M/S. KAMAL TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS MANAV INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD.)versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

              [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 529


M/S. KAMAL TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW KNOWN                 A
    AS MANAV INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD.)
                             v.
           STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
            (Civil Appeal No. 10878 of 2011)

                  DECEMBER 13, 2011                           B.
 [G.S. SINGHVI AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.]

     Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 5A, 4 and 6 -
Acquisition of premises for public purpose - Notification and C
declaration ulss. 4 and 6 - Challenge to - Writ petition
seeking quashing of the Notification - On the ground that
report by the Second Land Acquisition Officer was vitiated due
to non-compliance of s. 5A(2) and non-application of mind by
the concerned officer to the objections u/s. 5A(1) - Dismissed D
by the High Court - On appeal, held: Owners were not given
any hearing as contemplated under s. 5A(2) which was their
substantive right- Report submitted by the Second Land
Acquisition Officer was utterly laconic, bereft of any
recommendations and not satisfactory - Thus, Notification u/ E
s. 4 and declaration u/s. 6 quashed and set aside.

     s.5A - Right under - Scope of - Held: Proceedings
under the LA Act are based on the principle of eminent
domain - s. 5A is the only protection available to a person
whose lands are sought to be acquired- s.5A(1) gives a right F
to any person interested in any land which has been notified
that the land is needed for a public purpose to raise objections
- Under s.5A(2), Collector has to give the objector an
opportunity of being heard - Collector if necessary, can make
further inquiry and make a report to the appropriate G
Government containing his recommendations on the
objections for the decision of the appropriate Government -
Hearing contemplated u/s.5A(2) is necessary to enable the
 Collector to deal effectively with the objections raised against
                            529                                H
    530   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A the proposed acquisition and make a report - Report of the
  Collector is not an empty formality - Thereafter, declaration
  uls. 6 has to be made only after the appropriate Government
  is satisfied on consideration of the report made by the
  Collector under Section 5A(2) - Said Act being an ex-
B proprietary legislation, its provisions are to be construed
  strictly.

         The State of West Bengal requisitioned the floors of
     the appellant Company along with owner companies
     under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises
C Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947.
    The appellant came to know that the State Government
  · instead of releasing the said floors from requisition was
    planning to acquire the said premises in exercise of its
  . powers under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The
D appellant along with the owner companies filed writ
    petition seeking direction to the State to release the said
    floors from requisition. The State Government issued a
    Notification dated 29/711997 under Section 4 of the LA Act
    stating that the said floors are needed for the public
E purpose and published the same in the Government
    Gazette. The objections were raised under Section 5A of
    the LA Act. The Second Land Acquisition Officer issued
    a notice fixing date of hearing of the objections but
    adjourned the hearing as requested by the appellant. The
F Second Land Acquisition Officer however, refused to
    adjourn the matter any further. He rejected the second
    request. It was the appellant's case that while they were
   waiting for further communication about the date of
   hearing, the State Government issued a declaration dated
G 24/10/1997 under Section 6 of the LA Act wherein it was
    stated that the Government was satisfied that the said
   floors were needed for the public purpose and the same
   was published in the Gazette on 29/1011997. The Special
   Land Acquisition Officer proceeded to submit report
H dated 30/9/1997. The appellants along with the owner
  KAMAL TRAD. PR. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS MANAV INV & TRAD. CO.   531
                LTD.) v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

companies filed writ petition praying for quashing A
Notifications dated 29/7/1997 on the grounds that the
report submitted by the Second Land Acquisition Officer
was vitiated due to violation of the rule of hearing
enshrined in Section SA(2) of the LA Act and non-
application of mind by the concerned officer to the B
objections filed under Section SA(1) of the LA Act. The
Single Judge of the High Court dismissed both the writ
petitions. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal and the
same was also dismissed. Therefore, the appellant filed
the instant appeal.                                         c
     Disposing of the appeal, the Court

