Case Note & Summary
The appellants, landowners in Village Jamodi, Tehsil Pithampur, District Dhar, Madhya Pradesh, challenged the acquisition of their land for a Multi-Model Logistics Park under the Bharatmala Project. A notification under Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) was issued on 27th May 2022. The appellants filed objections under Section 15 on 1st September 2022 and again on 23rd December 2022, but these were not considered by the Collector. Instead, the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) heard the objections and rejected them on 27th February 2023, directing a declaration under Section 19. A declaration was published on 10th March 2023, and notices were issued on 8th August 2023. The appellants filed writ petitions before the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 11th September 2023, challenging the acquisition on the ground that the SDO lacked jurisdiction to hear objections. During the pendency of the writ petitions, a final award was passed on 3rd October 2023. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions as infructuous on 13th October 2023, without considering the merits. The Supreme Court granted leave and heard the appeals. The core legal issue was whether the SDO had the authority to hear objections under Section 15 of the RFCTLARR Act. The appellants argued that only the Collector could hear objections, while the respondents contended that the Collector, being the appropriate Government under the proviso to Section 3(e), could designate the SDO under Section 3(g). The Supreme Court analyzed Sections 15, 3(e), and 3(g) of the Act. It held that Section 15(2) mandates that objections be made to the Collector, who must personally hear the objector or authorize a person on his behalf. The Collector cannot delegate this function to any officer unless that officer is specially designated as 'Collector' under Section 3(g). The SDO was not so designated. The Court rejected the respondents' argument that the Collector, as appropriate Government, could delegate the hearing to the SDO. The Court also held that the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petitions as infructuous due to the passing of the final award, as the challenge to jurisdiction goes to the root of the proceedings. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Hearing of Objections - Jurisdiction of Collector - Section 15, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The objections under Section 15 must be made to the Collector, who is required to hear the objector and make a report to the appropriate Government. The Collector cannot delegate the hearing of objections to any other officer unless such officer is specially designated as 'Collector' under Section 3(g) of the Act. The SDO, not being so designated, lacked jurisdiction to hear objections. (Paras 12-15) B) Land Acquisition - Appropriate Government - Delegation of Powers - Section 3(e) and 3(g), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The proviso to Section 3(e) deems the Collector as the appropriate Government for certain purposes, but this does not empower the Collector to delegate the function of hearing objections under Section 15 to any officer other than one specially designated as 'Collector' under Section 3(g). The respondents' contention that the Collector could designate the SDO to hear objections was rejected. (Paras 14-15) C) Land Acquisition - Writ Petition - Dismissal as Infructuous - The High Court erred in dismissing the writ petitions as infructuous merely because a final award was passed during the pendency of the petitions. The challenge to the jurisdiction of the officer hearing objections goes to the root of the acquisition proceedings and must be decided on merits. (Paras 7, 15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in not deciding the writ petition which specifically objected to the authority of the Respondent No.2 (SDO) to hear and decide objections filed under Section 15 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and direct publication of declaration and summary of Rehabilitation and Resettlement?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 13th October 2023, and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition
- Jurisdiction of Collector
- Delegation of Powers
- Hearing of Objections
- Section 15 RFCTLARR Act 2013
- Section 3(e) and 3(g) RFCTLARR Act 2013
- Appropriate Government
- Collector's Powers
- Writ Petition Dismissed as Infructuous
- Final Award
