REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  6270    OF 2019

(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 32055 of 2018)

Nareshbhai Bhagubhai & Ors.  …Appellants

versus

Union of India & Ors.              …Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  6271   OF 2019

(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 32056 of 2018)

Ravibhai Vallabhbhai Sutariya & Ors.  …Appellants

versus

Union of India & Ors.              …Respondents

1

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   6272    OF 2019

(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 32057 of 2018)

Ishwerbhai Bhikabhai Patel & Ors.  …Appellants

versus

Union of India & Ors.              …Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  6273   OF 2019

(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 32058 of 2018)

Vallabhbhai Chanabhai Ahir & Ors.  …Appellants

versus

Union of India & Ors.              …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

INDU MALHOTRA, J.

Leave granted.

2

1.The present Civil Appeals have been filed to challenge the

Final Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the

Gujarat High Court, whereby the Special Civil Application

Nos. 19409 of 2015, 12711 of 2016, 14000 of 2016, and

14001 of 2016 have been dismissed.

2.Since a common issue arises in all 4 Civil Appeals, they are

being disposed of by the present common Judgment and

Order.

3.The factual matrix in which the present Civil Appeals have

been filed is as under :

3.1.On   08.02.2011,   a   Notification   was   issued   under

Section   20A   of   the   Railways   Act,   1989   [hereinafter

referred   to   as   “the   said   Act”]   by   the   Ministry   of

Railways notifying its intention to acquire the lands

specified   in   18   Villages,   situated   in   District   Surat,

Gujarat for the public purpose of construction of the

Western Dedicated Freight Corridor.

3

   The total land under acquisition was a stretch of 131

kms. The land owned by the Appellants, comprising of

approximately   6   kms,   was   included   under   the

Notification.

3.2.The   Appellants   along   with   other   land­owners   filed

written   Objections   between   06.04.2011   and

07.04.2011 under Section 20D(1) of the Act before the

Competent Authority/ Special Land Acquisition Officer,

Surat   [hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the   Competent

Authority”],   Surat   to   challenge   the   proposed

acquisition.

3.3.The Competent Authority vide letter dated 15.07.2011,

informed the land­owners that the acquisition was for

a necessary public purpose i.e. the development of the

Western Dedicated Freight Corridor. It was stated that

compensation   would   be   paid   to   all   affected   land­

owners in accordance with Sections 20F and 20G of

the Railways Act, 1989.

   The land­owners were asked to remain present with

necessary proofs at the time of personal hearing, the

date of which would be intimated to them.

4

3.4.The Competent Authority vide letter dated 19.07.2011,

directed   the   land­owners   to   appear   for   a   personal

hearing on the Objections on 30.07.2011.

3.5.The   land­owners   appeared   before   the   Competent

Authority   on   30.07.2011   for   personal   hearing,   and

submitted further written Objections on 31.07.2011.

3.6.The Competent Authority submitted its Report to the

Central Government under Section 20E(1) of the Act on

03.01.2012.

     On 06.02.2012, the Ministry of Railways issued a

Notification under Section 20E(1) of the Railways Act,

1989 stating that 59 Objections had been received in

respect of the proposed acquisition, which had been

considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority.

3.7.On 06.02.2013 and 07.02.2013, Awards were passed

by the Competent Authority under Section 20F of the

Railways Act, 1989.

3.8.On   13.08.2013,   Shri   Ghanshyamsinh   Gambhirsinh

Vashi, a land­owner, filed an RTI Application before the

Competent Authority seeking a certified copy of the

Order   passed   on   the   Objections   filed   by   the   land­

owners.

3.9.The   Competent   Authority   replied to   the   said   RTI

Application on 05.09.2013, and stated that the reply to

5

the Objections raised by the land­owners had already

been communicated vide letter dated 15.07.2011.

3.10.The   Appellants   herein   challenged   the   acquisition

proceedings   by   filing  Special   Civil   Application   Nos.

19409 of 2015, 12711 of 2016, 14000 of 2016, and

14001 of 2016 before the Gujarat High Court.

     The principal ground of challenge raised by the

Appellants was that no Order had been passed on the

Objections in accordance with Section 20D(2) of the

said Act.

   The Appellants prayed for quashing and setting aside

the   Notification   issued   under   Section   20A   on

08.02.2011, and the Declaration issued under Section

20E on 06.02.2012.

3.11.During   the   pendency   of   the   proceedings,   the   High

Court  vide  Interim  Order dated 12.07.2018, directed

the   Respondents   to   file   an   Affidavit   giving   specific

details pertaining to the disposal of the Objections after

personal hearing was granted on 30.07.2011.

3.12.The Chief Project Manager, Dedicated Freight Corridor

Corporation   of   India   Limited   filed   Affidavit   dated

17.07.2018 on behalf of the Respondents before the

High Court, wherein it was stated that :

“4. I state that the clarification/reply given vide

letter   dated   15/7/2011   does   not   indicate   the

6

decision/order/predetermination   of   the

Competent Authority.  The  Competent Authority

has merely clarified the purpose of acquisition

and provision of Railway Amendment Act 2008

to be considered while awarding compensation.

On   the   contrary,   in   the   said   letter   dated

15/7/2011, the Competent Authority has clearly

informed the objector to remain present with all

the relevant documents on a date which was to

be intimated later.