     HELD: 1.1 Section SA(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 gives a right to any person interested in any land
which has been notified under Section 4(1) as being D
needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose to
raise objections to the acquisition of the said land. Sub-
section (2) of Section SA requires the Collector to give the
objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by
any person authorized by him in this behalf. After hearing E
the objections, the Collector can, if he thinks it necessary,
make further inquiry. Thereafter, he has to make a report
to the appropriate Government containing his
recommendations on the objections together with the
record of the proceedings held by him for the decision F
of the appropriate Government and the decision of the
appropriate Government on the objections shall be final.
The proceedings under the LA Act are based on the
principle of eminent domain and Section SA is the only
protection available to a person whose lands are sought G
to be acquired. It is a minimal safeguard afforded to him
by law to protect himself from arbitrary acquisition by
 pointing out to the concerned authority, inter alia, that the
 important ingredient namely 'public purpose' is absent in
 the proposed acquisition or the acquisition is mala fide. H
    532   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R

A The LA Act being an ex-proprietary legislation, its
    provisions will have to be strictly construed. [Para 1OJ
    [539-G 540-A·D]

        1.2 Hearing contemplated under Section 5A(2) is
    necessary to enable the Collector to deal effectively with
8
   the objections raised against the proposed acquisition
   and make a report. The report of the Collector referred to
   in this provision is not an empty formality because it is
   required to be placed before the appropriate Government
   together with the Collector's recommendations and the
C record of the case. It is only upon receipt of the said
   report that the Government can take a final decision on
   the objections. The declaration under Section 6 has to be
   made only after the appropriate Government is satisfied
   on the consideration of the report, if any, made by the
D Collector under Section 5A(2). The appropriate
   Government while issuing declaration under Section 6 of
   the LA Act is required to apply its mind not only to the
   objections filed by the owner of the land in question, but
  also to the report which is submitted by the Collector
E upon making such further inquiry thereon as he thinks
  necessary and also the recommendations made by him
  in that behalf. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the LA Act
  makes a declaration under Section 6 conclusive evidence
  that the land is needed for a public purpose. Formation
F of opinion by the appropriate Government as regards the
  public purpose must be preceded by application of mind
  as regards consideration of relevant factors and rejection
  of irrelevant ones. It is, therefore, that the hearing
  contemplated under Section 5A and the report made by
G the Land Acquisition Officer and his recommendations
  assume importance. It is implicit in this provision that
  before making declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act,
  the State Government must have the benefit of a report
  containing recommendations of the Collector submitted
H under Section 5A(2) of the LA Act. The recommendations
  KAMAL TRAD. PR. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS MANAV !NV. & TRAD. CO.   533
            . • I.TD.) v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

must indicate objective application of mind. [Para 11] [549-        A
E-H; 541-A-D]

   Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur
Chenai and Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 627: 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR
388 - relied on.                                                    B
     2.1 According to the appellant, notification under
Section 4 of the LA Act was not served on owner
companies. However, upon coming to know of this
notification, the appellant vide their letter dated 8/9/1997
submitted objections. The Second Land Acquisition C
Officer adjourned the hearing on one occasion as
requested by the appellant. He, however, refused to
adjourn the matter any further. The second request was
rejected. Looking to the nature of the issues involved, the
Second Land Acquisition Officer could have adjourned D
the proceedings after putting the appellant to terms
because hearing the representative of the owner
companies was mandatory. In any event, if he did not
want to adjourn the proceedings and wanted to consider
the objections in the absence of counsel for the owner E
companies and assuming such a course is permissible
in law, he should have dealt with the objections carefully
and not in such a lighthearted manner because heavy
responsibility rested on his shoulders. In the report, he
 noted the objections. He then noted that the officers of F
the Acquiring Body vehemently protested against the
 statements made in the appellant's letter and stated that
 the said statements are false, arbitrary and groundless
 and they simply endeavour to oust the Acquiring Body
 by hook or by crook. [Paras 19 and 20] [543-E-H; 544-A- G
 E]
     2.2 It cannot be said that the Second Land
 Acquisition Officer had applied his mind to the objections
 raised by the appellant. The Second Land Acquisition
 Officer only reproduced the contentions of the officers of         H
     534   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A the Acquiring Body. The objections taken by the
   appellants were rejected on a very vague ground. Mere
   use of the words 'for the greater interest of public' does
   not lend the report the character of a report made after
   application of mind. Though the declaration under
B Section 6 of the LA Act must be set aside because the
  appellant was not given hearing as contemplated under
  Section 5A(2) of the LA Act, which is the appellant's
  substantive right, it must be recorded that in the facts of
  the case, the report submitted by the Second Land
c Acquisition Officer is totally unsatisfactory. His report is
  utterly laconic and bereft of any recommendations. He
  was not expected to write a detailed report but, his report,
  however brief, should have reflected application of mind.
  As to which report made under Section 5A(2) could be
  said to be a report disclosing application of mind would
0
  depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
  [Para 21] [545-C-F]

