NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 88 · Decided: 13-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
88
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI & ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6270 of 2019)
AUGUST 13, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Railways Act, 1989: ss. 20D – Hearing of objections – Non-
compliance of s. 20D(2) – Effect of – Acquisition of 131 kms of
land including 6 kms of land of the appellant for public purpose of
construction of a Special Railway Project-Western Dedicated Freight
Corridor in District Surat – Plea of the appellant-land owners that
no order was passed on the objections raised by them in accordance
with s. 20D(2) – Appellant sought quashing of the Notification issued
u/s. 20A and declaration issued u/s. 20E – Dismissal of the
applications by the High Court – On appeal, held: Limited right
given to a land-owner/interested person to file objections, and be
granted a personal hearing u/s.20D cannot be reduced to an empty
formality, or a mere eye-wash by the Competent Authority –
Competent Authority was duty-bound to consider the objections
raised by the appellants, and pass a reasoned order reflecting
application of mind to the objections raised by the land-owners –
On facts, file noting contained in an internal office file, or in the
report submitted by the Competent Authority to the Central
Government, would not constitute a valid order in the eyes of law –
There was no order whatsoever passed rejecting the objections,
after the personal hearing was concluded – Competent Authority
did not communicate the contents of the file noting to the appellants
at any stage of the proceedings – The said file noting recording
rejection of the objections only on the ground that the matter
pertained to an infrastructure project for public utility, came to light
when the matter was pending before the High Court, and the original
files were summoned – In any event, the order u/s. 20D(2) cannot
be passed prior to the personal hearing – In the absence of an
order passed u/s. 20D(2), the subsequent steps taken in the
   [2019] 10 S.C.R. 88
88
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
89
acquisition would get invalidated – However, remaining stretch of
land comprising of 125 kms on acquisition, stands vested in the
Government and pre-construction activity and earth work has been
completed on most parts of the stretch – In order to balance the
right of the appellants on the one hand, and the larger public
purpose on the other, the appellants to be compensated as per the
current market value of the land – Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is abundantly clear that in the absence of an
order being passed as contemplated by Section 20D of the
Railways Act, no further steps could have been taken by the
Competent Authority in the acquisition in question. Section 20D
is a mandatory provision which confers a substantive and valuable
right on the land-owners, to object to the proposed acquisition,
before they are forcibly divested of their right, title and interest
in the land by an expropriatory legislation. The right to file
objections under Section 20D of the Railways Act, 1989 is pari
materia to Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 even
though the scope of objections may be more limited. The
judgments rendered by this Court on the nature of the right to
object under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are equally applicable
to the Railways Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 20D mandates the
Competent Authority to give the objectors an opportunity of
hearing, either in person or through a legal practitioner. 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. It has been held by this
Court 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; and 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. Section 5-A of
NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
90
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 confers a valuable right on the
land-owners. H

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.