New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vs Darshan Lal Bohra & Ors.

Held: The person who submits objections u/s.5A must be accorded an opportunity of personal hearing – Such a hearing must precede with an advance notice served upon the objector – The failure to serve the notice would be sufficient to infer the defiance of s.5A – However, whether or not an advance notice of hearing was served upon an “objector” is a question of fact – Where the Collector takes a specific stand that notices were duly served upon the persons concerned and the record of service of such notices has been duly maintained, the statutory presumption inscribed u/s.114, Evidence Act shall be drawn, wherein the Court may presume the existence of facts, including “that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed” – The rule of statutory presumption is a well-rooted principle in Common Law and founded upon the dictum ‘omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta’, namely, that the act can be presumed to have been rightly and regularly done – The Court would presume that the official act was done rightly and effectively and the burden to prove contrary lies on the party who disputes the sanctity of such act – Thus, the onus lay on the landowners to demonstrate that the issuance or service of notices was inefficacious, which they failed to discharge given their presence at the time of hearings,as per the official record – Landowners were thus, duly served and the procedure as mandated by s.5A was substantially complied with – Impugned judgment of the High Court as well as all other judgments following the said judgment, set aside – Writ petitions filed by the respondents dismissed. [Paras 38-41, 56] Maxim – ‘Omnia Consensus Tollit Errorem’ – Applicability – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.5A, 6 – “person interested”; “objector” – Challenge to acquisition proceedings even by the respondents-landowners who did not file objections – High Court quashed the entire declaration issued u/s.6 and annulled the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the appellant: Held: s.5A(1) gives a “person interested” the right to file objections, s.5A(2) affords only an “objector” the right to be heard – A person cannot claim hearing as a matter of right u/s.5A(2) unless he has filed objections – High Court erred while allowing the claim of even those landowners who did not invoke their remedy u/s. 5A(1) – An interested person who fails to file objections, is deemed to have acquiesced to the acquisition – Maxim ‘Omnia Consensus Tollit Errorem’, i.e., every assent removes error is attracted in case of such owners – High Court could still have invalidated the acquisition qua these landowners had there been a reason going to the very root of the entire acquisition like the ‘public purpose’ of acquisition being conspicuously absent, or the acquisition process being an outcome of colorable exercise of power of eminent domain – In such cases, all the landowners, even if they had not filed objections, could seek annulment of the declaration issued u/s.6 – However, no such plea was taken in the instant batch of cases except that the procedure contemplated u/s.5A was deflated – Such objections were personal to the landowners, as they sought individual exemption on the plea that they had raised residential constructions on their land under acquisition – Since it was a ground specific to each property, High Court was wrong to grant the benefit en masse and quash the entire declaration issued u/s.6 of the 1894 Act. [Paras 22, 23] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Challenge to acquisition proceedings also by respondents-landowners who though filed objections u/s.5A but, subsequently accepted compensation: Held: When a landowner receives compensation volitionally subsequent to filing of the objections u/s.5A and does not preserve the right to pursue such objections, there is implied consent to the acquisition – Having once acquiesced so, a landowner cannot be permitted to do a volte-face and re-agitate the objections – Holding otherwise, would open a Pandora’s Box where the landowners will, on one hand, seek re-enquiry of their claims u/s.5A and, on the other, will also draw the compensation – Thus, there would, be no finality to the proceedings and the acquisition process would be tainted by uncertainty and unpredictability which would further have a chilling effect on the development projects – Therefore, such respondents non-suited on the ground that they accepted compensation without any protest. [Para 30]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.5A – Objections – If were effectively disposed – Owing to the similarities of contents and the fact that they pertained to the same parcel of land, several objections were disposed of by the Collector by a Common Order after grouping them together – High Court held that the objections were treated as an empty formality since the Collector disposed them by consolidating in groups: Held: Objections were classified because of the similarity of substance and thus, it was plausible to group them together and dispose of by way of a Common Order – Not doing so would lead to sheer wastage of time and energy that would be spent in duplicating the recommendations for each individual objection – Similar objections can be consolidated and the Collector need not undertake the daunting and unnecessary task of disposing of thousands of objections separately – Thus, High Court erroneously held that the objections were disposed of cryptically merely because they were grouped – Furthermore, some of the objections were left out from the aforementioned groups wherein the Collector noted that the objectors sought exemption of their land on the ground of it being an ‘abadi’ area – This plea was rejected albeit while disposing of other objections observing that the lands claimed to be ‘abadi’ merely have temporary and illegal constructions, and no person was residing there and finally, the Collector noted that all the objections were disposed of “in aforementioned terms” – Also, the absence of a formal rejection order in the case of a few objections would not per se vitiate the acquisition proceedings as the non-consideration of such objections is inconsequential, because even if it was an ‘abadi’ land, there is nothing in law that bars the State Government from acquiring the same – Exemption of such lands from the acquisition is a matter of State Policy and depends on the government’s discretion – If the State Government opines that the land is needed for a larger public purpose and development projects, such land can be acquired, notwithstanding the fact that it was a residential property – Further, also in the instant case, admittedly the acquisition proceedings attained finality, most landowners accepted compensation and are deemed to have acquiesced to the acquisition process whereafter, significant investment had been made into the development projects – Thus, even if it is accepted that a handful of respondents did not get a fair enquiry u/s. 5A, the same may not be a sufficient ground to annul the acquisition process as substantial compliance had already been made. [Paras 47-52]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.4 – Notification under – Challenge to acquisition proceedings by the respondentslandowners who were subsequent purchasers – If such respondents had a locus:

Held: No – Notification issued u/s.4 creates an impediment on the transfer of title in a property – Subsequent purchasers do not acquire an unencumbered title over the property and they deliberately run the risk of securing a defective title – Thus, the respondents who clandestinely got sale deeds executed with or without collusion with the Registering Authorities after the acquisition process had commenced and/or whose names were not recorded in the revenue records before issuance of notification u/s. 4 of the Act, were also denuded of any cause of action u/s. 5A to object against the acquisition proceedings – No cause of action ever accrued in favour of the respondents in these cases to invoke writ jurisdiction of the High Court. [Paras 26, 28] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.5A – Construction and import – Discussed.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.5A – Notices when not served as per the procedure, acquisition proceedings if get vitiated: Held: Even in cases where the notices were not served as per the procedure known in law, that by itself may not vitiate the acquisition proceedings unless it is shown that severe prejudice was caused to the landowners – Even when there is no material to show that the landowner was heard, it would not invalidate the acquisition proceedings if the objections are duly considered. [Para 43]