        2.3 The High Court wrongly rejected the prayer made
   by the appellant that the notification under Section 4 and
E declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act be quashed
  and set aside. Since no hearing was given to the appellant
   resulting in non compliance of Section SA of the LA Act,
  the declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act dated 24/
  10/1997 published in the Government Gazette on 29/10/
F 1997 is set aside. The State Government cannot now rely
  upon notification dated 29/7/1997 for the purposes of
  issuing fresh declaration under Section 6(1) of the LA Act
  and the same is also set aside. Thus, the impugned
  judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. [Para
G 22] [545-G-H; 546-A-B]
         Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) & Ors. v. State of T.N. and
    Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 533: 2002 (2) SCR 383 - followed.
        Union of India v. Mukesh Hans (2004) 8 SCC 14; Dev
H
 KAMAL TRAD. PR. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS MANAV INV. & TRAD. CO.   535
               LTD.) v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Saran v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) 4 SCC 769; Radhy            A
Sh yam V. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) 5 SCC 553;
Jayabheri Properties Private Limited & Ors. v. State of Andhra
Pradesh and Ors. (2010) 5 sec 590: 2010 (4) SCR 75;
Munshi Singh v. Union of India (1973) 2 SCC 337: 1973 (1)
SCR 973; Om Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1998) 6             B
SCC 1: 1998 (3) SCR 643; State of Punjab v. Gurdia/ Singh
(1980) 2 sec 471: 1980 (1) SCR 1071- referred to.

                      Case Law Reference:

    (2004) 8 sec 14                 Referred to        Para 15     c
    2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 388         Relied on          Para 11

     (2011) 4 sec 769               Referred to        Para 16

     (2011) 5 sec 553               Referred to        Para 17
                                                                   D
     2010 (4) SCR 75                Referred to        Para 18
     1973 (1) SCR 973               Referred to        Para 13
     1998 (3) SCR 643               Referred .to       Para 14
                                                                   E
     1980 (1) SCR 1071              Referred to        Para 14

     2002 (2) SCR 383               Followed           Para 22

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
10878 of 2011.                                                     F
    From the Judgment and Order dated 19.08.2009 of the
High Court of Calcutta in F.M.A. No. 40 of 2004.

     Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Susmit Pushkar and Amit Bhandary for
the Appellant.                                                     G

      Soumitra G. Chaudhuri, Abhijit Sengupta and B.P. Yadav
for the Respondents.


                                                                   H
      536    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


 A          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. 1. Leave
      granted.

      2. This appeal, by grant of special leave, is directed
B against the judgment and order dated 19/8/2009 passed by the
  High Court at Calcutta dismissing the appeal filed by the
  appellant.

            3. The appellant, which is a private limited company was
c     entrusted by seventeen joint owners of the premises known as
      "Industry House" at No.10, Camac Street, Calcutta - 700 017
      (for short, "the said premises"), to look after the day-to-day
      management and maintenance of the said premises as also
      to initiate proceedings for and on their behalf. The seventeen
0    joint owners include respondents 6, 7 and 8 herein and one
      Pilani Investment (hereinafter referred to as "owner
      companies" for convenience). They are seized and possessed
     of certain floors of the said premises. The State of West Bengal
      requisitioned the said floors under the provisions of the West
E    Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary
     Provision) Act, 1947 (for short, "the 1947 Act"). Under the 1947
     Act, the maximum period of requisition was fixed at 25 years
     from the date of initial order of requisition and the State
     Government was obliged to release the property under
     requisition after expiry of 25 years. It is the case of the appellant
F    that, in fact, the release of the said floors was in contemplation
     of the concerned authorities. However, enquiries made by the
     appellant revealed that the State Government was planning to
     acquire the said premises in exercise of its powers under the
     Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the LA Act"). The
G    appellant along with owner companies, therefore, filed Writ
     Petition No.22859 (W) of 1997 praying for a writ of mandamus
     directing the State to release the said floors from requisition.

