Land acquisition objections require independent government consideration before declaration; failure to apply mind leaves the process vulnerable to challenge.

Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act confers a substantive right of objection, and the hearing under that provision must be effective. The Collector must inquire into objections and submit a report, and the State Government must then independently apply its mind to the objections and the record before issuing the declaration under Section 6. In expropriatory acquisition, strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is mandatory, and judicial review remains available where illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety is shown. Failure to demonstrate proper consideration of the landowner's objections and the material on record renders the acquisition vulnerable to challenge.

---

---

Issues: Whether the land acquisition was vitiated for non-consideration of the landowner's objections and non-application of mind by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act.

Analysis: Section 5-A confers a valuable and substantive right on the person whose land is proposed to be acquired, and the hearing contemplated by that provision must be effective. The statutory scheme under Sections 4, 5-A and 6 requires the Collector to inquire into the objections and submit a report with recommendations, after which the State Government must independently apply its mind to the objections and the record before issuing the declaration. Although a declaration under Section 6 is conclusive as to public purpose and need, judicial review remains available where the decision-making process is challenged for illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. In an expropriatory statute, strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is mandatory, and reasons or the material supporting the decision must exist in the record even if they need not be stated in the notification itself. The State failed to satisfactorily establish due consideration of the objections and record.

Conclusion: The acquisition proceedings were liable to be struck down for want of due application of mind and proper compliance with Section 5-A, and the challenge failed against the landowner.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed, and the High Court's quashing of the acquisition was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In land acquisition matters, where the statute grants a right of objection, the appropriate Government must independently consider the objections and the Collector's report before issuing the final declaration, and failure to show such consideration renders the acquisition vulnerable to judicial review.

---