…

8.  I   state   that   the   Competent   Authority,   after

hearing   all   the   objectors   of   land   under

acquisition,   has   passed   two   orders   dated

28//11/2011 and 3/1/2012 disallowing all the

objections   raised   by   the   objectors   in   public

interest.  Annexed   hereto   and   marked   as

Annexure VI Colly. Are the copies of the orders

dated 28/11/2011 as well as 3/1/2012.”

3.13. The High Court vide Final Judgment and Order dated

25.07.2018   dismissed   the   Special   Civil   Applications

filed by the Appellants.

     The Court took the view that in matters involving

highly technical and scientific fields, courts would be

extremely slow in overruling the decision taken by the

Government   after   due   deliberation.   Unless   it   was

pointed   out   that   relevant   considerations   were   not

properly weighed, or that the decision was blatantly

mala fide, courts would not attempt to substitute their

understanding of such complex subjects for that of the

Government.   The   Appellants   failed   to   produce   any

7

material to support their objection that the proposed

railway line was not advisable.

     It was, however, held that Section 20D of the Act

confers a valuable right on a person interested in the

land   under   acquisition,   to   raise   objections,   and   be

heard on such objections. The objections raised by a

person interested have to be considered and disposed

of, after a hearing is given by the competent authority.

If the objections received by persons interested have

not   been   disallowed   by   the   competent   authority,   it

would   not   be   open   for   the   Central   Government   to

proceed to issue the Declaration under Section 20E(1)

of the Act.

     The High Court recorded its concern about the

manner in which the entire matter was dealt with by

the Respondents. The land­owners were informed that

their   objections   were   not   valid   even   prior   to   the

personal hearing took place.

   After the personal hearing took place on 30.07.2011,

the Competent Authority disposed of the objections on

the office file, but never conveyed the decision to the

objectors. The Competent Authority had not fulfilled

8

the important stage of disposal of the objections prior

to the Declaration being issued under Section 20E.

   It was further observed that the Competent Authority

gave a completely wrong reply to the RTI Application

filed  by  the  land­owners. This  was  an  act  of  utter

carelessness which had serious ramifications.

      The   Competent   Authority  vide  Report   dated

03.01.2012,   informed   the   Chief   Project   Manager,

Dedicated   Freight   Corridor   Corporation   of   India

Limited that all the Objections raised by the Appellants

were heard at length, and orally answered.

   The Special Civil Applications were dismissed by the

High Court, and the Competent Authority was directed

to pay Costs of Rs. 50,000/­ in each of the Special Civil

Applications.

3.14.Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment, the Appellant –

Land­owners filed the present Civil Appeals.

4.We  have  heard  the  learned  Counsel  for  the  parties, and

perused the pleadings and written submissions filed by the

parties.

5.Mr.   C.   A.   Sundaram,   Senior   Counsel   appearing   for   the

Appellants inter alia submitted that :

9

5.1.The   Objections   raised   by   the   Appellants   were   not

decided in accordance with the provisions of Section

20D(2) of the Act. The non­compliance of the same

would render the entire acquisition proceedings null

and void.

5.2.It   was   further   submitted   that   the   Reply   dated

05.09.2013   given   by   the   Respondents   to   the   RTI

Application filed by the land­owners, clearly showed

that there was  no application of mind on the part of

the Respondents. The said Reply simply stated that the

Order disposing of the Objections raised by the land­

owners had already been communicated to them on

15.07.2011.

5.3.The letter dated 15.07.2011 cannot be construed to be

an Order as contemplated by Section 20D(2) of the Act,

since it was issued prior to the personal hearing which

took   place   on   30.07.2011,   and   filing   of   the   final

objections on 31.07.2011.

5.4.The letter dated 15.07.2011 was not an Order, but

merely a direction to the Appellants to remain present

with necessary proofs and documents at a time and

date which would be subsequently intimated.

10

5.5.It was submitted that even though the land­owners

were granted a personal hearing, there was no order

passed either allowing or disallowing the objections as

per the mandate of S. 20 D(2) of the Act.

5.6.The orders dated 28.11.2011 and 03.01.2012 were not

communicated to the land­owners. They were merely

notations made on the internal files of the Competent

Authority. 

   The rejection of the Objections vide an endorsement

or file noting would not constitute an order in the eyes

of the law. An order passed by a statutory authority

must be a speaking order supported by cogent reasons,

which is required to be communicated to the objectors.

6.Mr. Sanjay Jain, Additional Solicitor General appearing for

the Union of India inter alia submitted that :

6.1.The land acquisition proceedings in the present case

have been undertaken in compliance with Chapter IV A

of the Railways Act, 1989.

6.2.Chapter   IV   A   of   the   Railways   Act,   1989   is   a   self­

contained code. The Court should not resort to, or seek

the aid of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to interpret

the provisions of the Railways Act, particularly since

Section 20N of the Act makes the provisions of the

11

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 inapplicable to acquisitions

under the Railways Act.

6.3.The process for filing objections under Section 20D(2)

of the Act is two­fold. First, the Competent Authority

permits objections to be filed within 30 days of the

publication of the Notification under Section 20A by

the   Central   Government   notifying   its   intention   to

acquire land.

      Thereafter,   the   Competent   Authority   has   the

discretion to call for a personal hearing in order to

conduct a further enquiry if deemed necessary.

