UNION OF INDIA & ORS versus SHIV RAJ & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 8 S.C.R. 751 · Decided: 07-05-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 8 S.C.R. 751 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS 
v. 
SHIV RAJ & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5478-5483 of 2014) 
MAY 7, 2014 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. CHELAMESWAR AND 
M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
s. 5-A - Right of land owners to fife objections - Held: The 
rule of natural justice is ingrained in the scheme of s. 5-A of 
A 
B 
c 
the Act with a view to ensure that before any person is 
deprived of his land by way of compulsory acquisition, he 
must get an opportunity to oppose the decision of the State 
0 
Government and/or its agencies/instrumentalities to acquire 
the particular parcel of land - s. 5-A embodies a very just and 
wholesome principle that a person wflose property is being 
or is intended to be acquired should have a proper and 
reasonable opportunity of persuading the authorities 
E 
concerned that acquisition of the property belonging to that 
person should not be made. 
s.5-A - Duty of Land Acquisition Collector- Held: Land 
Acquisition Collector is duty-bound to objectively consider the 
arguments advanced by the objector and make 
F 
recommendations, duly supported by brief reasons, as to why 
a particular piece of land should or should not be acquired 
and whether the plea put forward by the objector merits 
acceptance - s.5-A confers a valuable right in favour of a 
person whose lands are sought to be acquired - Hearing 
G 
given to a person must be an effective one and not a mere 
formality - Formation of opinion as regard the public purpose 
as also suitability thereof must be preceded by application of 
mind having due regard to the relevant factors and rejection 
751 
H 
752 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS· 
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 
A of irrelevant ones - The very person/officer, who accords the 
hearing to the objector must also submit the report! take 
decision on the objection and in case his successor decides 
the case without giving a fresh hearing, the order would stand 
vitiated having been passed in violation of the principles of 
B natural justice. 
c 
s.5-A - Objections filed by tenure-holders u/s.5-A - Not 
considered by the statutory authority in strict compliance of 
principles of natural justice - Subsequent proceedings rightly 
quashed. 
s.5-A - Major chunk of land notified uls.4 notification -
Writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings - Land 
acquisition proceedings quashed - State Government not 
'Shallenging the same and the decision attained finality - For 
D about a decade following the said judgment, proceedings in 
other cases were also quashed and those decisions were not 
challenged and thus, also attained finality - Also large 
number of cases filed before Supreme Court stood dismissed 
as the State did not take steps to serve the land owners - In 
E such a fact scenario, where in respect of major chunk of land, 
the land acquisition proceedings had been quashed long 
back and which had attained finality, the scheme of planned 
development cfr Delhi cannot be executed at such a belated 
stage in view of the fact that vacant land in continuous stretch 
F 
may not be available. 
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land 
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: 
s.24 - Proceedings initiated under Land Acquisition Act, 
G 1894 - In view of sub-section (2) of s.24 of the Act of 2013, if 
the physical possession of the land has not been taken by 
the Acquiring Authority though the award is passed and if the 
compensation has not been paid to the land owners or has 
not been deposited before the appropriate forum, the 
H proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 is deemed to have 
UNION OF INDIA v. SHIV RAJ 
753 
been lapsed - In the instant case, admittedly, the award was 
A 
made on 5. 6. 1987 and possession was not taken till date 
though compensation was deposited with the Revenue 
Department - Deposit of amount of compensation in state's 
revenue account is of no avail and cannot be termed as 
deemed payment - Therefore, proceedings initiated under the 
B 
Act, 1894 deemed to have been lapsed - Land Acquisition 
Act, 1894. 
A huge chunk of land covering 11 villages was 
notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
C 
in the year 1980. Respondents-tenure holders filed their 
objections under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act. However, 
the declaration was made under Section 6 of the 1 ~' '•4 Act 
without considering and disposing of the objections. The 
respondents filed writ petitions before the High Court. 
The High Court held that 

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