Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   1964    OF 2013 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.24916 OF 2008)

LAJJA RAM & ORS.  APPELLANTS

VERSUS

 UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH & ORS.     RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order  

passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in  

Civil Writ Petition No. 14018 of 2008, dated 13.08.2008, whereby  

and whereunder the High Court has dismissed the aforesaid Writ  

Petition filed by the appellants.  

3. The dispute relates to acquisition of lands situated  

in village Lahora and Sarangpur, Chandigarh, by the respondent  

No. 1 for the purpose of development of complex for important  

projects and allied purposes, i.e., Chandigarh Science Park and  

Institutional  Area  and  also  for  regulated  and  planned  

development  under  the  Capital  of  Punjab  (Development  and  

Regulation) Act, 1952.  

4. The respondent No. 1 had issued a notification under  

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the

Page 2

2

Act’),  dated  25.07.2005,  for  acquisition  of  lands  including  

lands in Khasra Nos. 111, 112, 113, 114/1, 114/2 and 244 in the  

village Lahora, whereat the residential houses of the appellants  

are also situated for the aforesaid purpose. Pursuant to the  

said notification, the Land Acquisition Officer (for short ‘the  

LAO’) had issued a notice under Section 5-A of the Act,  inter  

alia, directing the appellants to file their objections, if any,  

to the proposed acquisition of lands in question. The appellants  

had filed their detailed objections, inter alia, bringing it to  

the notice of the LAO that they have made 'A' class construction  

over the lands in  dispute. Having considered the objections so  

filed and also keeping in view the stand of the appellants and  

the respondent no. 1, a favorable report dated 17.02.2006 was  

submitted by the LAO recommending, inter alia, exemption of the  

appellant’s lands from acquisition to the competent authorities  

who matters much. Later on, after conducting survey of the said  

lands,  the  LAO  has  modified  his  earlier  report  made  under  

Section  5-A  of  the  Act  and  accordingly  has  withdrawn  his  

recommendation  in  respect  of  grant  of  exemption  to  the  

appellant’s lands, vide his letter dated 07.07.2006.  

5. The  notification  under  Section  6  of  the  Act  dated  

24.07.2006  was  issued  by  the  respondent-authorities.  Upon  

issuance  of  such  notification,  the  appellants  had  approached  

respondent-authorities  for  release  of  their  lands  from

Page 3

3

acquisition proceedings. On 26.03.2007, the matter was remitted  

by respondent no. 2 to the LAO for re-consideration, whereafter  

the  LAO,  after  providing  opportunity  of  hearing  to  the  

appellants and inspection of the site, recommended release of  

the said lands under Section 48 of the Act, by his report dated  

16.05.2007.  After  a  series  of  communications  between  the  

respondent-authorities,  the  final  decision  was  taken  on  

22.07.2008 releasing Khasra No. 113 in part and exempting Khasra  

Nos. 114/1 and 114/2 while acquiring Khasra Nos. 111 and 112  

completely  and  Khasra  Nos.  113  and  244  in  part.  Immediately  

thereafter, award came to be passed vide order dated 23.07.2008.  

Aggrieved by the said award, the appellants had approached the  

Writ Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 14018 of 2008, inter alia,  

questioning the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of  

the Act.  

6. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has  

dismissed the Writ Petition on two grounds: firstly, that there  

is  delay  of  nearly  three  and  two  years  respectively  in  

approaching the Writ Court from the date of Notifications issued  

under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, and therefore they are fatal  

to the proceedings; and secondly that after the award passed by  

the  LAO,  the  appellants  could  not  have  approached  the  Writ  

Court,  inter alia, questioning the notifications issued by the  

respondent no. 1 under Section 4 and 6 of the Act. Aggrieved by

Page 4

4

the aforesaid, the appellants are before us in this appeal by  

special leave.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to  

the lis and also perused the documents on record.  