6.4.In   the   present   case,   the   Objections   raised   by   the

Appellants were received in writing on 06.04.2011. The

Competent   Authority   after   considering   the   said

Objections, passed an Order on 15.07.2011 which was

communicated to each of the Appellants. Thereafter,

personal hearing was granted on 30.07.2011, which

was in the nature of a further enquiry.

      The   Objections   raised   by   the  Appellants   in  the

personal hearing on 30.07.2011 were almost identical

to those raised earlier on 06.04.2011. The Objections

raised by the Appellants had effectively been dealt with

12

vide letter dated 15.07.2011, which was communicated

to each of the Appellants.

6.5.It was further submitted that no order was required to

be passed after the personal hearing dated 30.07.2011,

because no fresh material came on record.

7.The issues which arise for our consideration are :

i)Whether the provisions of Section 20D(2) have not been

complied   with   by   the   Competent   Authority   in   the

present case?

ii)If  so,  what   would  be  the  consequences  of  the  non­

compliance   of   Section   20D(2)   with   respect   to   the

acquisition   proceedings,   and   the   rights   of   the

Appellants?

8.Relevant Statutory Provisions

To  determine   the   issues  raised  by   the   Appellants   in  the

present proceedings, the statutory provisions of the Railways

Act,   1989   as   amended   in   2008,   would   require   to   be

considered.

     The statutory provisions for acquisition of land for a

Special Railway Project are contained in Chapter  IV A of the

Railways Act, 1989. Chapter IV A is a complete self­contained

code for the acquisition of land.

13

   Chapter IV A was incorporated vide Amendment Act 11 of

2008. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Railways

(Amendment) Act, 2008 states that :

“2.   There   is   a   need   to   provide   for   land

acquisition provisions in the Railways Act, 1989

to   empower   the   Central   Government   in   the

Ministry of Railways for land acquisition on fast

track basis for the special railway projects on

the   lines   of   the   land   acquisition   provisions

available in the National Highways Act, 1956.”

     Chapter IV A comprises of Section 20A to 20P of the

amended Act. The relevant provisions under Chapter IV A are

set out hereinbelow for ready reference :

 “20A. Power to acquire land, etc.

(1) Where the Central Government is satisfied

that for a public purpose any land is required for

execution of a special railway project, it may, by

notification, declare its intention to acquire such

land.

(2) Every notification under sub­section (1), shall

give a brief description of the land and of the

special   railway   project   for   which   the   land   is

intended to be acquired.

(3) The State Government or the Union territory,

as the case may be, shall for the purposes of

this   section,   provide   the   details   of   the   land

records   to   the   competent   authority,   whenever

required.

(4)   The   competent   authority   shall   cause   the

substance of the notification to be published in

two local newspapers, one of which shall be in a

vernacular language.

14

20D. Hearing of objections, etc.

(1) Any person interested in the land may, within

a   period   of   thirty   days   from   the   date   of

publication of the notification under sub­section

(1) of section 20A, object to the acquisition of

land   for   the   purpose   mentioned   in   that   sub­

section.

(2) Every objection under sub­section (1), shall be

made to the competent authority in writing, and

shall   set   out   the   grounds   thereof   and   the

competent  authority shall give  the  objector an

opportunity of being heard, either in person or by

a legal practitioner, and may, after hearing all

such objections and after making such further

enquiry,   if   any,   as   the   competent   authority

thinks   necessary,   by   order,   either   allow   or

disallow the objections.

Explanation.­­For   the   purposes   of   this   sub­

section,   “legal   practitioner”   has   the   same

meaning as in clause  (1) of sub­section (1) of

section 2 of the Advocates Act, 1961(25 of 1961).

(3) Any order made by the competent authority

under sub­section (2) shall be final.

20E. Declaration of acquisition

(1) Where no objection under sub­section (1) of

section 20D has  been made to the  competent

authority within the period specified therein or

where the competent authority has disallowed

the   objections   under   sub­section   (2)   of   that

section, the competent authority shall, as soon

as may be, submit a report accordingly to the

Central   Government   and   on   receipt   of   such

report, the Central Government shall declare, by

notification, that the land should be acquired for

the   purpose   mentioned   in   subsection   (1)   of

section 20A.

(2) On the publication of the declaration under

sub­section (1), the land shall vest absolutely in

the   Central   Government   free   from   all

encumbrances.

15

(3) Where in respect of any land, a notification

has   been   published   under   subsection   (1)   of

section 20A for its acquisition, but no declaration

under sub­section (1) of this section has been

published within a period of one year from the

date of publication of that notification, the said

notification shall cease to have any effect:

Provided that in computing the said period of one

year,   the   period   during   which   any   action   or

proceedings   to   be   taken   in   pursuance   of   the

notification   issued   under   sub­section   (1)   of

section 20A is stayed by an order of a court

shall be excluded.

(4)   A   declaration   made   by   the   Central

Government under sub­section (1) shall not be

called in question in any court or by any other

authority.

20G. Criterion for determination of market­

value of land

(1)   The   competent   authority   shall   adopt   the

following criteria in assessing and determining

the market­value of the land,­­

(i) the minimum land value, if any, specified in

the Indian Stamp Act, 1899(2 of 1899), for the

registration of sale deeds in the area, where the

land is situated; or

(ii) the average of the sale price for similar type

of   land   situated   in   the   village   or   vicinity,

ascertained from not less than fifty per cent, of

the sale deeds registered during the preceding

three years, where higher price has been paid,

whichever is higher.

