Railways Act, 1989: ss. 20D – Hearing of objections – Noncompliance of s. 20D(2) – Effect of – Acquisition of 131 kms of land including 6 kms of land of the appellant for public purpose of construction of a Special Railway Project-Western Dedicated Freight Corridor in District Surat – Plea of the appellant-land owners that no order was passed on the objections raised by them in accordance with s. 20D(2) – Appellant sought quashing of the Notification issued u/s. 20A and declaration issued u/s. 20E – Dismissal of the applications by the High Court – On appeal, held: Limited right given to a land-owner/interested person to file objections, and be granted a personal hearing u/s.20D cannot be reduced to an empty formality, or a mere eye-wash by the Competent Authority – Competent Authority was duty-bound to consider the objections raised by the appellants, and pass a reasoned order reflecting application of mind to the objections raised by the land-owners – On facts, file noting contained in an internal office file, or in the report submitted by the Competent Authority to the Central Government, would not constitute a valid order in the eyes of law – There was no order whatsoever passed rejecting the objections, after the personal hearing was concluded – Competent Authority did not communicate the contents of the file noting to the appellants at any stage of the proceedings – The said file noting recording rejection of the objections only on the ground that the matter pertained to an infrastructure project for public utility, came to light when the matter was pending before the High Court, and the original files were summoned – In any event, the order u/s. 20D(2) cannot be passed prior to the personal hearing – In the absence of an order passed u/s. 20D(2), the subsequent steps taken in the acquisition would get invalidated – However, remaining stretch of land comprising of 125 kms on acquisition, stands vested in the Government and pre-construction activity and earth work has been completed on most parts of the stretch – In order to balance the right of the appellants on the one hand, and the larger public purpose on the other, the appellants to be compensated as per the current market value of the land – Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is abundantly clear that in the absence of an order being passed as contemplated by Section 20D of the Railways Act, no further steps could have been taken by the Competent Authority in the acquisition in question. Section 20D is a mandatory provision which confers a substantive and valuable right on the land-owners, to object to the proposed acquisition, before they are forcibly divested of their right, title and interest in the land by an expropriatory legislation. The right to file objections under Section 20D of the Railways Act, 1989 is pari materia to Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 even though the scope of objections may be more limited. The judgments rendered by this Court on the nature of the right to object under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are equally applicable to the Railways Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 20D mandates the Competent Authority to give the objectors an opportunity of hearing, either in person or through a legal practitioner. The Competent Authority after hearing all objections, and after making such further enquiry, if any, is mandated to pass an order either allowing or disallowing the objections. It has been held by this Court that the rules of natural justice have been ingrained in the scheme of Section 5-A of the 1894 Act with a view to ensure that before any person is forcibly deprived of his land by way of compulsory acquisition, he must be provided with an opportunity to oppose the decision of the Government; and that the hearing given to a person must be an effective one, and not a mere formality. Formation of opinion with regard to the public purpose, as also suitability thereof, must be preceded by application of mind having due regard to the relevant factors. Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 confers a valuable right on the land-owners. Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300-A of the Constitution, the right to raise and file objections has been held to be akin to a fundamental right. [Para 10.1, 11] [109-C-D; G-H; 110-A-F]
1.2 The limited right given to a land-owner/interested person to file objections, and be granted a personal hearing under Section 20D cannot be reduced to an empty formality, or a mere eye–wash by the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority was duty–bound to consider the objections raised by the appellants, and pass a reasoned order, which should reflect application of mind to the objections raised by the land-owners. In the instant case, there has been a complete dereliction of duty by the Competent Authority in passing a reasoned order on the objections raised by the Appellants. No order as contemplated in the eyes of law was passed by the Competent Authority in deciding the objections raised by the appellants. A statutory authority discharging a quasi-judicial function is required to pass a reasoned order after due application of mind. [Para 11.1, 11.2] [112-D-H]
1.3 A valid order must be a reasoned order, which is duly communicated to the parties. The file noting contained in an internal office file, or in the report submitted by the Competent Authority to the Central Government, would not constitute a valid order in the eyes of law. In the instant case, there was no order whatsoever passed rejecting the objections, after the personal hearing was concluded on 30.07.2011. The Competent Authority did not communicate the contents of the file noting to the Appellants at any stage of the proceedings. The said file noting came to light when the matter was pending before the High Court, and the original files were summoned. The High Court, upon a perusal of the files, came across the file noting recording rejection of the objections only on the ground that the matter pertained to an infrastructure project for public utility. [Para 11.3] [119-A-H]
