Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Section 5A inquiry was duly conducted, the objections were considered, and there was no basis to exempt the agricultural land, thereby upholding the acquisition.

Summary

The appellants' lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for an "Industrial Focal Point" in Punjab. After a notification on 7 May 1991, they filed objections on 13 June 1991; a Section 6 declaration was made on 18 March 1992 and the award was passed on 15 March 1994. The appellants challenged the acquisition in two writ petitions, arguing (i) that no mandatory Section 5A inquiry or personal hearing was held, and (ii) that the agricultural lands should be exempt from acquisition for industrial use. The Supreme Court found that the Collector had indeed conducted a Section 5A inquiry, considered the objections, and excluded part of the land, indicating no genuine grievance. It also held that the appellants failed to raise a timely objection and that the surrounding lands were acquired for industrial purposes, so exemption was not justified. Consequently, the Court dismissed both appeals and upheld the acquisition.

Issues considered

The validity of the acquisition where the appellants claim that a mandatory Section 5A inquiry and personal hearing were not conducted.
Whether agricultural land can be exempted from acquisition for an industrial project when objections are not raised within a reasonable time and the land is surrounded by other acquired plots.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 4(1), s. 5A, s. 6

Subjects

land acquisitionSection 5A inquirypersonal hearingagricultural land exemptionindustrial projectprocedural fairnessSection 6 declaration

Judgment

TEJ KAUR AND ORS. ETC. A
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

MARCH 7, 2003

[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, JJ.] B

Land Acquisition Act 1894:

Section 5A-lnquiry under-Land acquisition-Challenged on the ground
offailure of hold inquiry-Delay in challenging the proceeding-Held: Facts C
of the case showing holding of the inquiry-Land owners allowed the
proceedings to go on till passing of award-It indicates there was no genuine
grievance against the inquiry-Hence acquisition upheld.

Land acquisition-For the purposes of industrial set up-Challenged on
the ground that land liable to be exempted as it was agricultural land-Delay D
in raising the objection-Surrounding lands acquired and sought to be used
for industrial purpose-Held, in such circumstances land not liable to be
excluded from acquisition.

The lands of the appellant-landowners were acquired under Land
· Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of starting industries. After the E
award was passed appellants filed writ petitions before· High Court
challenging the acquisition, which were dismissed.

In appeal to this Court appellants in one appeal contended that
though Section SA inquiry was mandatory, no such inquiry was conducted, F
and so the subsequent proceedings were illegal. In another appeal it was
contended that lands owned by them were liable to be exempted as the
acquired lands were agricultural lands.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court
G
HELD: I. It is true that Section SA inquiry is an important stage in
the acquisition proceedings and a person who is aware of Section 4(1)
Notification can raise objection to the effect that his property is not
required for acquisition and he is also at liberty to raise the contention
that the property is not required for any public purpose. It is also true,
707 H
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] 2 S.C.R.

A that the objector must also be given a reasonable opportunity of being
heard and any violation of the procedure prescribed under Section SA
would seriously prejudice the rights of the owner of the property whose
land is sought to be acquired. In the instant case, however, evidence on
record show that the objection filed by the appellants was considered by
the Collector. In spite of the Section 6 declaration having been made on
B 18.3.1992, the appellants allowed the acquisition proceedings to go on
until the award was passed. This fact clearly indicates that the appellants
did not have a genuine grievance against Section SA inquiry held by the
Collector. [710-B, C; E, F]

C Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of the
City of Ahmedabad and Anr., [1976] 3 SCC 719; Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v.
Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors., (197S) 4 SCC 298 and Shyam Nandan
Prasad and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., (1993] 4 SCC 2SS, referred to.

2. There is no justifiable ground to exclude the appellants' lands
D from acquisition. The appellants did not raise any objection within a
reasonable time after Section 6 declaration was made. The possession of
the land itself was given to the third parties for the purpose of starting
the industry. Moreover, the land of the appellants is surrounded completely
by other plots which are acquired and sought to be used for industrial
purposes. (711-A; 710-G, H]
E
CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 66 of
1998.

From the Judgment and Order dated 15.10.1996 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 4759 of 1994.
F
WITH

C.A. No. 67 of 1998.