(2) Where the provisions of sub­section (1) are

not applicable for the reason that:­­

(i) the land is situated in such area where the

transactions in land are restricted by or under

any other law for the time being in force in that

area; or

16

(ii) the registered sale deeds for similar land as

mentioned in clause (i) of sub­section (1) are not

available for the preceding three years; or

(iii)   the   minimum   land   value   has   not   been

specified under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899(2 of

1899)   by   the   appropriate   authority,   the

concerned   State   Government   shall   specify   the

floor price per unit area of the said land based

on   the   average   higher   prices   paid   for   similar

type of land situated in the adjoining areas or

vicinity, ascertained from not less than fifty per

cent,   of   the   sale   deeds   registered   during   the

preceding  three   years   where   higher  price  has

been   paid,   and   the   competent   authority   may

calculate the value of the land accordingly.

(3)   The   competent   authority   shall,   before

assessing and determining the market­value of

the land being acquired under this Act,­­

(a) ascertain the intended land use category of

such land; and

(b) take into account the value of the land of the

intended   category   in   the   adjoining   areas   or

vicinity, for the purpose of determination of the

market­value of the land being acquired.

(4)   In   determining   the   market­value   of   the

building and other immovable property or assets

attached to the land or building which are to be

acquired, the competent authority may use the

services of a competent engineer or any other

specialist   in   the   relevant   field,   as   may   be

considered   necessary   by   the   competent

authority.

(5) The competent authority may, for the purpose

of determining the value of trees and plants, use

the services of experienced persons in the field of

agriculture, forestry, horticulture, sericulture, or

any other field, as may be considered necessary

by him.

(6) For the purpose of assessing the value of the

standing crops damaged during the process of

land   acquisition   proceedings,   the   competent

authority may utilise the services of experienced

17

persons   in   the   field   of   agriculture   as   he

considers necessary.

20I. Power to take possession

(1) Where any land has vested in the Central

Government   under   sub­section     (2)   of   section

20E,   and   the   amount   determined   by   the

competent   authority   under   section   20F   with

respect   to   such   authority   by   the   Central

Government,   the   competent   authority   may,   by

notice in writing direct the owner as well as any

other person who may be in possession of such

land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to

the   competent   authority   or   any   person   duly

authorised by it in this  behalf within a period of

sixty days of the service of the notice.

(2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with

any   direction  made   under  sub­section   (1),  the

competent authority shall apply—

(a)  In case of any land situated in any area

falling   within   the   metropolitan   area,   to   the

Commissioner of Police;

(b)  In case of any land situated in any area

other than the area referred to in clause (a), to

the Collector of a district, 

And such Commissioner or Collector, as the case

may be, shall enforce the surrender of the land,

to the competent authority or to the person duly

authorised by it.

20J.  Right  to  enter  into land  where  land

has vested in Central Government

Where   the   land   has   vested   in   the   Central

Government under section 20E, it shall be lawful

for   any   person   authorised   by   the   Central

Government in this behalf, to enter and do other

act necessary upo0n the land for carrying out

the   building,   maintenance,   management   or

18

operation of the special railway project or part

thereof or nay other work connected therewith.

20N. Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 not to

apply

Nothing in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall

apply to an acquisition under this Act.”

9.The scheme of Chapter IV A is as follows :

i) The Central Government is empowered under Section

20A to issue a preliminary Notification, notifying its

intention to acquire land for a public purpose required

for the execution of a special railway project.

ii)Section 20D provides for filing of objections and grant

of personal hearing. The provision is in two parts :

a)Sub­section (1) states that any person interested in

the land, may within a period of 30 days from the

date of publication of the notification under sub­

section (1) of Section 20A, file objections to the

acquisition of land for the purpose mentioned in

that sub­section.

b)Under sub­section (2) of Section 20D, the mandate

of the statute is that :

Every objection shall be made in writing to the

Competent Authority; 

19

The Competent Authority is mandated to give

an opportunity of hearing to the Objector, either

in person or by a legal practitioner; 

That   “after   hearing”   all   objections,   and   after

making   such   further   enquiry,   if   any,   the

Competent   Authority   may   either   allow   or

disallow the objections by an order.

c)Sub­section (3) of Section 20D states that an order

passed by the Competent Authority under Section

20D (2) shall be final.

iii)Sub­section   (1)   of   Section   20E   provides   that   if   no

objections   are   received,   or   if   the   objections   are

disallowed, then the Competent Authority shall submit

a report to the Central Government.

iv)On   receipt   of   such   report   from   the   Competent

Authority,  the  Central  Government  shall   declare  by

notification, that the land should be acquired for the

purpose mentioned in sub­section (1) of Section 20A.

v) On the publication of the declaration under Section

20E(1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central

Government free from all encumbrances.

vi)Sub­section   (3)   of   Section   20E   states   that   if   the

declaration is not published within a period of one year

from the date of publication of the Notification under

20

Section 20A(1), the Notification shall cease to have any

effect.

vii)Sub­section   (4)   of   Section   20E   states   that   the

declaration made by the Central Government under

sub­section (1) shall not be called in question in any

court of law or by any authority.

