TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether land acquisition proceedings were vitiated when objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were heard by one Collector but the report was submitted by his successor without a fresh hearing. (ii) Whether the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 where the award had been made long before commencement of the 2013 Act but possession had not been taken.
Issue (i): Whether land acquisition proceedings were vitiated when objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were heard by one Collector but the report was submitted by his successor without a fresh hearing.
Analysis: Section 5A embodies the rule of audi alteram partem and confers a valuable substantive right on the landowner to object to the proposed acquisition. The hearing contemplated by the provision must be effective and not a mere formality. The authority that hears the objections is required to apply its mind to the objections and make the report, and the successor officer cannot decide the matter on a hearing held by another without giving a fresh opportunity of hearing. A procedure that separates the hearing and decision-making functions violates the basic requirement of natural justice.
Conclusion: The acquisition proceedings were vitiated and the challenge on this ground succeeded.
Issue (ii): Whether the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 where the award had been made long before commencement of the 2013 Act but possession had not been taken.
Analysis: Section 24(2) gives overriding effect to the lapse of proceedings where an award under the 1894 Act was made five years or more before commencement of the 2013 Act and physical possession has not been taken or compensation has not been paid. Deposit of compensation in the government treasury does not amount to payment for this purpose. The provision is beneficial and operates notwithstanding repeal, subject to the statutory conditions being met.
Conclusion: The proceedings were deemed to have lapsed, and the landowners were entitled to succeed on this ground as well.
Final Conclusion: The judgment upheld the landowners' challenge to the acquisition on both the fairness of the Section 5A inquiry and the statutory lapse under the 2013 Act, while the connected matter of the subsequent purchaser was disposed of consistently with that result.
Ratio Decidendi: Where objections under Section 5A are heard by one authority, the report and decision must be made by that same authority after an effective hearing, and acquisition proceedings made under the 1894 Act also lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if the award is over five years old and possession has not been taken or compensation paid.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
