The right to be heard during property acquisition is a statutory entitlement; failure to follow due process undermines such rights under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ.

1. Heard Mr. Digant M. Popat and Mr. Kartikey Kanojia, learned advocates for the petitioner, Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent State and Mr. Anuj K. Trivedi, learned advocate for respondent no.3.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner initially challenged the notification issued under Section 10A dated 16.05.2023; under Section 11(1) dated 12.07.2023; and notices under Section 21(1) and 21(2) dated 07.10.2023 and 18.10.2023 under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short as "the Act' 2013").

3. By means of the amendment allowed on 22.12.2013, the prayers to seek quashing of the notification under Section 19 dated 06.10.2023; the award under Section 23 dated 10.11.2023 and the possession receipt dated 22.11.2023, have been added.

4. In essence, the petitioner seeks to challenge the entire acquisition proceedings beginning from the notification issued under Section 10A whereby the requirement of Social Impact Assessment Study under Section 4 of the Act' 2013 has been dispensed with.

5. The petitioner herein is the purchaser of the land in question, which was originally an Agricultural New tenure land. It is stated in the Writ petition that the said land was converted from new tenure to old tenure on payment of premium and further from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes by paying necessary premium at the relevant point of time. In the year 2000, Town Planning Scheme No.42 was sought to be implemented by the Municipal corporation and the State Government and under the said Scheme, the subject land was sought to be acquired and reserved for public utility. Necessary procedure was undertaken and after acquisition of the land of the petitioner, Final Plot No. 134 was allotted.

6. It is contended that after purchase of the land and payment of premium, for getting necessary permission, the petitioner had applied for construction of High rise building. However, due to the ongoing procedure under the Town Planning Act, the Corporation did not process the plan as submitted by the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner came to know about another proposed acquisition of the subject land for construction of Metro project in the District Surat. Apprehending acquisition, the petitioner made representation to the officers of the Metro Rail Corporation raising objection about the acquisition of the land of the petitioner for construction of Metro train station. A copy of such representation is appended as Annexure 'H' to the Writ petition.

7. It is contended that the petitioner made another representation dated 22.05.2018 to the Advisor (PD), Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, New Delhi with regard to any acquisition contemplated for the subject land. A prompt reply dated 29.05.2018 was received by the petitioner from the said authority assuring that the representation of the petitioner will be duly considered. Thereafter, the petitioner received no response and filed an application dated 26.07.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to verify the status of the Metro Station entry and exit point. The submission is that, in reply thereto, the petitioner was given the copy of the documents of the proposed entry and exit points, which categorically show that the said points do not fall on the petitioner's land, rather they were shown on the land bearing Block no. 250, which is adjoining land to the land of the petitioner.

8. Since there was no proposal to acquire the petitioner's land and after getting confirmation from the concerned authorities that there was no plan for acquisition of the petitioner's land, the petitioner made an application seeking Development permission along with necessary plans and documents to the concerned authorities. Apart from taking opinion of various departments, the City Engineer had also sought opinion from Gujarat Metro Rail Corporation (GMRC) vide l