SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 741

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.D. DHANUKA, GAURI GODSE, JJ.
Manekbben Rama Tandel – Petitioner
Versus
The Collector, Daman, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2727 of 2022
Decided On : 04-05-2023

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.

Mandatory procedures for acquisition under the Act of 2013 must be strictly followed

Headnote:

Petitioners challenged the acquisition of their land under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘Act of 2013’). They contended that the acquisition process violated the principles of natural justice as the SIA report was not made available, and objections were not considered. The Respondents argued that all procedures were followed, but the Court found that the mandatory procedures for acquisition were not followed, and the objections of the Petitioners were not considered. The Court held that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated due to non-compliance with the Act of 2013 and violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court quashed the notifications and awards related to the acquisition proceedings and allowed the Respondents to adopt appropriate proceedings following due procedure of law under the Act of 2013.

Judgement Key Points

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. (!)

JUDGMENT :

GAURI GODSE, J.

1. Rule. Mr. Venegaonkar waives service for Respondents. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. This Petition challenges two separate preliminary notifications, both dated 17th November 2021, issued under Section 11 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘Act of 2013’) and two separate declarations both dated 14th February 2022 under Section 19 of the Act of 2013. By way of amendment, Petitioners challenged two separate Awards declared under Section 23 of the Act of 2013, both dated 25th April 2022. Both these notifications and the Awards are affecting two separate areas of Petitioner’s property.

CASE OF THE PETITIONERS:

3. Petitioners are the owners of the land bearing survey Nos. 8, 10/1, 11/2, 11/3 of village Kathiria, Daman, admeasuring 12917 square meters and 4091 square meters (“said property”) which are the subject matter of the acquisition under the Act of 2013.

4. On 15th February 2019, a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act of 2013 for the preparation of a Social Impact Assessment (“SIA”) for the purpose of expansion of a government hospital, proposing to acquire lands bearing survey nos. 19/1, 19/2, 19/5, 19/6, 19/7 and 19/8 of village Kathiria, Nani Daman. The Petitioners are not concerned with these properties. The said property was not mentioned in the said notification dated 15th February 2019.

5. In the month of March 2019, the Petitioners received notice of eviction for their hotel structure as the same was affected by the proposed construction of a coastal road. Hence the Petitioners challenged the action of the Respondents by filing Writ Petition No. 3886 of 2019. By order dated 27th March 2019, interim protection was granted to the Petitioners.

6. It is the case of the Petitioners that without any SIA report with respect to the said property, two separate notifications under Section 11 of the Act of 2013 were issued on 12th September 2019, which included the said property for the first time to the extent of 12917 square meters and 4091 square meters for the purpose of expansion of government hospital and nursing college hostel. On 5th November 2019, the Petitioners submitted objections to the said preliminary notifications. On 13th December 2019 report under Section 15 was submitted by Respondent No. 1. On 6th May 2020, a notification under Section 19 was issued. Petitioners received a notice dated 7th October 2020 issued under Section 21.

7. Hence the Petitioners filed Writ Petition Stamp No. 94689 of 2020 for challenging notifications dated 12th September 2019 issued under Section 11, report dated 13th December 2019 submitted under Section 15 and declaration dated 6th May 2020 issued under Section 19 of the Act of 2013. In the said Writ Petition, a statement was made on behalf of Respondents that acquisition proceedings in respect of the said property are dropped, and fresh acquisition proceedings are initiated. Hence said Writ Petition was disposed of as infructuous on 7th January 2021.

8. Consent terms dated 4th May 2021 were filed in the earlier Writ Petition No. 3886 of 2019, which was filed against an eviction notice for the construction of a coastal road. It is the case of the Petitioners that pursuant to the consent terms, the Petitioners were permitted to shift their hotel structure to the backside. In view of the consent terms, Petitioners had agreed to hand over their land for the purpose of the coastal road without any monetary consideration, as the Petitioners were allowed to shift their hotel structure on the backside. Thus, the Petitioners handed over 30 meter stretch without any monetary consideration.

9. On 17th November 2021, without any SIA report, two separate notifications under Section 11 of the Act of 2013 were issued for acquiring the said property for the purpose of a nursing college hostel of the government hospital. Ther

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top