8. Shri V.K.Jhanji, learned senior counsel appearing for  

the appellants would submit that the High Court has erred in  

dismissing the petition on the ground of delay and laches.  The  

learned  counsel  would  submit  that  the  appellants  could  not  

approach the Writ Court amidst the variable recommendations made  

by the LAO in respect of their lands. He would further submit  

that  it  is  only  after  the  final  decision  was  taken  by  the  

respondent-authorities rejecting the request of the appellants  

to  exempt  their  lands  from  acquisition  on  22.07.2008,  the  

appellants  have  approached  the  Writ  Court.  He  would  further  

submit that the LAO was not justified in modifying his report  

dated  07.07.2006  under  Section  5-A  of  the  Act  without  duly  

notifying  and  affording  an  opportunity  of  hearing  to  the  

appellants. He would point out that the said action of the LAO  

is not only in violation of the statutory provisions but also in  

violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore,  

the  notification  issued  by  the  respondent-authorities  under  

Section 6 of the Act requires to be set aside.

9. Per  contra,  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the

Page 5

5

State would support the impugned judgment and order of the High  

Court  and  would  contend  that  the  LAO,  after  considering  the  

objections  filed  by  the  appellants,  pursuant  to  the  notice  

issued under Section 5-A of the Act, had sent his report to the  

respondent-authorities  after  complying  with  the  mandatory  

provisions of the Act and therefore, the notification issued  

under Section 6 of the Act is justiciable.  

10. We would first advert to the question of dismissal of  

the Writ Petition by the High Court on the ground of delay and  

laches and thereafter, delve into the merits of the submissions  

made by the learned counsel for the parties. There is indeed  

some delay on the part of the appellants in approaching the Writ  

Court questioning the notifications issued by the respondent no.  

1 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. It has come on record that  

the  LAO  has  taken  variable  stands  in  his  reports  dated  

17.02.2006, 07.07.2006 and 16.05.2007 with regard to grant of  

exemption from acquisition of the lands in dispute. It is only  

when the appellants were informed that their lands cannot be  

kept out of acquisitions, they have approached the Writ Court by  

filing  a  petition  under  Article  226  of  the  Constitution  of  

India.  

11. Although  the  underlying  policy  behind  dismissal  of  

petitions  on  grounds  of  delay  and  latches  is  to  discourage

Page 6

6

agitation of stale claims, still this Court has held that the  

delay in approaching the Court must not always act in prejudice  

to the aggrieved party and the Court must prudently exercise its  

discretion in doing so. This Court in  Tridip Kumar Dingal v.  

State of W.B.,  (2009) 1 SCC 768, has held that this Court may  

refuse  to  exercise  its  discretion  where  there  is  delays  and  

latches in invoking jurisdiction of the Writ Court. However, the  

exercise  of  such  discretion  must  be  based  on  the  facts  and  

circumstances  of  each  case  and  the  decision  must  rest  upon  

variety of factors including the nature of fundamental rights  

breached, the remedy claimed and when and how the delay arose.  

This  Court, in Northern  Indian  Glass  Industries  v.  Jaswant  

Singh, (2003) 1 SCC 335, has observed that the conduct of the  

party challenging the notifications and pleading condonation of  

delay  also  plays  an  important  role  in  exercise  of  this  

discretion.

12. Keeping  in  view  the  aforesaid  observations  of  this  

Court, in our considered opinion, the delay in approaching the  

Court is satisfactorily explained by the appellants. The conduct  

of the appellants is evidenced by the consistent stand adopted  

by them in requesting the respondent-authorities throughout the  

course of acquisition proceedings to exempt their lands from  

acquisition  proceedings.  The  appellants  have  assigned  cogent  

reasons  for  the  delay  in  approaching  the  Writ  Court  amidst

Page 7

7

successive reports of the LAO making variable recommendations in  

terms of grant of such exemption. The appellants have approached  

the Writ  Court soon  after a  final decision  was made  by the  

respondent-authorities in this regard. Therefore, the High Court  

was in error in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of  

delay and latches on the part of the appellants in approaching  

the High Court.  

13. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the present  

set of facts and circumstances, considering the non-compliance  

of  mandatory  provisions  of  the  Act  by  the  LAO  during  the  

acquisition proceedings resulting in flagrant violation of the  

principles of natural justice, as pointed out by Shri Jhanjhi,  

we are of the considered view that the delay ipso facto should  

not be put against the appellants and the case must be decided  

on its merits.  

