The Supreme Court has held that while Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 confers a mandatory and valuable right of objection and hearing, that right can be lost by the landowners’ own conduct where they fail to pursue the proceedings after participating on multiple dates; in such circumstances, substantial compliance with Section 5A is sufficient and the acquisition for the Jaipur Metro car depot could not be invalidated.
Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 creates a mandatory right to file objections, receive a hearing, and obtain fair consideration of those objections, but the Collector’s role remains administrative and not judicial. Therefore, a detailed speaking order is not required and substantial compliance is enough if objections are considered, brief reasons are indicated, and the State Government applies its mind before issuing a Section 6 declaration, added the Court.
The Court further held that where landowners participate in Section 5A proceedings over several dates, receive replies, and then fail to appear, file rejoinders, seek adjournment, or otherwise pursue their objections, they may be treated as having abandoned the right of personal hearing. In such circumstances, forwarding the recommendation without granting one more opportunity does not by itself amount to breach of Section 5A or invalidate the acquisition.
The Court also held that courts should not ordinarily interfere with the acquiring authority’s choice of the particular parcel of land, the technical assessment of land requirement, or project planning considerations, unless there is clear mala fide, manifest arbitrariness, or lack of public purpose. A metro depot is an indispensable part of a metro rail project and therefore squarely falls within public purpose.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma examined Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act in detail and reaffirmed that it gives a very valuable and mandatory safeguard to a landowner whose land is proposed to be acquired. The Court said that once objections are filed under Section 5A(1), the Collector must give an opportunity of hearing, and fair consideration of the objections is part of natural justice and due process. At the same time, the Court clarified that the Collector acts as an administrative authority, not as a court, and is not required to pass a detailed judicial-style order; brief reasons and a recommendation are sufficient if the objections are considered and the Government can take an informed final decision.
On the facts of this case, the Court found no flagrant violation, no colourable compliance, and no substantial non-compliance with Section 5A. It accepted that 9 April 2012 was fixed for filing rejoinder and not specifically as the final hearing date, and also noted that no further hearing notice after that date was seriously shown to have been served. Even so, the Court held that this did not vitiate the acquisition because the landowners had already participated on several earlier dates, had received the acquiring body’s replies, and then neither appeared on 9 April 2012 nor took any steps thereafter to pursue their objections, seek adjournment, or request a hearing. According to the Court, the Land Acquisition Officer could reasonably proceed on the basis that the landowners had nothing further to add beyond their written objections. The Court therefore held that the landowners had, by their own conduct, abandoned their right of personal hearing.
The Court also rejected the argument that the Land Acquisition Officer’s report was invalid merely because it used the phrase that the “objections are not being considered.” Reading the report as a whole, the Court held that the officer had in fact recorded the objections, noted the Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation’s response, and concluded that in view of the public purpose of the metro project, the objections did not merit acceptance. The Court said that brevity of reasons is not the same thing as absence of reasons, and a Section 5A report need not be a speaking order in the judicial sense.
Also Read Supreme Court Upholds Bail Granted to Lalu Prasad Yadav in Deoghar Fodder Scam
The Supreme Court then independently examined the substance of the landowners’ objections and found none of them sufficient to invalidate the acquisition. It held that there was no legal requirement that newspaper publication must precede the Section 4 notification, especially when the landowners admittedly had notice and filed objections in time. It further held that acquisition for a metro rail depot clearly served a public purpose, and evolving project planning or later DPR changes did not negate that public purpose. The Court also ruled that a prior survey before Section 4 notification was not required because Section 4(2) itself shows that survey follows the notification.
On the plea that alternative lands belonging to RIICO, IOCL, JDA and others should have been acquired instead, the Court held that selection of the exact parcel of land is primarily for the planning authorities and not for the court to second-guess, absent arbitrariness, mala fides or legal infirmity. It also noted that the respondents had explained that the suggested alternative lands were already being used or earmarked for other purposes. Likewise, the objection that excess land was being acquired was rejected because the revised DPR itself assessed the requirement at 27 hectares, and the determination of the extent needed for a public project lies within the technical domain of the authorities unless manifest arbitrariness is shown.
The environmental objection based on the presence of trees was also rejected. The Court held that mere existence of trees or vegetation on part of the land does not make it forest or deemed forest unless statutory planning instruments or records identify it as such. Since there was no material showing that the land was recorded as forest land, the Court held that the objection lacked substance, especially when compensatory plantation and transplantation measures had already been directed.
Also Read Supreme Court Grants States Four Weeks to File Compliance Reports in Road Safety PILs
Briefly, the case arose from acquisition of about 27 hectares of land in Village Sheopura, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur, owned by the appellants, for construction of a metro car depot as part of Phase II of the Jaipur Metro Rail Project. A Section 4(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 26 May 2011, after which the landowners filed objections under Section 5A. The Land Acquisition Officer repeatedly listed the matter on several dates, and Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation filed replies to the objections. The landowners were thereafter given time to file rejoinders, but on 9 April 2012 they neither appeared nor filed any rejoinder. Later, on 18 May 2012, the Land Acquisition Officer sent his report under Section 5A(2) to the State Government, following which a Section 6 declaration and Section 9(3) notice were issued. The landowners challenged the acquisition mainly on the ground that they had been denied an effective hearing under Section 5A.
The Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court accepted the landowners’ challenge and quashed the acquisition proceedings, holding that no effective and proper opportunity of hearing had been given, that the objections were not substantively considered, and that the full record had not been properly placed before the State Government. However, the Division Bench reversed that decision in intra-court appeals, holding that the Land Acquisition Officer’s action was sufficient in the circumstances, especially because the landowners had failed to pursue their objections after 9 April 2012, and it directed Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation to take possession of the land. The Division Bench also issued tree transplantation and additional plantation directions.
