Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard civil appeals by landowners challenging a Division Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court that reversed a Single Judge's order quashing land acquisition proceedings. The acquisition, covering 27 hectares in Village Sheopura, Jaipur, was initiated by the Urban Development Department, Government of Rajasthan under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for construction of a metro car depot by Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Limited (JMRCL) as part of Phase II of the Jaipur Metro Rail Project. A notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 26 May 2011. The appellants filed objections under Section 5A(1), but the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) scheduled multiple dates and eventually, on 9 April 2012, the appellants failed to appear and file a rejoinder. The LAO, on 18 May 2012, without recording reasons, stated that the objections were not considered and forwarded a report to the State Government recommending declaration under Section 6. The State Government issued the declaration on 5 July 2012, followed by a notice under Section 9(3). The appellants challenged the acquisition in a writ petition, alleging denial of opportunity of hearing under Section 5A and non-application of mind. A Single Judge of the High Court, on 9 May 2023, allowed the writ petition, quashing the acquisition, holding that no effective hearing was given and that the LAO and State Government did not apply their minds. The Division Bench allowed intra-court appeals by JMRCL and the State, setting aside the Single Judge's order. The Division Bench held that in writ jurisdiction, only the decision-making process is examined, not the correctness of the decision; it found that the LAO's rejection of objections on the ground of public purpose was sufficient, especially since the appellants did not pursue their objections after 9 April 2012. The Division Bench directed JMRCL to take possession, with directions for transplantation of trees. The appellants argued before the Supreme Court that Section 5A mandates a personal hearing and a quasi-judicial inquiry, which were denied; the LAO failed to consider objections on alternate lands and ecological impact; and the State Government issued the Section 6 declaration without applying its mind. The respondents contended that the LAO does not act as a court and no detailed order is required; the report was adequate. The Supreme Court's decision was not recorded in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Hearing under Section 5A - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 5A - The Land Acquisition Officer is required to afford a personal hearing and consider the objections of landowners before making a report. (Paras 4, 5) B) Land Acquisition - Report under Section 5A(2) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 5A(2) - Non-consideration of objections and failure to forward complete record vitiates recommendation. (Paras 4, 6) C) Land Acquisition - Declaration under Section 6 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 6(1) - Declaration issued without application of mind by State Government is invalid. (Paras 4, 6) D) Land Acquisition - Public Purpose - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 4 - Acquisition for metro car depot is a public purpose; challenge on alternate land or ecological impact must be considered in hearing. (Paras 4, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Division Bench of the High Court erred in setting aside the Single Judge's judgment which had quashed the land acquisition proceedings on the ground of denial of opportunity of hearing under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and whether the acquisition was vitiated by non-application of mind by the authorities