       4. Instead of releasing the said floors from requisition, the
H State Government issued a notification dated 29/7/1997 under
                                                                         '.


  KAMAL TRAD. PR. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS MANAV INV. & TRAD. CO.    537
  LTD.) v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI , J.]

$ection 4 of the LA Act stating, inter alia, that the said floors A
are needed for the public purpose viz. for permanent office
accommodation of Public Works Department. The said
notification was published in the Government Gazette on 12/8/
1997. It is the case of the appellant that the owner companies
raised objections vide letter dated 8/9/1997 under Section 5A B
of the LA Act. The Second Land Acquisition Officer issued
notice dated 23/9/1997 fixing date of hearing of the objections
on 26/9/1997. On receipt of the said notice, the representative
of the appellant met the Second Land Acquisition Collector on
25/9/1997 and by letter of even date, requested that the hearing     c
fixed on 26/9/1997 be postponed till after 29/9/1997 because
the Constituted Attorney of the appellant was held up in Mumbai
and was unable to attend the hearing. The Second Land
Acquisition Collector issued another notice dated 26/9/1997
fixing the date of hearing of the objections on 30/9/1997. By
                                                                  0
letter dated 29/9/1997, the appellant again requested for
adjournment till after 28/10/1997 on the ground that .its
 Constituted Attorney was unable to attend and the advocate
was out of station. According to the appellant, while they were
waiting for further communication about the date of hearing, the E
 State Government issued a declaration dated 24/10/1997
 under Section 6 of the LA Act, which was published in the
 Gazette on 29/10/1997. In the said declaration, it was stated
 that the Government was satisfied that the said floors were
 needed for the public purpose. The Special Land Acquisition
 Officer did not accept the appellant's request for further F
 adjournment and proceeded to submit report dated 30/9/1997.

     5. The appellants along with the owner companies filed
Writ Petition No.25632(W) of 1997 and prayed for quashing
notifications dated 29/7/1997. One of the grounds taken by           G
them was that the report submitted by the Second Land
Acquisition Officer was vitiated due to violation of the rule of
hearing enshrined in Section 5A(2) of the LA Act and non
application of mind by the concerned officer to the objections
filed under Section 5A( 1) of the LA Act.                            H
    538    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A        6. By an order dated 3/12/2003, the learned Single Judge
    dismissed both the writ petitions. FMA No.40 of 2004 filed by
    the appellant against dismissal of Writ Petition No.25632(W)
    of 1997 was dismissed by the Division Bench. Hence, this
    appeal by special leave.
B
       7. We have heard Dr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel
  appearing for the appellant and Mr. Chaudhari, learned senior
  counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, at some
  length. Though several points are raised in this appeal, Dr.
C Singhvi addressed us on violation of Section 5A of the LA Act
  as according to him, this point goes to the root of the matter.

        8. Dr. Singhvi submitted that hearing contemplated under
   Section 5A of the LA Act is not an empty formality. He
  submitted that the said right has been raised to the level of a
D fundamental right by this Court. Learned senior counsel argued
  that the acquisition of the land is a serious matter and when
  the State decides to deprive a person of his property by taking
  recourse to LA Act, it is bound to afford him an opportunity to
  file objections under Section 5A(1) of the LA Act and of being
E heard by the Collector in terms of Section 5A(2) of the LA Act.
  Learned senior counsel then submitted that the Second Land
  Acquisition Officer wrongly rejected the genuine prayer made
  by the appellant vide letter 29/9/1997 for adjournment on the
  ground that the counsel was out of station. He argued that even
F if the concerned officer was not inclined to adjourn the case,
  he was duty bound to consider the objections raised by the
  appellant with necessary seriousness and decide the same by
  assigning reasons. Dr. Singhvi submitted that although the
  report of the Second Land Acquisition Officer makes a mention
G of the objections raised by the appellant, but the same have
  not at all been dealt with and, thus, the report made by the
  Second Land Acquisition Officer, which contained
  recommendations for the acquisition of land suffers from the
  vice of non application of mind. In support of his submissions,
H
  KAMAL TRAD. PR. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS MANAV INV. & TRAD. CO.    539
  LTD.) v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI , J.j