9.1.A reading of the aforesaid statutory provisions  shows

that   the   land­owner   or   interested   person   has   been

granted a limited right to file objections under Section

20D   of   the   Railways   Act,   1989.   The   scope   of   the

objections   is   limited   to   the   purpose   for   which   the

acquisition is made. It is not a general right to file

objections as under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894.

9.2.The statute  has mandated a strict procedure to be

followed   under   Section   20D   with   respect   to   the

submission and hearing of objections.

   The statute mandates that the order is required to be

passed by the Competent Authority “after hearing” the

land­owners. The order cannot precede the hearing of

objections. If an order is passed prior to the personal

hearing, and enquiry by the Competent Authority, it

21

would be contrary to the statute, invalid, and vitiated

by a pre­determined disposition.

10.In the present case, it is the admitted position that after the

personal hearing took place on 30.07.2011, no decision was

passed   on   the   objections   submitted   by   the   land­owners,

either allowing or disallowing their objections; nor was any

communication sent to them.

      This   is   confirmed   by   the   Affidavit   of   the   Competent

Authority dated 18.07.2018 filed before the High Court (pgs.

296 – 301, Volume II), wherein it is stated as follows :­

“7.   It   is   respectfully   submitted   that   personal

hearing   was   fixed   in   between   30.07.2011   to

18.08.2011 and 21.10.2011 to 03.01.2012 and

alongwith   the   objections   raised   by   the

petitioners,   in   total   88   objectors   are   given

opportunity   of   hearing   in   the   aforementioned

time period, and as the date qua the present

petitioners  was fixed  for providing hearing on

30.07.2011, the personal hearing was provided

wherein the same kind of objections were raised

as raised by way of objection application dated

06.04.2011   and   therefore   the   objection   was

recorded in the hearing memo dated 30.07.2011

and after completion of the hearing proceedings

qua   all   the   objectors,   on   28.11.2011   and

03.01.2012   respectively  the   noting   was

prepared by endorsing that all the objections are

rejected   and   therefore   the   proposal   was

submitted before the Dedicated Freight Corridor

Corporation for further procedure.  I crave leave

to produce the original file at the time of hearing

of the present matter.

8. It is most humbly and respectfully submitted

that   so   far   as   the   averment   regarding   reply

dated   05.09.2013   under   RTI   application   is

22

concerned, I say and submit that the applicants

have   asked   for   certified   copy   of   the   decision

taken   for   hearing   provided   to   the   objector,

wherein vide reply dated 05.09.2013 the reply

was   given   from   the   office   of   the   answering

respondent   by   stating   that   “the   reply   to   the

objection   application   given   by   you   against

Notification under the provisions of Section 20A

of   the   Railway   Amendment   Act   has   already

been   given   to   you   by   this   office   (copy   is

enclosed). Moreover, necessary hearing in that

behalf has also been afforded to you.  No order

regarding objection application is passed after

such hearing, because reply regarding objection

application has already been given to you.”

(emphasis supplied)

10.1.It is abundantly clear that in the absence of an order

being passed as contemplated by Section 20D of the

said Act, no further steps could have been taken by the

Competent Authority in the acquisition in question.

10.2.During the hearing of the Special Civil Applications,

the   High   Court   called   for   the   office   files   of   the

Respondent.   On   a   perusal   of   the   files,   the   Court

chanced   upon   a   hand­written   note   sent   by   the

Competent   Authority   to   the   Chief   Project   Manager,

Dedicated   Freight   Corridor   Corporation   of   India

Limited, which is set out hereinbelow :

“Finally after due consideration and taking in to

view the nationwide infrastructure, long lifetime

permanent   utility   and   hence   public   utility   is

greater than that of person, all the 59 objection

were disallowed by order by the  undersigned

23

and their applications for objection were filed at

this end.”

     The file noting in the office files of the Competent

Authority cannot be considered to be an order on the

objections.

11.Section   20D   is   a   mandatory   provision   which   confers   a

substantive and valuable right on the land­owners, 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 5­A 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.

    Sub­section (2) of Section 20D mandates the Competent

Authority to give the objectors an opportunity of hearing,

either in person or through a legal practitioner.

24

   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.

   There are a catena of judgments passed on Section 5­A of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which are relevant for the

interpretation of Section 20D(2) of the said Act.

   This Court has held that the rules of natural justice have

been ingrained in the scheme of Section 5­A 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.

1

     This Court has held 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 5­A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 confers a

valuable   right   on   the   land­owners.  Having   regard   to   the

provisions contained in Article 300­A of the Constitution, the

right to raise and file objections has been held to be akin to a

fundamental right.

2

1 Union of India v. Shivraj, (2014) 6 SCC 564.

2 Ibid.

25

      In  Hindustan   Petroleum   Corpn.   Ltd.  v.  Darius   Shapur

Chenai,

3

 this Court held that:

“6. It is not in dispute that Section 5­A of the Act

confers a valuable right in favour of a person

whose lands are sought to be acquired. Having

regard to the provisions contained in Article 300­

A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its

power of “eminent domain” may interfere with

the right of property of a person by acquiring the

same but the same must be for a public purpose

and reasonable compensation therefor must be

paid.

…

9. It is trite that hearing given to a person must

be an effective one and not a mere formality.

