Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court held that an award passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 without issuance of notice to interested parties under Section 12(2) and without giving them an opportunity to be heard, particularly where objections under Section 5A have been filed, is unsustainable in law. The Court quashed the award dated 21.11.2000 and restored the objections under Section 5A for fresh consideration.
“The issuance of notice under Section 12(2) is not an idle formality… Persons who filed objections under Section 5A have a right to be heard.”
Facts
The matter pertains to acquisition of land for the purpose of establishing a milk collection centre. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 2.3.2000, followed by a declaration under Section 6 dated 6.9.2000. The petitioners, claiming to be affected landowners, filed their objections under Section 5A. However, before their objections were considered, an award was passed on 21.11.2000 without hearing them.
The petitioners alleged that no notice under Section 12(2) was ever served upon them, nor were their Section 5A objections dealt with. They came to know about the award only after the revenue officials initiated steps for dispossession. This led to the present writ petition challenging the legality of the award.
Issues
- Whether the award dated 21.11.2000 passed without considering the objections under Section 5A is valid in law?
- Whether non-service of notice under Section 12(2) renders the award liable to be quashed?
- Whether the delay in approaching the Court disentitles the petitioners to relief?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners contended that:
- They had filed objections under Section 5A which were never considered by the Collector before passing the award.
- No opportunity of hearing was granted to them despite being affected landowners.
- No notice under Section 12(2) was served upon them, and they came to know about the acquisition belatedly when steps were taken to dispossess them.
- Since the award was passed behind their back, it is null and void and should be set aside.
- The delay in filing the writ petition was due to lack of knowledge of the award.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents, on the other hand, contended that:
- The award had been passed way back in 2000 and the land had already been acquired and vested in the State.
- The petitioners had approached the Court after more than 12 years, and the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
- All procedures had been duly followed and there was no illegality in the acquisition proceedings.
- They claimed that the objections were either not filed or were duly considered, and the petitioners were aware of the proceedings.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, particularly Sections 4, 5A, 6, 9, 11, and 12(2). Section 5A confers a valuable right upon landowners to object to the acquisition before the Collector makes a recommendation. Section 12(2) makes it mandatory for the Collector to serve notice of the award to all persons interested.
The Court emphasised that the right to file objections under Section 5A and the obligation to hear them is a substantive safeguard against arbitrary acquisition. The procedural requirement under Section 12(2) is not a mere formality; it is meant to ensure that affected persons have an opportunity to seek remedy and protect their possession and property.
The Court also discussed that non-compliance with mandatory provisions vitiates the award. Even if the land has vested, if possession is not legally taken or rights are infringed without hearing, the award cannot be sustained.
Precedent Analysis
- State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (AIR 1980 SC 319): Acquisition without proper application of mind and hearing is liable to be quashed.
- Union of India v. Mukesh Hans (2004) 8 SCC 14: Section 5A confers a valuable right which must be scrupulously followed.
- Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai (2005) 7 SCC 627: Non-compliance with Section 5A and 12(2) makes the award illegal.
- Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban (2000) 7 SCC 296: The entire acquisition can be set aside if proper hearing under Section 5A is not given.
The Court applied these precedents to conclude that denial of hearing and service of notice amounts to breach of mandatory statutory duty.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court rejected the argument that delay in approaching the Court should defeat the petitioners’ claim. It held that:
“When the award itself is found to be illegal and passed in breach of mandatory provisions, the delay cannot be used as a shield to protect an illegal act.”
The Court observed that acquisition proceedings cannot override the right to property without following due process. The fact that the petitioners were not heard before the award and were not even informed about the award through notice under Section 12(2) shows gross illegality.
Further, the Collector failed to discharge the statutory obligation to consider Section 5A objections. The record did not show any consideration or reference to the objections. This vitiated the entire proceedings.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the award dated 21.11.2000, and directed the Collector to consider the objections under Section 5A afresh in accordance with law.
“An award passed behind the back of affected persons cannot be sustained in law.”
The Court reaffirmed that the sanctity of due process under the Land Acquisition Act cannot be violated under the guise of administrative efficiency or passage of time.
Implications
- The judgment reasserts the importance of procedural safeguards in land acquisition.
- Even after years, an award can be quashed if it violates mandatory legal requirements.
- This decision will have significant implications for land acquisition disputes where objections are not heard or notices are not served.
- It serves as a warning to authorities that the acquisition process must be conducted strictly in accordance with the law.
Cases Referred and Their Relevance
- State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh – Acquisition without due hearing is invalid.
- Union of India v. Mukesh Hans – Emphasised the significance of Section 5A.
- Hindustan Petroleum v. Darius Chenai – Non-compliance with mandatory notice vitiates award.
- Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban – Full compliance with procedure mandatory in acquisition.
These judgments reinforced that procedural due process is not a formality but a legal safeguard essential to protect the fundamental right to property.
FAQs
1. Can an award under the Land Acquisition Act be challenged after 10 or more years?
Yes, if the award is found to have been passed without complying with mandatory provisions such as hearing objections or serving notice under Section 12(2), it can be challenged despite delay.
2. What is the role of Section 5A in land acquisition?
Section 5A gives landowners the right to object to proposed acquisition, and it is mandatory for authorities to consider such objections before proceeding.
3. Does non-service of notice under Section 12(2) invalidate the award?
Yes, if the affected persons were not informed about the award through proper notice, and were thereby denied the opportunity to seek legal recourse, the award is vitiated.