Summary
The Supreme Court set aside dismissal of landowners’ challenge to a proposed road acquisition because their timely objections had not received the mandatory hearing and report procedure under section 15(2) of the 2013 land-acquisition Act. The Collector had neither heard them nor submitted the required report to the Government, and the State showed no compliance. The writ petition was allowed in part and the objections remitted for decision within three months, without deciding other acquisition issues.
Issues
- Whether failure to hear timely acquisition objections and submit the statutory report violated section 15(2).
- What relief followed from that procedural non-compliance.
Held
- The landowners filed objections within the prescribed time. The statutory procedure required an opportunity of hearing, such further inquiry as necessary and the Collector’s report to the appropriate Government for its decision. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7)
- Neither the hearing nor submission of the report occurred, and the State’s record and counter-affidavit did not establish compliance. The section 15(2) procedure was mandatory to lawful acquisition proceedings. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10)
- The Court allowed the writ petition only in part and directed the Collector to decide the objections according to section 15(2). It did not finally determine the other acquisition grounds or simply extinguish the proposed acquisition. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- Three months from the order was fixed as the outer limit for deciding the objections, uninfluenced by the Supreme Court’s observations. (¶¶ 13, 14)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and writ petition partly allowed. Collector to decide the pending objections in compliance with section 15(2) within three months; other issues left undecided.