Mandatory hearing in land acquisition and real possession requirements defeated vesting where cultivated land remained with the owner.

Acquisition of cultivated land could not be sustained on the basis of mere paper possession, because standing crops and contemporaneous cultivation entries showed that actual physical possession had not been effectively taken. Vesting under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 requires real and effective dispossession, not a revenue record prepared by officials. The acquisition also failed for breach of Section 5A(2), because the objector was denied a valid hearing and the record did not show proper service of notice or objective consideration of objections. The court treated compliance with the hearing requirement as mandatory, and the acquisition was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the acquisition could be sustained on the basis that possession of the acquired land had already been taken and had vested in the State, and (ii) whether the acquisition was vitiated for breach of Section 5A(2) and the principles of natural justice by denial of hearing to the objector.

Issue (i): whether the acquisition could be sustained on the basis that possession of the acquired land had already been taken and had vested in the State.

Analysis: The record showed that crop was standing on the land and the landowner's contemporaneous cultivation entries supported his plea that physical possession remained with him. The document relied upon by the authorities was only a revenue paper prepared by officials and did not establish actual possession taken on the spot. In cases where land is under cultivation, mere paper possession is insufficient to bring about vesting under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The mode of taking possession must reflect real and effective dispossession, and the court found no reliable material showing that such possession had been taken after notice or in the presence of independent witnesses.

Conclusion: The plea of prior taking of possession failed and the acquisition could not be upheld on the basis of supposed vesting in the State.

Issue (ii): whether the acquisition was vitiated for breach of Section 5A(2) and the principles of natural justice by denial of hearing to the objector.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Section 5A(2) makes a fair hearing to objectors mandatory before a declaration under Section 6 is issued. The materials on record indicated that notices were not duly served on the appellant and his wife, and the signatures relied upon by the authorities did not match the appellant's signatures. The Collector proceeded as if all objectors had been heard, but the record disclosed no valid opportunity of hearing and no objective consideration of the appellant's objections. Since compliance with Section 5A(2) is a sine qua non for valid acquisition, the defect went to the root of the proceedings.

Conclusion: The acquisition was invalid for breach of Section 5A(2) and denial of a meaningful hearing.

Final Conclusion: The acquisition proceedings concerning the appellant's land were set aside and the challenge succeeded because both the alleged taking of possession and the statutory hearing requirement were found unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: In acquisition of cultivated land, vesting cannot be founded on mere paper possession, and failure to afford the objector the mandatory hearing under Section 5A(2) renders the acquisition invalid.

---