1.4 The respondents submitted that the mandate of the law is that the order on the objections is required to be passed by the Competent Authority “after the personal hearing” is granted. The respondents had filed an Affidavit dated 17.07.2018 before the High Court wherein it was stated that the reply given vide letter dated 15.07.2011 does not indicate the decision/order/predetermination of the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority had informed the objectors to remain present with all material documents at the time of personal hearing, the date of which would be notified later. The Union of India submitted that the letter dated 15.07.2011 was an order passed under Section 20D(2) of the Act. The stand taken by the respondents before the High Court and this Court is completely contradictory, and cannot be accepted. [Para 11.4] [120-G-H; 121-A-C]
1.5 In any event, the order under Section 20D(2) cannot be passed prior to the personal hearing. The mandate of the law is that the order must be passed “after” the grant of personal hearing, and after any further enquiry is made by the Competent Authority. The whole process of granting a personal hearing would be reduced to an empty formality and a farcical exercise, if the order on the objections precedes the grant of personal hearing. This would be clearly contrary to the provisions of Section 20D(2) of the Act. It is well settled that where a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. The provisions of an expropriatory legislation, which compulsorily deprives a person of his right to property without his consent, must be strictly construed. The Railways Act, 1989 being an expropriatory legislation, its provisions have to be strictly construed. [Para 11.5] [121-D-G; 122-A]
1.6 The Competent Authority being a quasi–judicial authority, is obligated by law to act in conformity with mandatory statutory provisions. This is the only opportunity made available to a land–owner, as on submission of the Report to the Central Government, there is no further consideration that takes place. The Central Government acts upon the Report of the Competent Authority, and issues the Declaration under Section 20E of the said Act. This is in contradistinction with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act requires the satisfaction of Central Government before the Declaration is issued. In the absence of an order passed u/s 20D(2), the subsequent steps taken in the acquisition would consequentially get invalidated. [Para 11.6, 11.7] [122-A-D]
1.7 The challenge before this Court has been made by the appellants with respect to a stretch of land admeasuring approximately 6 kms, out of the total stretch of 131 kms. The remaining stretch of land comprising of 125 kms has been acquired, and stands vested in the Government. The respondents have stated on affidavit that pre–construction activity and earth work has been completed on most parts of the stretch. Furthermore, most of the bridges are either in progress, or have already been completed. Appellants’ counsel submitted that since the land was being acquired for a public utility project, his clients would be satisfied if they were granted compensation by awarding the current rate for acquisition of land. Admittedly, no mala fides have been alleged by the appellants against the respondents in the acquisition proceedings. The larger public purpose of a railway project would not be served if the Notification under Section 20A is quashed. The public purpose of the acquisition is the construction and operation of a Special Railway Project viz. the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor in District Surat, Gujarat. In these extraordinary circumstances, it is deemed fit to balance the right of the appellants on the one hand, and the larger public purpose on the other, by compensating the appellants for the right they have been deprived of. The interests of justice persuade to adopt this course of action. In the instant case, the relief is being moulded by granting compensation to the appellants, to be assessed under Section 20G of the said Act as per the current market value of the land. The Competent Authority is directed to compute the amount of compensation on the basis of the current market value of the land, which may be determined with reference to Section 20G(2) of the Act. [Para 12] [122-E-H]
1.8 With respect to the remaining 125 kms stretch of land, the land–owners were satisfied with the amount awarded, and have not approached this Court. Under these circumstances, despite the finding that the respondents have breached the mandatory provisions of the Act, this is not a fit case to set aside the entire acquisition proceedings. [Para 13] [124-B-C] Union of India v. Shivraj (2014) 6 SCC 564 : [2014]
8 SCR 751 ; Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai (2005) 7 SCC 627 : [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 388 ; Om Prakash v. State of U.P. (1998) 6 SCC
1 : [1998] 3 SCR 643 ; Laxmi Devi v. State of Bihar (2015) 10 SCC 241 : [2015] 11 SCR 179 ; Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 792 : [2011] 14 SCR 1113 ; Usha Stud & Agricultural Farms (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2013) 4 SCC 210 : [2013]
5 SCR 645 ; Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 : [2010] 10 SCR 1070 ; Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 395 : [1962] Suppl. SCR 713 ; Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 705 : [2009] 13 SCR 710 ; Sethi Auto Service Station v. DDA (2009) 1 SCC 180 : [2008] 14 SCR 598 ; Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 322 : [1954]
SCR 1038 ; State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh AIR 1964 SC 358 : [1964] SCR 485 ; J&K Housing Board v. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul (2011) 10 SCC 714 : [2011] 14 SCR 976 ; Kunwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P. (2007) 5 SCC 85 : [2007] 4 SCR 409 ; Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat (1995) Supp (1) SCC 596 : [1994] 1 Suppl. SCR 807 ; Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 1074 : [1967] SCR
120 ; CCE v. Orient Fabrics (P) Ltd. (2004) 1 SCC
597 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 243 ; Indore Vikas
Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. (2007) 8 SCC 705 : [2007] 6 SCR 799 ; Savitri Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2015) 7 SCC 21 : [2015]
7 SCR 512 – referred to.
Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor (1875) LR 1 Ch D 426 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.