Supreme Court Quashes Land Acquisition Declaration Due to Collector's Failure to Hear Objector Under Section 5A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Mandatory Opportunity of Being Heard by Collector Not Substituted by Government Hearing; Appellant's Objection Raised Mixed Question of Law and Fact Requiring Inquiry.

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a land acquisition declaration; appeal against a Division Bench order of the Delhi High Court.

Appellant sought quashing of the notification dated November 7, 1968, issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The Land Acquisition Collector did not give the appellant an opportunity of being heard on objections filed under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the declaration was issued without proper inquiry.

A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court quashed the Section 6 notification on the ground that no opportunity of being heard was given by the Collector. On Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench initially directed the Delhi Administration to hear the appellant, and after the Lieutenant Governor rejected the objection on April 27, 1972, the Division Bench allowed the appeal and dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Collector was not required to hear the objector and the objection was only a question of law.

Whether the power to hear objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is vested in the Collector or the appropriate Government, and whether the duty to afford an opportunity of being heard is mandatory. Whether the Collector is obliged to make a recommendation under Section 5A even though the appropriate Government may not accept it. Whether the objection raised by the appellant was purely a question of law, excusing the Collector from conducting an inquiry, or a mixed question of law and fact requiring inquiry. Whether the failure to follow the prescribed statutory procedure under Section 5A vitiates the declaration under Section 6.

Appellant contended that the Land Acquisition Collector failed to afford an opportunity of being heard under Section 5A, rendering the Section 6 declaration invalid. Appellant contended that the objection raised mixed questions of fact and law regarding the attachment of land to a religious institution, requiring inquiry by the Collector. Respondent/Government contended that the Collector was not required to hear the objector and that the objection raised only a question of law, which could be decided by the Government without the Collector's recommendation. Division Bench held that the Collector need not hear the objector and that the objection was only a question of law.

The power to hear objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is vested in the Collector, not the appropriate Government, and the duty to afford an opportunity of being heard is mandatory. The Collector cannot decline to inquire into an objection merely because the ultimate decision rests with the Government; he must hear the objector and make a recommendation. An objection raising mixed questions of law and fact requires inquiry by the Collector; statutory procedure cannot be substituted by the court.

The power to hear the objection under s. 5A is that of the Collector and not of the appropriate Government; and the duty of affording such opportunity of being heard by the Collector under the section is mandatory. Merely because the Government may not choose to accept the recommendation of the Land Acquisition Collector, even when he makes one, it cannot be said that he need not make the recommendation at all but leave it to the Government to decide the matter. The objection raised a mixed question of law and fact and it was because of that the Collector called for a report.

On November 13, 1959, the Delhi Administration issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, stating that land measuring about 34070 acres was needed for a public purpose, excluding land under graveyards, tombs, shrines, and land attached to religious institutions and wakf property. The appellant, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, filed an objection under Section 5A in respect of 324 bighas of land in village Karkar Duma, claiming the land belonged to a religious trust and was exempt. The Collector submitted his report to the Delhi Administration on August 18, 1962, without holding any hearing or inquiry, stating 'Decision may kindly be taken after the inspection of the site'. On November 7, 1968, the Delhi Administration issued a declaration under Section 6 including the disputed land. The appellant filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court; a Single Judge quashed the notification on the ground that no opportunity of being heard was given by the Collector. The Lieutenant Governor of Delhi filed a Letters Patent Appeal. The Division Bench initially directed the Delhi Administration to give the appellant an opportunity of being heard; the appellant was heard and the Lieutenant Governor rejected the objection by order dated April 27, 1972. The Division Bench then allowed the appeal and dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Collector was not required to hear the objector and that the objection was only a question of law. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court by certificate. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench order, quashed the Section 6 declaration, and directed the Collector to inquire into the objection after giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard and to make the necessary recommendation.

• Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4, Section 5A, Section 6