The court established that non-compliance with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act invalidates acquisition proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Per MS Sonak, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. By order dated 13 September 2022, the Coordinate Bench of this Court comprising Nitin Jamdar (as his Lordship then was) and Sharmila Deshmukh JJ grouped these five Writ Petitions as Group (2b) and directed that Writ Petition No. 778 of 2018 be treated as the lead Petition.

3. The order dated 13 September 2022 directs the learned Counsel for the parties to circulate the summary of propositions with reference to pleadings (with page numbers) and statutory provisions. Directions were also issued to supply case law compilations with index, and the relevant paragraphs were to be marked for the proposition for which they were proposed to be cited. The summary and compilation were directed to be circulated in advance so that these matters and other grouped matters would be taken up for final hearing. There has only been a token of compliance with these detailed directions issued by the Coordinate Bench.

4. Accordingly, we issue Rule in each of these Petitions. The rule is made returnable immediately, given the earlier orders, and at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

5. The learned Counsel for the parties submit that substantially common issues of law and fact arise in these Petitions. Therefore, a common judgment and order can dispose of these Petitions by treating Writ Petition No. 778 of 2018 as the lead Petition.

6. The lead Petition was instituted in September 2017. This Petition was amended by orders dated 26 July 2018, 16 March 2022 and 13 April 2022. The amendment allowed and carried out under the order dated 26 July 2018 was crucial. Despite ample opportunities, the Respondents have not responded to the amended Petition. No further opportunity was sought when the final hearing commenced. The CIDCO insisted that the interim orders made in 2018 be vacated at the earliest for which the CIDCO had also filed an interim application.

7. The Petitioners challenge the acquisition of their agricultural lands for the public purpose of setting up the “Navi Mumbai Project” at Village Vahal, Taluka Panvel, District Raigharh, Maharashtra.

8. Mr Anturkar and Mr Punde submitted that Section 4 notification dated 7 December 2013 (Exhibit B), Section 6 declaration dated 20 May 2015 (Exhibit E) and the impugned award dated 7 July 2017 (Exhibit L) were vitiated on several grounds as urged in the Petitions. However, the learned Counsel focused on two broad submissions supporting their challenges.

9. Firstly, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Section 6 declaration dated 20 May 2015 (Exhibit E) (pages 56 to 67 of the paper book) referred to some notification or direction applying the provisions of Section 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act) and the dispensing of the requirements under Section 5A of the LA Act in case of the said acquisition. However, they pointed out that, factually, no such notification or direction was ever issued in these matters. Thus, they submitted that the Section 6 declaration dated 20 May 2015 was vitiated by complete non- application of mind. In any event, they submitted that this declaration was vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record or a gross misconception regarding the true and correct facts concerning the issue of notification/direction under Section 17 (4) and the dispensation of enquiry under Section 5A of the LA Act. The learned C