Dr. Singhvi relied upon the judgments of this Court in Union of A
India v. Mukesh Hans 1, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
v. Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors. 2, Dev Saran v. State of Uttar
Pradesh 3, Radhy Shyam V. State of Uttar Pradesh 4 •

      9. Mr. Chaudhary, learned senior counsel for the 8
respondents argued that the Second Land Acquisition Officer
did not commit any illegality by declining the appellant's request
for adjournment because the sole object of such request was
to delay finalization of the acquisition proceedings. Learned
senior counsel emphasized that if the counsel for the appellant C
was not available on 30/9/1997, i.e., the date to which the
hearing was adjourned by the Second Land Acquisition Officer,
the appellant should have made alternative arrangement and
the concerned officer did not commit any error by declining the
 repeated request for adjournment made on its behalf. Mr. D
 Chaudhary then submitted that the report submitted by the
 Special Land Acquisition Officer does not suffer from the vice
 of non application of mind because he had duly considered the
 objections raised by the appellant. In support of his argument,
 he relied upon the judgment of this Court in Jayabheri
 Properties Private Limited & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh E
 & Ors. 5 where according to him, a similar contention raised by
 the appellants therein was rejected on the ground that adequate
 opportunity had been given to the appellants to voice their
 objections and the objections were duly considered by the
 Special Deputy Collector. Counsel submitted that in the F
 circumstances, the appeal may be dismissed.

     10. Section 5A(1) of the LA Act gives a right to any person
interested in any land which has been notified under Section
4(1) as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose     G
 1.   (2004) a sec 14.
 2.   (2005) 1 sec 627.
 3.   c2011) 4 sec 769.
 4.   c2011) 5 sec 553.
 5.   c201 o) 5 sec 590.                                             H
     540   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A to raise objections to the acquisition of the said land. Sub-
   section (2) of Section 5A requires the Collector to give the
   objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any
   person authorized by him in this behalf. After hearing the
   objections, the Collector can, if he thinks it necessary, make
B further inquiry. Thereafter, he has to make a report to the
   appropriate Government containing his recommendations on
  the objections together with the record of the proceedings held
  by him for the decision of the appropriate Government and the
  decision of the appropriate Government on the objections shall
c be final. It must be borne in mind that the proceedings under
  the LA Act are based on the principle of eminent domain and
  Section 5A is the only protection available to a person whose
  lands are sought to be acquired. It is a minimal safeguard
  afforded to him by Jaw to protect himself from arbitrary
0 acquisition by pointing out to the concerned authority, inter alia,
  that the important ingredient namely 'public purpose' is absent
  in the proposed acquisition or the acquisition is mala fide. The
  LA Act being an ex-proprietary legislation, its provisions will
  have to be strictly construed.

E       11. He'aring contemplated under Section 5A(2) is
   necessary to enable the Collector to deal effectively with the
   objections raised against the proposed acquisition and make
   a report. The report of the Collector referred to in this provision
   is not an empty formality because it is required to be placed
F before the appropriate Government together with the
  Collector's recommendations and the record of the case. It is
  only upon receipt of the said report that the Government can
  take a final decision on the objections. It is pertinent to note
  that declaration under Section 6 has to be made only after the
G appropriate Government is satisfied on the consideration of the
  report, if any, made by the Collector under Section 5A(2). As
  said by this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Limited, the
  appropriate Government while issuing declaration under
  Section 6 of the LA Act is required to apply its mind not only to
H the objections filed by the owner of the land in question, but also
     KAMAL TRAD. PR. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS MANAV INV. & TRAD. CO.    541
     LTD.) v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI , J.]

to the report which is submitted by the Collector upon making A
such further inquiry thereon as he thinks necessary and also the
recommendations made by him in that behalf. Sub-section (3)
of Section 6 of the LA Act makes a declaration under Section
6 conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public
purpose. Formation of opinion by the appropriate Government B
as regards the public purpose must be preceded by application
of mind as regards consideration of relevant factors and
rejection of irrelevant ones. It is, therefore, that the hearing
contemplated under Section 5A and the report made by the
Land Acquisition Officer and his recommendations assume c
importance. It is implicit in this provision that before making
declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act, the State
Government must have the benefit of a report containing
recommendations of the Collector submitted under Section
5A(2) of the LA Act. The recommendations must indicate 0
objective application of mind.

