Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Mandatory provision for hearing objections before land acquisition. Non-compliance renders acquisition invalid. Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Urgency clause. Invocation requires real urgency and cannot be used to bypass Section 5A.  Article 300A of the Constitution of India – Right to property. State must follow due process before depriving a person of their property. 

Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is a mandatory provision, and non-compliance renders the acquisition invalid.  Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be invoked without real urgency, and the state must justify the need to bypass Section 5A. 

The court quashed the Section 6 declaration dated 20 May 2015 and the impugned award dated 7 July 2017, holding that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 5A and improper invocation of the urgency clause. 

Major Acts:

1. Constitution of India (COI), Article 300A – Right to Property.

2. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act) – Sections 4, 5A, 6, 17(1), 17(4).

3. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) – Compensation provisions.

4. Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) – Sections 113, 113A.

Facts:

1. Nature of the Litigation – Petitioners challenged the acquisition of their agricultural lands for the Navi Mumbai Project, alleging non-compliance with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and improper invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17. 

2. Who is Asking the Court and for What Remedy? – Petitioners, who are agriculturists, sought quashing of the land acquisition proceedings, including the Section 6 declaration and the award, due to non-compliance with Section 5A and improper invocation of the urgency clause. 

3. Reason for Filing the Case – Petitioners claimed that their right to a hearing under Section 5A was bypassed, and the urgency clause was invoked without justification. 

4. What Has Already Been Decided Until Now? – The court had earlier granted interim relief to the petitioners, maintaining the status quo on the land. 

Issues:

1. Whether the invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was justified?

2. Whether the non-compliance with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, vitiated the acquisition proceedings? 

Submissions/Arguments:

• Petitioners – Argued that the Section 6 declaration was vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 5A and improper invocation of the urgency clause. 

• Respondents – Contended that the acquisition was for a public purpose and that the urgency clause was validly invoked. 

Subjects:

• Land Acquisition – Section 5A, Section 17, Urgency Clause, Public Purpose.

• Constitutional Right – Article 300A, Right to Property, Due Process.

• Judicial Review – Quashing of Acquisition, Non-Compliance with Statutory Provisions.