Procedural non-compliance in land acquisition violates the entitlement of affected persons to a hearing before re-evaluation of land value.

JUDGMENT :

C. Jayachandran, J.

The petitioners in both these Writ Petitions challenges the Land Acquisition proceedings, produced at Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) No.951/2025. The essential grievance of the petitioners in both these Writ Petitions is with respect to the proceedings produced at Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No.951/2025 [Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) No.1548/2025], which reduced the value of the land by 80%, on the allegation that quarrying operations were conducted in such land entailing diminution of land value.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the procedure contemplated in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('2013 Act', for short) has not been followed. Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.951/2025 would invite the attention of this Court to the various stages/procedures contemplated in the Act. Section 4 deals with the Social Impact Assessment Study and Section 11 with the preliminary notification. Section 15 contemplates a hearing on the objections of affected persons, but confined to the grounds specified under Section 15 (1)(a), (b) and (c). Section 19 speaks of the publication of declaration and summary of rehabilitation and resettlement. As per Section 20 , the land has to be marked out, measured and planned, including the marking of the specified areas. Section 21 - the crucial Section relied upon by the petitioners - contemplates notice to interested persons. Such notice is not merely with respect to propounding the interest of the persons affected, but also with respect to the amount and particulars of the claims to compensation and also the value of the land, is the submission made.

3. After the hearing contemplated, pursuant to the notice under Section 21 , the Collector has to proceed to pass an award in terms of Section 23 , wherein he is supposed to take into account the objections of the persons interested, the measurements made under Section 20 and also the value of the land on the date of publication of the notification and the respective interest of the persons claiming compensation/ rehabilitation or resettlement.

4. Coming to the instant facts, learned counsel would point out that Ext.P1 notification was issued on 05.02.2021, which is in terms of Section 11 of the 2013 Act. Ext.P2 is the basic valuation report, which is dated 12.04.2022. Ext.P3 is the controversial order dated 25.05.2023, which refers to the fact that the value of the lands involved have already been fixed and orders passed; that a report has been preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer on the premise that the lands in question were subjected to quarrying activities, which diminished the land value; and taking stock of that, the value of the land fixed was reduced to the extent of 80%. Accordingly, proceedings were issued vide Ext.P3. Ext.P4 is the detailed valuation statement based on Ext.P3. Ext.P5 is a representation preferred by the petitioners, specifically pointing out that they were not afforded with any opportunity of being heard, before issuing Ext.P3. However, the same was rejected vide Ext.P6, stating that the D.V.S is approved and declaration under Section 19 has already been issued, for which reasons, the representation cannot be considered. The exhibits mentioned above are referred to, as produced in W.P.(C) No.951/2025. The sum and substance of the grievance espoused by the petitioners is that they were not afforded with an opportunity of being heard before issuing Ext.P3, which reduced the land valu