Formation   of   opinion   as   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. The State in its decision­making

process   must   not   commit   any   misdirection   in

law. It is also not in dispute that Section 5­A of

the Act confers a valuable important right and

having   regard   to   the   provisions   contained   in

Article 300­A of the Constitution it has been held

to be akin to a fundamental right.

(emphasis supplied)

   In N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy, this Court held

that :

“21. If the right of property is a human right as

also a constitutional right, the same cannot be

taken   away   except   in   accordance   with   law.

Article 300­A of the Constitution protects such

right. The provisions of the Act seeking to divest

such right, keeping in view of the provisions of

Article 300­A of the Constitution of India, must

be strictly construed.”

(emphasis supplied)

3 (2005) 7 SCC 627.

26

In Om Prakash v. State of U.P.,

4

 this Court held that :

“21.   Our   attention   was   also   invited   by   Shri

Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the

appellants to a decision of a two­Judge Bench of

this   Court   in   the   case   of   State   of   Punjab   v.

Gurdial   Singh   [(1980)   2   SCC   471]   wherein

Krishna   Iyer,   J.   dealing   with   the   question   of

exercise of emergency powers under Section 17

of the Act observed in para 16 of the Report that

save in real urgency where public interest did

not brook even the minimum time needed to give

a   hearing,   land   acquisition   authorities   should

not, having regard to Articles 14 and 19, burke

an inquiry under Section 17 of the Act. Thus,

according to the aforesaid decision of this Court,

inquiry under Section 5­A is not merely statutory

but   also   has   a   flavour   of   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

à­vis,

Section 5­A of the Land Acquisition Act would

remain apposite.

The said decision has been cited with approval

in Union of India v. Krishan Lal Arneja[(2004) 8

SCC 453].”

(emphasis supplied)

11.1.The   limited   right   given   to   a   land­owner/interested

person to file objections, and be granted a personal

hearing under Section 20D cannot be reduced to an

empty formality, or a mere eye­wash by the Competent

Authority.

        The   Competent   Authority   was   duty­bound   to

consider the objections raised by the Appellants, and

4 (1998) 6 SCC 1.

27

pass a reasoned order, which should reflect application

of mind to the objections raised by the land­owners.

     In the present 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.

11.2.In the present case, it is the undisputed position that

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 quasi­judicial

function is required to pass a reasoned order after due

application of mind.

   In Laxmi Devi v. State of Bihar,

5

 this Court held that :

“9.  The   importance   of   Section   5­A   cannot   be

overemphasised.   It   is   conceived   from   natural

justice and has  matured into manhood in the

maxim of audi alteram partem i.e. every person

likely   to   be   adversely   affected   by   a   decision

must   be   granted   a   meaningful   opportunity   of

being heard. This right cannot be taken away by

a   side   wind,   as   so   powerfully   and   pellucidly

stated in Nandeshwar Prasad v. State of U.P.

[AIR 1964 SC 1217]. So stringent is this right

that it mandates that the person who heard and

considered the objections can alone decide them;

and not even his successor is competent to do so

even on the basis of the materials collected by

his   predecessor.  Furthermore,   the   decision   on

the   objections   should   be   available   in   a   self­

contained,   speaking   and   reasoned   order;

reasons   cannot   be   added   to   it   later   as   that

would be akin to putting old wine in new bottles.

We can do no better than commend a careful

5 (2015) 10 SCC 241.

28

perusal of Union of India v. Shiv Raj [(2014) 6

SCC 564 : (2014) 3 SCC (Civ) 607] , on these as

well as cognate considerations.”

(emphasis supplied)

   In Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana,

6

 this

Court held that :

“40. Though it is neither possible nor desirable

to   make   a   list   of   the   grounds   on   which   the

landowner can persuade the Collector to make

recommendations   against   the   proposed

acquisition of land, but what is important is that

the Collector should give a fair opportunity of

hearing to the objector and objectively consider

his  plea against  the  acquisition of  land. Only

thereafter,   he   should   make   recommendations

supported   by   brief   reasons   as   to   why   the

particular piece of land should or should not be

acquired   and   whether   or   not   the   plea   put

forward   by   the   objector   merits   acceptance.   In

other words, the recommendations made by the

Collector   must   reflect   objective   application   of

mind to the objections filed by the landowners

and other interested persons.”

(emphasis supplied)

   In Usha Stud & Agricultural Farms (P) Ltd. v. State of 

Haryana,

7

 this Court held that,

“The   ratio   of   the   aforesaid   judgments   is   that

Section   5­A(2),   which   represents   statutory

embodiment of the rule of audi alteram partem,

gives an opportunity to the objector to make an

endeavour to convince the Collector that his land

is not required for the public purpose specified in

the Notification issued under Section 4(1) or that

there are other valid reasons for not acquiring

the same. That section also makes it obligatory

for   the   Collector   to   submit   report(s)   to   the

appropriate   Government   containing   his

recommendations   on   the   objections,   together

with the record of the proceedings held by him

so that the Government may take appropriate

6 (2012) 1 SCC 792.

7 (2013) 4 SCC 210.

29

decision on the objections. Section 6(1) provides

that if the appropriate Government is satisfied,

after considering the report, if any, made by the

Collector   under   Section   5­A(2)   that   particular

land is needed for the specified public purpose

then   a   declaration   should   be   made.  This

necessarily implies that the State Government is

required   to   apply   mind   to   the   report   of   the

Collector   and   take   final   decision   on   the

objections   filed   by   the   landowners   and   other

interested   persons.   Then   and   then   only,   a

declaration can be made under Section 6(1).”

