Nareshbhai Bhagubhai vs Union Of India

3. The factual matrix in which the present Civil Appeals have been filed is as under :

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

(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,­­

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 …

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.

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.

August 13, 2019.