     12. We may make a brief reference to the judgments on
which reliance has been placed by Dr. Singhvi, which support
the view taken by us.
                                                                        E
     13. In Munshi Singh v. Union of /ndia 6, this Court while
dealing with Section 5A of the LA Act observed as under:

        "7. Section 5-A embodies a very just and wholesome
        principle that a person whose property is being or is F
        intended to be acquired should have a proper and
        reasonable opportunity of persuading the authorities
        concerned that acquisition of the property belonging to that
        person should not be made .... The legislature has,
        therefore, made complete provisions for the persons
        interested to file objections against the proposed G
        acquisition and for the disposal of their objections. It is only
        in cases of urgency that special powers have been
        conferred on the appropriate Government to dispense with
        the provisions of Section 5-A."
6.    (1973) 2 sec 137.                                                  H
    S42     SUPREME COlJRT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A       14. In Om Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh 7, referring
  to its earlier judgment in State of Punjab v. Gurdia/ Singh 8 , this
  Court raised the right under Section SA of the LA Act to the
  level of fundamental right and observed that inquiry under
  Section SA is not merely statutory but also has a flavour of
B fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution
  though right to property has now no longer remained a
  fundamental right, at least, observation regarding Article 14 vis-
  a-vis Section SA of the LA Act would remain apposite.

        1S. In Mukesh Hans, this Court reiterated that right of
C representation and hearing contemplated under Section SA is
  a very valuable right of a person whose property is sought to
  be acquired and he should have appropriate and reasonable
  opportunity of persuading the concerned authorities that the
  acquisition of the property belonging to that person should not
D be made. This court further held that the right given to an owner/
  person interested under Section SA to object to the acquisition
  proceedings is not an empty formality and is a substantive right
  which can be taken away for good an :1 valid reason and within
  the limitations prescribed under Section 17(4) of the LA Act.
E
        16. In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, this Court again
  referred to Om Prakash and observed that it is trite that hearing
  given to a person must be an effective one and not a mere
  formality. This Court observed that formation of opinion as
F regards the public purpose as also suitability thereof must be
  preceded by application of mind as regards consideration of
  relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones. This Court
  further observed that the State in its decision-making process
  must not commit any misdirection in law. This Court observed
G that it cannot be disputed that Section SA of the LA Act confers
  a valuable important right and having regard to the provisions
  contained in Article 300-A of the Constitution, it has been held
  to be akin to a fundamental right. Pertinently, this Court made
    1.   (1998) 6 sec 1.
H   8.   (1980) 2 sec 471.
  KAMAL TRAD. PR. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS MANAV INV & TRAD. CO.     543
  LTD.) v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI , J.]

it clear that in a case where there has been total non-compliance    A
or substantial non-compliance with the provisions of Section 5A
of the LA Act, the Court cannot fold its hands and refuse to grant
relief to the appellant. Again in Dev Saran, this Court reiterated
the same view.
                                                                     B
     17. In Radhy Shyam, this Court was considering a case
where the State had invoked urgency clause under Section
17(4) and dispensed with inquiry under Section 5A. This Court
observed that the legislation which provides for compulsory
acquisition of the private property by the State falls in the
category of ex-propriatory legislation and such legislation must     C
be construed strictly. The property of a citizen cannot be
acquired by the State without complying with the mandate of
Sections, 4, 5A and 6 of the LA Act.

     18. The decision of this Court in Jayabheri on which            D
counsel for the respondent has placed reliance does not take
any contrary view. The Court had adverted to the facts of that
case and concluded that there was no violation of Section 5A
of the LA Act.
                                                                     E
      19. According to the appellant, notification under Section
4 of the LA Act was not served on owner companies. However,
upon coming to know of this notification, the appellant vide their
letter dated 8/9/1997 submitted objections running into four
pages containing 8 paragraphs. We have already noted that
the Second Land Acquisition Officer adjourned the hearing on         F
one occasion as requested by the appellant. He, however,
refused to adjourn the matter any further. The second request
was rejected. We feel that looking to the nature of the issues
involved, the Second Land Acquisition Officer could have
adjourned the proceedings after putting the appellant to terms       G
because hearing the representative of the owner companies
was mandatory. In any event, if he did not want to adjourn the
proceedings and wanted to consider the objections in the
absence of counsel for the owner companies and assuming
such a course is permissible in law, he should have dealt with       H
    544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A the objections carefully and not in such a lighthearted manner
  because heavy responsibility rested on his shoulders. In the
  report, he has noted the objections as under:

         "(i)    Notification U/S 4 has not been published in the
                 Newspapers nor publicly notified.
B
         (ii)    Premise is under requisition under the W Bengal
                 Premises Requisition & Control (Temporary
                 Provisions) Act, 1947 from 16/09/72 and is about
                 to complete 25 years on 15/09/97 when as per the
c                Law release of the premises is expected.

