Land Acquisition Act | Landowners Who Failed To Avail Hearing Cannot Later Allege Denial Of Hearing : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (July 13) dismissed the appeals filed by the landowners challenging the land acquisition proceedings for the Jaipur Metro Rail Project, holding that the landowners had abandoned their right of hearing under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by failing to appear before the Land Acquisition Officer and thereafter remaining silent.

“Absence of the appellants (landowners) on 9th April, 2012 coupled with their subsequent silence, appears to have goaded the LAO to proceed on the footing that the appellants had nothing further to submit beyond the written objections. We see no infirmity in the approach…We, thus, hold that the mandate of Section 5A was not ignored by the LAO and that there was substantial compliance; also, no fault can be attributed to the LAO in forwarding the recommendation without the appellants being personally heard. Appellants, by their own conduct, abandoned their right of hearing; they cannot now be heard to complain of denial of hearing when they themselves failed to avail the same.”, observed a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

The landowners, whose land in Jaipur was sought to be acquired for the construction of a metro car depot for Phase II of the Jaipur Metro Rail Project, had challenged the acquisition proceedings on the ground of denial of the opportunity of hearing under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

After filing objections under Section 5A (1), the landowners appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer on multiple dates. However, on April 9, 2012, they failed to appear or file their rejoinder. The LAO proceeded to submit his report recommending acquisition, and the State Government issued a declaration under Section 6 on July 5, 2012.

The Single Judge of the High Court quashed the land acquisition proceedings, which were later restored by the Division Bench of the High Court, prompting an appeal before the Supreme Court by the aggrieved landowners.

Refusing to interfere with the Division Bench findings, the judgment authored by Justice Datta observed:

“We, thus, hold that the mandate of Section 5A was not ignored by the LAO and that there was substantial compliance; also, no fault can be attributed to the LAO in forwarding the recommendation without the appellants being personally heard. Appellants, by their own conduct, abandoned their right of hearing; they cannot now be heard to complain of denial of hearing when they themselves failed to avail the same.”

The Court rejected the Respondent's contention about the availability of land parcels which could be utilised for metro rail development, noting that “merely because another parcel of land may appear feasible to the landowner, the same cannot be pressed into service by the landowner, to persuade the Court to substitute its own opinion for that of the authorities entrusted with the planning and execution of the project.”

The Court referenced Sooraram Pratap Reddy v. Collector (2008) 9 SCC 552, where it was held that “…in deciding whether acquisition is for “public purpose” or not, prima facie, the Government is the best judge. Normally, in such matters, a writ court will not interfere by substituting its judgment for the judgment of the Government.”

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was dismissed, and land acquisition proceedings was upheld.

Headnote

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 5A – Scope and Compliance of Mandatory Right of Hearing - Substantial Compliance vs. Flagrant Violation - The right to object under Section 5A(1) followed by an oral hearing under Section 5A(2) flows directly from the twin principles of natural justice and due process - this mandatory safeguard is not a mere ritual - Where landowners appeared on multiple dates but chose to remain absent on the date fixed for filing a rejoinder, and subsequently maintained silence for over a month until the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) forwarded the report, the landowners, by their own conduct, abandoned their right of hearing - They cannot subsequently complain of a denial of hearing - A mere error or indiscretion by the LAO in not granting an additional date of opportunity to an absent party does not amount to malice in law and cannot invalidate the acquisition. [Paras 38-52]

Nature of LAO's Report and Recording of Reasons - The LAO, while submitting a report under Section 5A, acts as an administrative authority and not a judicial or quasi-judicial body - The report need not be a detailed, speaking order in the judicial sense - The inclusion of the phrase "objections are not being considered" in the concluding portion of the report must be read contextually to mean that the objections were considered on their merits but did not deserve acceptance in view of the paramount public purpose - Brevity of reasons is not synonymous with an absence of reasons, and a concise report does not vitiate the proceedings. [Paras 38-64]

Prior Survey and Publication - Section 4(2) of the Act uses the expression "Thereupon", which unequivocally demonstrates that the statutory power to enter and survey kicks in only after the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) - The statute does not mandate a comprehensive survey or prior newspaper publication as a condition precedent to the issuance of a Section 4 notification. [Paras 70-75]

Eminent Domain, Choice of Land, and Excess Acquisition - The determination of which land is suitable and the precise extent of land required for a public project falls squarely within the domain of the expert planning authorities exercising the power of eminent domain - In the absence of manifest arbitrariness, mala fides, or demonstrable error, courts must exercise judicial restraint and refrain from substituting their own opinion for that of the executive - Landowners cannot dictate which parcels of land the State should acquire or resist acquisition merely by pointing out alternative feasible governmental lands. [Paras 76-82]

Ecological Character and Deemed Forest - The mere existence of trees or vegetation on a portion of the acquired land does not ipso facto elevate its status to a "forest" or "deemed forest" - Unless the relevant statutory planning framework or Master Plan recognizes the land as forest land at its inception, a subsequent proliferation of vegetation cannot be permitted to subvert an expert planning framework or derail a public infrastructure project. [Relied on Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad v. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad, (1976) 3 SCC 719; State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh, (1980) 2 SCC 471; Sooraram Pratap Reddy v. Collector, (2008) 9 SCC 552; Naveen Solanki v. Rail Land Development Authority, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 45; Paras 84-89]

Cause Title: Alok Kotahwala & Ors. v. Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (with connected case)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 678

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar Bhandari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anuj Bhandari, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Bhargav, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Adv. Ms. Jaya P Pathak, Adv. Mr. Avnish Dave, Adv. Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, AOR