(emphasis supplied)

   In Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. (supra), this 

Court held that:

“16. However,  considerations   of   the   objections

by the owner of the land and the acceptance of

the recommendations by the Government, it is

trite, must precede a proper application of mind

on the part of the Government. As and when a

person aggrieved questions the decision­making

process, the court in order to satisfy itself as to

whether one or more grounds for judicial review

exist, may call for the records whereupon such

records must be produced. The writ petition was

filed in the year 1989. As noticed hereinbefore,

the said writ petition was allowed. This Court,

however, interfered with the said order of the

High Court and remitted the matter back to it

upon giving an opportunity to the parties to raise

additional pleadings.

…

19. Furthermore,  the State is required to apply

its mind not only on the objections filed by the

owner of the land but also on the report which is

submitted by the Collector upon making other

and   further   enquiries   therefor   as   also   the

recommendations made by him in that behalf.

The State Government may further inquire into

the matter, if any case is made out therefor, for

arriving   at   its   own   satisfaction   that   it   is

necessary   to   deprive   a   citizen   of   his   right   to

property. It is in that situation that production of

records by the State is necessary.

30

…

28. Although assignment of reasons is the part

of principles of natural justice, necessity thereof

may   be   taken   away   by   a   statute   either

expressly   or   by   necessary   implication.   A

declaration   contained   in   a   notification   issued

under Section 6 of the Act need not contain any

reason but such a notification must precede the

decision of the appropriate Government. When a

decision is required to be taken after giving an

opportunity   of   hearing   to   a   person   who   may

suffer   civil   or   evil   consequences   by   reason

thereof,   the   same   would   mean   an   effective

hearing.”

(emphasis supplied)

   In Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan,

8

this Court held that:

“12.      The necessity of giving reason by a body or

authority in support of its decision came up for

consideration before this Court in several cases.

Initially   this   Court   recognised   a   sort   of

demarcation between administrative orders and

quasi­judicial   orders   but   with   the   passage   of

time the distinction between the two got blurred

and   thinned   out   and   virtually   reached   a

vanishing   point   in   the   judgment   of   this   Court

in      A.K. Kraipak       v.      Union of India       [(1969) 2 SCC

262 : AIR 1970 SC 150]

…

47.   Summarising   the   above   discussion,   this

Court holds:

(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to

record reasons, even in administrative decisions,

if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

(b)   A   quasi­judicial   authority   must   record

reasons in support of its conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to

serve the wider principle of justice that justice

must not only be done it must also appear to be

done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid

restraint  on any possible arbitrary exercise of

judicial and quasi­judicial or even administrative

power.

8 (2010) 9 SCC 496.

31

(e)  Reasons reassure that discretion has been

exercised   by   the   decision­maker   on   relevant

grounds   and   by   disregarding   extraneous

considerations.

(f)   Reasons   have   virtually   become   as

indispensable a component of a decision­making

process as observing principles of natural justice

by   judicial,   quasi­judicial   and   even   by

administrative bodies.

(g)   Reasons   facilitate   the   process   of   judicial

review by superior courts.

(h)   The   ongoing   judicial   trend   in   all   countries

committed   to   rule   of   law   and   constitutional

governance is in favour of reasoned  decisions

based   on   relevant   facts.   This   is   virtually   the

lifeblood   of   judicial   decision­making   justifying

the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

(i) Judicial or even quasi­judicial opinions these

days   can   be   as   different   as   the   judges   and

authorities who deliver them. All these decisions

serve   one   common   purpose   which   is   to

demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors

have   been   objectively   considered.   This   is

important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the

justice delivery system.

(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both

judicial accountability and transparency.

(k) If a judge or a quasi­judicial authority is not

candid   enough   about   his/her   decision­making

process then it is impossible to know whether

the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of

precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

(l)  Reasons   in   support   of   decisions   must   be

cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons

or “rubber­stamp reasons” is not to be equated

with a valid decision­making process.

(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the

sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial

powers.   Transparency   in   decision­making   not

only makes the judges and decision­makers less

prone to errors but also makes them subject to

broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence

of   Judicial   Candor   [(1987)   100   Harvard   Law

Review 731­37] .)

(n)   Since   the   requirement   to   record   reasons

emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in

decision­making,   the   said   requirement   is   now

32

virtually a component of human rights and was

considered   part   of   Strasbourg   Jurisprudence.

See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553]

EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of

Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)] , wherein the

Court   referred   to   Article   6   of   the   European

Convention   of   Human   Rights   which   requires,

“adequate and intelligent reasons must be given

for judicial decisions”.

(o)   In   all   common   law   jurisdictions   judgments

play a vital role in setting up precedents for the

future.   Therefore,   for   development   of   law,

requirement of giving reasons for the decision is

of the essence and is virtually a part of “due

process”.”

(emphasis supplied)

11.3.File Notings and lack of Communication

   It is settled law that 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 present case, there was no order whatsoever

passed   rejecting   the   objections,   after   the   personal

hearing was concluded on 30.07.2011.

   It is important to note that 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

33

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.

