IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S. SONAK, JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
Shree Nasik Panchavati Panjrapole, Panchavati, Nashik & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The District Collector, Nashik Collector Office, Nashik & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 11299 of 2024 With Writ Petition No. 11278 of 2024
Decided On : 07-03-2025
(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 21(2) and 23 - Land acquisition - Petitioners challenged the Award for lack of adequate notice and opportunity to be heard - Court emphasized the necessity of compliance with statutory procedures for fair hearing. (Paras 5, 14, 26)
(B) Natural Justice - The right to be heard is fundamental in land acquisition proceedings - Non-compliance with the requirement of personal hearing constitutes a violation of natural justice. (Paras 25, 26)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioners contested the acquisition of their land, arguing that the notice provided did not allow the minimum 30-day period for objections, thus vitiating the Award.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Petitioners were not granted a personal hearing before the Award was made, violating the statutory requirements.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Petitioners were given adequate notice and opportunity to object to the acquisition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of a personal hearing and insufficient notice violated the Petitioners' rights under the Act, necessitating the quashing of the Award.
Result: Both Petitions allowed and the impugned Awards quashed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The learned Counsel for the parties state that substantially the same issues of law and facts are involved in both these Petitions. Only the date of the notices and the notifications might be slightly different. Accordingly, they agree that a common Judgment and Order can dispose of both Petitions. The learned counsel for the parties agree that Writ Petition No.11299 of 2024 may be treated as the lead Petition.
3. Rule in both petitions. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
4. The Petitioners challenge the impugned Award dated 23 November 2023 in Land Acquisition Case No.05 of 2022 by which Petitioners land admeasuring 17955.00 sq.mtrs, Survey No.288/3, Nashik was acquired.
5. Mr. Ahuja, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submits that Notice dated 16 June 2023 under Section 21(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013 (“the Act of 2013”) did not give the Petitioners minimum prescribed 30-day time to object to the acquisition and appear for a personal hearing before the Collector. He submitted that the procedure prescribed under Sections 21 and 23 of the said Act had been flagrantly and flouted, thereby vitiating the impugned Award. Mr. Ahuja relied on M/s.Tirupati DeveopersVs. The Union of Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli & ors., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 632 in support of his contentions.
6. Mr. Dighe learned Addl. GP, for the Respondents, after referring the affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents, points out that the Petitioners, without complaining about the short notice, filed objections dated 03 July 2023. The Petitioner’s advocate drafted these objections. Though neither the Petitioner’s representative nor their advocate appeared for the personal hearing on 27 June 2023, which was the date appointed by Section 21(2) notice dated 16 June 2023, Still the Collector considered the Petitioner’s objections and after dealing with the same made the impugned Award dated 23 November 2023. He points out that before that, a draft Award was also prepared, and approval for the same was opted from the Town Planning Authority. He, therefore, submits that there was more than substantive compliance with the requirements of Sections 21 and 23 of the said Act, and no prejudice whatsoever could be said to have occasioned the Petitioners.
7. He submitted that the Petitioners have already applied for a reference under Section 64 of the said Act seeking enhancement of compensation. Having availed such alternate remedies, these petitions may not be entertained.
8. Mr. Dighe submits that upon cumulative consideration of all these facts, no relief is due to the petitioners in either of the Petitions. He, therefore, urged for the dismissal of both these Petitions.
9. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.
10. The Petitioners were served a notice dated 16 June 2023 under Section 21(2) of the said Act. This notice is at pg. 307 of the paper book. This allows the Petitioners to object to the acquisition and, further, requires them to attend the personal hearing through its representative or Advocate on 27 June 2023 at 3 pm before the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition).
11. Section 21 of the said Act read as follows:-
“21. Notice to persons interested-
1) The Collector shall publish the public notice on his website and cause public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land, and that claims to compensations and rehabilitation and resettlement for all interests in such land may be made to him.
(2) The public notice referred to in sub-section shall state the particulars of the land so needed, and require all persons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent or advocate before the Collector at a time and place mentioned in the public
The right to a personal hearing in land acquisition proceedings is fundamental, and failure to provide adequate notice and opportunity to be heard violates statutory requirements.
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.
The acquisition process must comply with statutory provisions of timely final notification and personal hearing, failure of which undermines legal validity.
Procedural lapses in land acquisition notification, hearing, and timelines vitiate proceedings, but completed construction and record loss warrant fresh award under original Act rather than new regim....
Public notice under the Land Acquisition Act suffices for informing interested parties; individual notice is not required, and excessive delay in challenging acquisition proceedings can bar claims.
Section 11A of Act, Collector has to make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from date of publication of declaration and if no award is made within that period, entire 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.