notification issued under Section 11 did not contain the mandatory summary of the SIA report, rendering the subsequent hearing of objections under Section 15 meaningless as the objections related to the suitability of land and SIA findings could not be effectively raised without the report. (!) (!) (!) (!)
• The Respondents admitted that no notification under Section 4 and no SIA report under Section 6 were published for the specific property in question, and the report under Section 8 placed on record did not contain a summary of the SIA report. (!) (!) (!)
• The Court held that the procedures contemplated from the stage of Section 4 are not empty formalities and non-compliance with these mandatory provisions vitiates the entire acquisition proceedings. (!) (!) (!)
• The Court determined that the principles from Godrej and Boyce regarding procedural lapses affecting only compensation quantum were not applicable, as the non-compliance here was substantial and affected the validity of the acquisition itself. (!) (!)
• The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents (Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran, Gojer Brothers, Hindustan Petroleum) establishing that expropriatory legislation must be strictly construed and that a hearing must be an effective one, not a mere formality, especially when the decision-making process suffers from total non-compliance or non-application of mind. (!) (!) (!) (!)
• The acquisition proceedings were quashed, and the preliminary notifications under Section 11, declarations under Section 19, and awards under Section 23 were set aside. (!) (!)
• The Respondents were directed to adopt appropriate proceedings following the due procedure of law under the Act of 2013, starting from the publication of the notification under Section 4 and preparation of the SIA report. (!)
• The Respondents were also given liberty to file an application for withdrawal of the compensation amount deposited before the Competent Authority. (!)