2019 (8) TMI 1463 - SC - Indian Laws

Court upholds land acquisition despite non-compliance with Railways Act

Nareshbhai Bhagubhai & Ors., Ravibhai Vallabhbhai Sutariya & Ors., Ishwerbhai Bhikabhai Patel & Ors., Vallabhbhai Chanabhai Ahir & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors.

The court found that the Competent Authority failed to comply with Section 20D(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, by not passing a formal order on objections ... Acquisition of Land for the public purpose of construction of the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor - Notification was issued under Section 20A of the Railways Act, 1989 - compensation in accordance with Sections 20F and 20G of the Railways Act, 1989 - compliance by the Competent Authority of provisions of Section 20D(2) or not - consequences of the non-compliance. HELD THAT:- The land-owner or interested person has been granted a limited right to file objections under Section 20D of the Railways Act, 1989. The scope of the objections is limited to the purpose for which the acquisition is made. It is not a general right to file objections as under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The statute has mandated a strict procedure to be followed under Section 20D with respect to the submission and hearing of objections. The statute mandates that the order is required to be passed by the Competent Authority “after hearing” the land-owners. The order cannot precede the hearing of objections. If an order is passed prior to the personal hearing, and enquiry by the Competent Authority, it would be contrary to the statute, invalid, and vitiated by a pre¬determined disposition. In the present case, it is the admitted position that after the personal hearing took place on 30.07.2011, no decision was passed on the objections submitted by the land-owners, either allowing or disallowing their objections; nor was any communication sent to them - It is abundantly clear that in the absence of an order being passed as contemplated by Section 20D of the said Act, no further steps could have been taken by the Competent Authority in the acquisition in question. The Competent Authority after hearing all objections, and after making such further enquiry, if any, is mandated to pass an order either allowing or disallowing the objections. There are a catena of judgments passed on Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which are relevant for the interpretation of Section 20D(2) of the said Act. This Court has held that the rules of natural justice have been ingrained in the scheme of Section 5¬A of the 1894 Act with a view to ensure that before any person is forcibly deprived of his land by way of compulsory acquisition, he must be provided with an opportunity to oppose the decision of the Government - This Court has held that the hearing given to a person must be an effective one, and not a mere formality. Formation of opinion with regard to the public purpose, as also suitability thereof, must be preceded by application of mind having due regard to the relevant factors. The Competent Authority was duty-bound to consider the objections raised by the Appellants, and pass a reasoned order, which should reflect application of mind to the objections raised by the land-owners. In the present case, there has been a complete dereliction of duty by the Competent Authority in passing a reasoned order on the objections raised by the Appellants - In the present case, it is the undisputed position that no order as contemplated in the eyes of law was passed by the Competent Authority in deciding the objections raised by the Appellants. A statutory authority discharging a quasi-judicial function is required to pass a reasoned order after due application of mind. Admittedly, no mala fides have been alleged by the Appellants against the Respondents in the acquisition proceedings. The larger public purpose of a railway project would not be served if the Notification under Section 20A is quashed. The public purpose of the acquisition is the construction and operation of a Special Railway Project viz. the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor in District Surat, Gujarat - it is fit to balance the right of the Appellants on the one hand, and the larger public purpose on the other, by compensating the Appellants for the right they have been deprived of - In the present case, the relief is being moulded by granting compensation to the Appellants, to be assessed under Section 20G of the said Act as per the current market value of the land. The Competent Authority is directed to compute the amount of compensation on the basis of the current market value of the land, which may be determined with reference to Section 20G(2) of the Act. Appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Compliance with Section 20D(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.2. Consequences of non-compliance with Section 20D(2) on the acquisition proceedings and the rights of the Appellants.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Compliance with Section 20D(2) of the Railways Act, 1989:The court examined whether the provisions of Section 20D(2) were complied with by the Competent Authority. The statute mandates that objections to land acquisition must be heard, and a reasoned order must be passed after such hearing. The Competent Authority failed to pass a formal order on the objections raised by the Appellants after the personal hearing on 30.07.2011, which was confirmed by an affidavit dated 18.07.2018. The court noted that the Competent Authority's internal file notings and the letter dated 15.07.2011 could not be considered valid orders as they were not communicated to the landowners.The court emphasized that the right to file objections under Section 20D is akin to a fundamental right, and the Competent Authority must pass a reasoned order reflecting the application of mind. The absence of such an order invalidates subsequent steps in the acquisition process.2. Consequences of Non-compliance with Section 20D(2):Given the non-compliance with Section 20D(2), the court considered whether the entire acquisition process should be invalidated. The court acknowledged that the land in question was part of a larger public utility project (Western Dedicated Freight Corridor), with significant progress already made on the remaining 125 km stretch, which was not challenged by other landowners.Balancing the public interest with the rights of the Appellants, the court decided not to quash the entire acquisition. Instead, it directed the Competent Authority to compensate the Appellants based on the current market value of the land, as per Section 20G of the Railways Act, 1989. The court highlighted that this relief is specific to the Appellants and does not set a precedent for other landowners who did not challenge the acquisition.Conclusion:The court allowed the Civil Appeals, directing the Competent Authority to compute compensation for the Appellants based on the current market value of the land. The relief granted is confined to the Appellants, balancing their rights with the larger public purpose of the railway project.