NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus DARSHAN LAL BOHRA & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1001 · Decided: 10-07-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 15 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1001 : 2024 INSC 508
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority 
v. 
Darshan Lal Bohra & Ors. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8048 of 2019)
10 July 2024
[Surya Kant* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
(i) Whether the respondents-landowners forestalled their right 
to challenge the acquisition proceeding on the ground of  
non-compliance of Section 5A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 because 
they have not filed objections; or they were not tenure holders as 
per the revenue records on the date of notification under Section 
4 of the 1894 Act; or after submitting their objections, they have 
accepted compensation without any demur; (ii) If the answer to 
the aforementioned question is in negative, whether the mandatory 
procedure contemplated under Section 5A has been complied with 
in the instant case.
Headnotes†
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.5A – Compliance with –
Writ petitions were filed by the respondents-land owners 
challenging the acquisition proceedings on the ground of  
non-compliance of the procedure prescribed u/s.5A – 
Respondents claimed being unaware of the acquisition 
proceedings stating that they were not served with notices for 
hearings – High Court quashed the notification issued u/s.6(1) 
and annulled the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the 
appellant – Correctness:
Held: The person who submits objections u/s.5A must be accorded 
an opportunity of personal hearing – Such a hearing must precede 
with an advance notice served upon the objector – The failure to 
serve the notice would be sufficient to infer the defiance of s.5A – 
However, whether or not an advance notice of hearing was served 
upon an “objector” is a question of fact – Where the Collector takes 
a specific stand that notices were duly served upon the persons 
concerned and the record of service of such notices has been duly 
maintained, the statutory presumption inscribed u/s.114, Evidence 
* Author
1002
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Act shall be drawn, wherein the Court may presume the existence 
of facts, including “that judicial and official acts have been regularly 
performed” – The rule of statutory presumption is a well-rooted 
principle in Common Law and founded upon the dictum ‘omnia 
praesumuntur rite esse acta’, namely, that the act can be presumed 
to have been rightly and regularly done – The Court would presume 
that the official act was done rightly and effectively and the burden 
to prove contrary lies on the party who disputes the sanctity of such 
act – Thus, the onus lay on the landowners to demonstrate that 
the issuance or service of notices was inefficacious, which they 
failed to discharge given their presence at the time of hearings,as 
per the official record – Landowners were thus, duly served and 
the procedure as mandated by s.5A was substantially complied 
with – Impugned judgment of the High Court as well as all other 
judgments following the said judgment, set aside – Writ petitions 
filed by the respondents dismissed. [Paras 38-41, 56]
Maxim – ‘Omnia Consensus Tollit Errorem’ – Applicability – 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.5A, 6 – “person interested”; 
“objector” – Challenge to acquisition proceedings even by the 
respondents-landowners who did not file objections – High 
Court quashed the entire declaration issued u/s.6 and annulled 
the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the appellant:
Held: s.5A(1) gives a “person interested” the right to file objections, 
s.5A(2) affords only an “objector” the right to be heard – A person 
cannot claim hearing as a matter of right u/s.5A(2) unless he has 
filed objections – High Court erred while allowing the claim of even 
those landowners who did not invoke their remedy u/s. 5A(1) – An 
interested person who fails to file objections, is deemed to have 
acquiesced to the acquisition – Maxim ‘Omnia Consensus Tollit 
Errorem’, i.e., every assent removes error is attracted in case of 
such owners – High Court could still have invalidated the acquisition 
qua these landowners had there been a reason going to the very 
root of the entire acquisition like the ‘public purpose’ of acquisition 
being conspicuously absent, or the acquisition process being an 
outcome of colorable exercise of power of eminent domain – In 
such cases, all the landowners, even if they had not filed objections, 
could seek annulment of the declaration issued u/s.6 – However, no 
such plea was taken in the instant batch of cases except that t

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