Summary
NOIDA’s land acquisition was upheld against challenges to the Section 5A hearing. Non-objectors, subsequent purchasers and owners who voluntarily accepted compensation without reserving objections could not sustain the procedural challenge. For the remaining owners, notice and substantial consideration were established; grouping similar objections was permissible. Compensation under the 2013 Act and an opportunity to seek enhancement were preserved.
Issues
- Which landowners could challenge acquisition for non-compliance with Section 5A.
- Whether notice, hearing and consideration of objections were adequate despite grouped disposal and a corrigendum.
- What compensation and reference rights survived the acquisition.
Provisions considered
- Section 5A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894The mandatory safeguard requires effective hearing of objectors and consideration of objections, but a personal-hearing claim ordinarily depends on filing objections; the record established substantial compliance here. (¶¶ 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 36, 38, 41, 44, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52)
- Section 114, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Maintained official service records and participation in hearings supported regularity; the landowners failed to rebut the presumption. (¶¶ 39, 40, 41)
- Section 24(1), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Because the acquisition was pending when the 2013 Act commenced, compensation was directed under that Act, with enhancement and reference rights preserved. (¶ 56)
Held
- Section 5A requires meaningful consideration and an effective opportunity for objectors to be heard, not an empty formality. An interested person who did not object cannot complain of denial of that hearing, although a defect going to the root of acquisition, such as absence of public purpose or colourable exercise, may remain available. No such common defect was established here. (¶¶ 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23)
- Purchasers after the Section 4 notification take subject to the acquisition and cannot challenge it, though compensation rights may remain. The respondents identified as subsequent purchasers lacked standing to pursue this objection. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 28)
- Taking possession by State action does not itself extinguish a landowner’s challenge. Voluntary receipt of compensation without preserving objections, however, can amount to acquiescence. The owners concerned showed no settlement reserving a right to exemption; any unpaid balance could be sought through its independent remedy. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35)
- The official service record and owners’ attendance at hearings supported the presumption of regular official action under Section 114. The High Court wrongly presumed non-service; the owners did not establish the contrary. (¶¶ 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44)
- Similar objections concerning the same land could be grouped and answered together. Distinct objections had been separately considered, and objections omitted from the formal group list were nevertheless summarised and covered by the Collector’s common reasoning. Consolidation did not establish non-application of mind. (¶¶ 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50)
- Abadi status is not an absolute legal bar to acquisition; exemption depends on State policy. On these facts, substantial compliance, near completion of acquisition, acceptance of compensation by most owners and extensive development also weighed against undoing the acquisition for any remaining individual procedural defects. (¶¶ 51, 52, 53)
- The corrigendum clarified the procedural history without altering the merits and supplied no basis to infer unfairness. The acquisition challenges failed. Unpaid compensation with statutory interest was directed within four weeks, without prejudice to enhancement under the 2013 Act; time for a reference, if not already filed, would run from this judgment. (¶¶ 54, 55, 56)
Result
Appeals allowed; challenged High Court judgments set aside and writ petitions dismissed without costs. Unpaid compensation with statutory interest due within four weeks. Compensation under the 2013 Act and enhancement rights preserved; reference limitation to commence from this judgment where no reference was already filed.