Manoj Swarup, U. Gupta and Ms. Nidhi Aggarwal for the Appellants.
G
B.B. Sawhney, R.K. Rathore, Additional Advocate General for State of
Punjab, Ms. Indra Sawhney, Ms. K. Seth, Bimal Roy lad, R.S. Suri for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
.~
\

TEJ KAUR v. STATE [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, .I.] 709

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. The appellants in these two appeals are A
land-owners whose land was acquired for the purpose of starting an "Industrial
Focal Point" by the State of Punjab. Notification under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 7.5.1991. Appellants in Civil
Appeal No. 66 of 1998 filed objections on 13.6.1991. Section 6 declaration
was made on 18.3.1992 and the award was passed on 15.3.1994. The appellants B
filed writ petitions before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, challenging
the acquisition proceedings. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed
the writ petitions and aggrieved by the same, the present appeals are filed.

Though the appellants had raised several grounds in the writ petitions,
those grounds were not urged before us. The appellants urged only two C
grounds, namely : there was no Section 5A inquiry and the appellants were
not given personal hearing regarding the objections filed by them; and
,Jll
secondly, the lands owned by them were liable to be exempted as the acquired
lands were agricultural lands.

In Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1998, the .counsel for the appellants contended D
that though Section 5A inquiry was mandatory, no such inquiry was conducted
in the instant case and that after the declaration under Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition .Act was made, the award was passed within a short period and,
therefore, the subsequent proceedings are illegal. In support of his contention,
learned counsel relied on the decision in Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad and Anr.
V. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Anr., [1976] 3 sec E
719 wherein this Court held that personal hearing under Section 5A of the
Land Acquisition Act is mandatory and does not rest on person's demand for
personal hearing.

Another decision relied on is Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v. Lt. Governor F
of Delhi and Ors., [1975] 4 SCC 298. In that case, this Court held that the
duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to afford opportunity of being heard
under Section 5A of the Act is mandatory and that a decision by Government
-- on the objection, when the Collector afforded no opportunity of being heard
to the objector, would not be proper. The power to hear the objection under
Section 5A is that of the Collector and not of the appropriate Government. G
Merely because the Government may not choose to accept the recommendation
of the Land Acquisition Collector, even when he makes one, it can not be
said that he need not make the recommendation at all but leave it to the
Government to decide the matter.
H
\

)_

710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] 2 S.C.R.

A Similarly, in the decision in Shyam Nandan Prasad and Ors. v. State
of Bihar and Ors., [1993] 4 SCC 255, this Court observed that affording of
opportunity of being heard to the objector during inquiry under Section SA
is a must and that this provision embodies a just and wholesome principle
that a person whose property is being, or is intended to be, .1cquired, should
B have the occasion to persuade the authorities concerned that his property be
not touched for acquisition.

It is true that Section SA inquiry is an important stage in the acquisition
proceedings and a person who is aware of Section 4( I) Notification can raise
objection to the effect that his property is not required for acquisition and he
C is also at liberty to raise the cont.ention that the property is not required for
any public purpose. It is also true, that the objector must also be given a
reasonable opportunity of being heard and any violation of the procedure
prescribed under Section 5A would seriously prejudice the rights of the owner •
of the property whose land is sought to be acquired. In the instant case,
however, it is pertinent to note that the Collector had, in fact, conducted the
D Section 5A inquiry, though there is no material on record to show that the
appellants in Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1998 were heard in person. The facts
and circumstances of Civil Appeal No. 66/1998 clearly show that the objection
raised by the appellants was considered and partly allowed by the Collector.
About eight acres of land was sought to be acquired from the appellants as
E per the Notification, but out of that, an extent of six acres was excluded from
acquisition and only one and half acre of land was actually acquired by the
authorities. This would clearly show that the objection filed by the appellants
was considered by the Collector. Moreover, Section 6 Declaration was made
on 18.3.1992 and the award was passed on 15.3.1994. The appellants filed
the writ petition only on 12.4.1994. In spite of the Section 6 Declaration
F having been made on 18.3.1992, the appellants allowed the acquisition
proceedings to go on until the award was passed. This fact clearly indicates
that the appellants did not have a genuine grievance against Section SA
inquiry held by the Collector. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with
the judgment on the grounds now advanced by the appellants.

G As regards Civil Appeal No. 67 of 1998, the appellants did not raise
any objection within a reasonable time after Section 6 Declaration was made.
The possession of the land itself was given to the third parties for the purpose
of starting the industry. Moreover, the land of the appellants is surrounded
completely by other plots which are acquired and sought to be used for
H industrial purposes. We do not find any justifiable ground to exclude the
TEJ KAUR v. STA TE [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J.] 711
appellants' lands from acquisition. The Division Bench has correctly held A
that the appellants were not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in the writ
petition.

In view of the above, we see no merit in these appeals which are
dismissed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
B
K.K.T. Appeals dismissed.