   In Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab,

9

 a Constitution

Bench held that merely writing something on the file

does   not   amount   to   an   order.   For   a   file­noting   to

amount to a decision of the Government, it must be

communicated to the person so affected, before that

person can be bound by that order. Until the order is

communicated to the person affected by it, it cannot be

regarded as anything more than being provisional in

character.

     Similarly, in Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India,

10

this Court held that notings recorded in the official

files, by the officers of the Government at different

levels,   and   even   the   Ministers,   do   not   become   a

decision   of   the   Government,   unless   the   same   are

sanctified and acted upon, by issuing an order in the

9 AIR 1963 SC 395.

10 (2009) 15 SCC 705.

34

name of the President or Governor, as the case may be,

and are communicated to the affected persons.

   In Sethi Auto Service Station v. DDA,

11

 this Court held

that: 

“14. It   is   trite   to   state   that   notings   in   a

departmental file do not have the sanction of law

to be an effective order. A noting by an officer is

an expression of his viewpoint on the subject. It

is   no   more   than   an   opinion   by   an   officer   for

internal   use   and   consideration   of   the   other

officials of the department and for the benefit of

the final decision­making authority. Needless to

add   that   internal   notings   are   not   meant   for

outside exposure.  Notings in the file culminate

into an executable order, affecting the rights of

the   parties,   only   when   it   reaches   the   final

decision­making   authority   in   the   department,

gets   his   approval   and   the   final   order

is      communicated       to the person concerned.

…

16. To the like effect are the observations of this

Court   in   Laxminarayan   R.   Bhattadv.   State   of

Maharashtra   [(2003)   5   SCC   413]   ,   wherein   it

was said that a right created under an order of a

statutory authority must be communicated to the

person concerned so as to confer an enforceable

right.”

(emphasis supplied)

11.4.Contradictory Stand taken by the Respondents 

     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

11 (2009) 1 SCC 180.

35

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.

    At the time of arguments before this Court, it was

sought   to   be   contended   by   the   Additional   Solicitor

General for the Union of India that the letter dated

15.07.2011 was an order passed under Section 20D(2)

of the Act.

     We find that the stand taken by the Respondents

before the High Court and this Court is completely

contradictory, and does not commend acceptance.

11.5.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

36

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.

12

 The

provisions   of   an   expropriatory   legislation,   which

compulsorily deprives a person of his right to property

without his consent, must be strictly construed.

13

 The

Railways Act, 1989 being an expropriatory legislation,

its provisions have to be strictly construed.

14

11.6.The   Competent   Authority   being   a   quasi­judicial

authority, is obligated by law to act in conformity with

mandatory statutory provisions. It is important to note

that this is the only opportunity made available to a

land­owner, 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.

12 Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, (1875) LR 1 Ch D 426 followed in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh

v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 322; State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC

358; J&K Housing Board v. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul, (2011) 10 SCC 714; Kunwar Pal

Singh v. State of U.P., (2007) 5 SCC 85.

13 Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar  v.  State of Gujarat,  1995 Supp (1) SCC 596; See also  Khub

Chand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1074; CCE v. Orient Fabrics (P) Ltd., (2004) 1 SCC

597. 

14 Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 705.

37

   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.

11.7.In   the   absence   of   an   order   passed   under   Section

20D(2), the subsequent steps taken in the acquisition

would consequentially get invalidated.

12.The issue which remains to be decided is that in the absence

of an order passed on the objections under Section 20D,

should the consequential steps be invalidated.

   We find that 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

pre­construction 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.

   The Senior Counsel representing the Appellants in all the

present   Civil   Appeals,   after   taking   instructions   from   his

38

clients, 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, we deem it 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   us   to   adopt   this   course   of

action.

   In Savitri Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors.,

15

 this Court held that:

“Thus, we have a scenario where, on the one

hand,   invocation   of   urgency   provisions   under

Section 17 of the Act and dispensing with the

right to file objection under Section 5A of the Act,

is found to be illegal. On the other hand, we

have   a   situation   where   because   of   delay   in

challenging   these   acquisitions   by   the   land

15 (2015) 7 SCC 21.

39

owners,   developments   have   taken   in   these

villages and in most of the cases, third party

rights   have   been   created.   Faced   with   this

situation,   the   High   Court   going   by   the   spirit

behind   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in   Bondu

Ramaswamy and Others (supra) came out with

the solution which is equitable to both sides. We

are,   thus,   of   the   view   that   the   High   Court

considered the ground realities of the matter and

arrived   at   a   more   practical   and   workable

solution by adequately compensating the land

owners in the form of compensation as well as

allotment of developed Abadi land at a higher

rate i.e. 10% of the land acquired of each of the

land  owners  against  the eligibility and  to the

policy to the extent of 5% and 6% of Noida and

Greater Noida land respectively.”

(emphasis supplied)

   In the present 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.

13.With respect to the remaining 125 kms stretch of land, the

land­owners were satisfied with the amount awarded, and

have not approached this Court.

     Under these circumstances, despite our finding that the

Respondents have breached the mandatory provisions of the

40

Act, we do not think this is a fit case to set aside the entire

acquisition proceedings.

    The relief granted in the present case is confined to the

Appellants herein, and would not become a precedent for

other land­owners who have not challenged the acquisition

proceedings before this Court.

The Civil Appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. All

pending Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.

Ordered accordingly.

.......................................J.

(ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)

...…...............………………J.

(INDU MALHOTRA)

New Delhi;

August 13, 2019.

41