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.

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