         (iii)   Anticipating impending release, tie-up has been
                 made to accommodate foreign ventures/
                 industrialists.
D
         (iv)    LA Collector has shown colourful authority by
                 extending this acquisition proceeding.•

        20. He has then noted that the officers of the Acquiring
  Body vehemently protested against the statements made in the
E appellant's letter and stated that the said statements are false,
  arbitrary and groundless and they simply endeavour to oust the
  Acquiring Body by hook or by crook. The paragraphs which
  contain the submissions and the so-called reasons of the
  Second Land Acquisition Officer need to be quoted.
F
        "Heard the officers present from the Requiring Body.
        They vehemently protested as regards the statements
        contained in this particular letter. Their submissions in
        short that the statements made by the interested persons
        are all fake, arbitrary and groundless. They simply
G       endeavour to oust the Requiring Body by hook or crook
        in order to grab this office space so that in tum can realize
        higher rent. Further, the purpose of the Requiring Body
        is very much public oriented and if it is no acquired they
        will suffer immensely. They further submitted that
H
  KAMAL TRAD. PR LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS MANAV INV. & TRAD. CO.     545
  LTD.) v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI , J.]

     acquisition proceeding to be completed as quickly as A
     possible inasmuch as they have the time bound
     programmes to implement it as per guidelines of
     Government for the greater interest of public.

     In view of these circumstances and for greater interest of 8
     the public, the submissions made by the interested
     persons by their Jetter dated 81911997 are overruled."

      21. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the
Second Land Acquisition Officer had applied his mind to the
objections raised by the appellant. The above-quoted                   C
paragraphs are bereft of any recommendations. The Second
Land Acquisition Officer has only reproduced the contentions
af the officers of the Acquiring Body. The objections taken by
the appellants are rejected on a very vague ground. Mere use
of the words 'for the greater interest of public' does not lend        D
the report the character of a report made after application of
mind. Though in our opinion, the declaration under Section 6
of the LA Act must be set aside because the appellant was not
given hearing as contemplated under Section 5A(2) of the LA
Act, which is the appellant's substantive right, we must record        E
that in the facts of this case, we are totally dissatisfied with the
report submitted by the Second Land Acquisition Officer. His
report is utterly laconic and bereft of any recommendations. He
was not expected to write a detailed report but, his report,
however brief, should have reflected application of mind.              F
Needless to say that as to which report made under Section
5A(2) could be said to be a report disclosing application of
mind will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

      22. Having examined this case, in the light of the law laid      G
down by this Court, we are of the opinion that the High Court
wrongly rejected the prayer made by the appellant that the
notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6
of the LA Act be quashed and set aside. The impugned
judgment and order of the High Court, therefore, needs to be
set aside and is, accordingly, set aside. Since no hearing was         H
    546     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A given to the appellant resulting in non compliance of Section
  5A of the LA Act, the declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act
  dated 24/10/1997 published in the Government Gazette on 291
   10/1997 must be set aside and is set aside. In view of the
  judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Padma
s Sundara Rao (Dead) & Ors v. State of T.N. & Ors9, the State
  Government cannot now rely upon notification dated 29/7/1997
  for the purposes of issuing fresh declaration under Section 6(1)
  of the LA Act. The said notification dated 29n/1997 issued
   under Section 4 is also, therefore, set aside. It would be,
c however, open to the State Government to initiate fresh land
  acquisition proceedings in accordance with law if it so desires.

         23. We make it clear that nothing said by us in this
    judgment should be treated as expression of our opinion on the
    merits of the case of either side.
D
           24. The appeal is disposed of in the aforestated terms.

    N.J.                                      Appeal disposed of.




    9.   (2002) 3 sec 533.