1. The High Court has non-suited the appellants on yet another  

ground viz. that the writ petition cannot be entertained after  

the award is passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.  In the  

words of the Court:

“…  the  instant  Writ  Petition  has  been  filed  after  making  of  award  by  Land  Acquisition  Collector.  On  making of award, the land vested in the State, free  from all encumbrances and, therefore, the acquisition  of the land cannot be challenged at this stage. In  this view, we are fortified by the ratio of law laid  down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent judgment in

Page 8

8

Swaika Properties Pvt Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, 2008  (2)  RCR  (Civil)  96.  It  has  been  categorically  and  authoritatively  laid  down  in  this  judgment  by  the  Hon’ble Apex Court that writ petition, after making of  award  by  the  Land  Acquisition  Collector,  cannot  be  entertained.”

15. In our view, while dismissing the Writ Petition on the  

aforesaid  ground,  the  High  Court  has  erred  in  two  aspects,  

firstly, the reasons recorded by the High Court do not reflect  

the  correct  position  of  law  in  respect  of  challenge  to  

acquisition proceedings after passing of an award by the LAO and  

secondly,  the  High  Court  has  ignored  that  the  possession  of  

acquired lands  has not  been taken  over by  the LAO  from the  

appellants after the passing of the award.  

16. Section 16 of the Act bears utmost relevance to the  

discussion and is extracted hereunder:

“16. Power to take possession- When the Collector has  made an award under section 11, he may take possession  of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in  the Government, free from all encumbrances.”

17.    It is settled law that after the award is passed by the  

LAO/Collector,  for  the  acquired  lands  to  vest  in  the  State  

Government, free from all encumbrances, it must be succeeded by  

his taking of possession of the lands under Section 16 of the  

Act. It is only after taking possession that the acquired lands  

would vest absolutely in the State Government. (See:  Jethmull

Page 9

9

Bhojraj v. State of Bihar, (1972) 1 SCC 714; State of Rajasthan  

v.  D.R.  Laxmi,  (1996)  6  SCC  445;  May  George  v.  Special  

Tahsildar, (2010) 13 SCC 98 and Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State  

of Haryana,  (2012) 1 SCC 792).  In the instant case, the Writ  

Petition is filed by the appellants after the LAO has passed the  

award, dated 23.07.2008. However, the High Court has failed to  

notice  that  appellants  continued  to  be  in  possession  of  the  

lands and their residential premises constructed on the said  

lands  so  acquired  and  therefore,  the  possession  of  the  said  

lands acquired under the notification has not been taken over by  

the LAO so as to lead to vesting of land in the respondent No. 1  

free from all encumbrances.

18.  The High Court, in arriving at its conclusion, has  

relied upon the decision of this Court in Swaika Properties (P)  

Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, (2008) 4 SCC 695, wherein this Court  

has observed:

“19.  In  the  present  case  also,  the  writ  petition  having been filed after taking over the possession and  the award having become final, the same deserves to be  dismissed  on  the  ground  of  delay  and  laches.  Accordingly, the orders of the learned Single Judge  and that of the Division Bench are affirmed to the  extent  of  dismissal  of  the  writ  petition  and  the  special appeal without going into the merits thereof.  This  appeal  also  deserves  to  be  dismissed  without  going into the merits of the case and is dismissed as  such. No costs.”

(emphasis supplied)

19. In  following  the  aforementioned  decision  of  this

Page 10

10

Court, the High Court has erroneously omitted to consider the  

requisite of taking over of possession by the LAO so as to lead  

to vesting of the land in the State Government which was noticed  

by this Court while dismissing the petition on ground of delay  

and laches.

20. It is true that the lands vest in the State Government  

after an award is passed and the possession of the lands is  

taken; the aggrieved persons cannot challenge the validity of  

notifications.  This  Court,  in  Market  Committee  v.  Krishan  

Murari, (1996) 1 SCC 311, has observed that after such vesting  

of land in the State Government the High Court could not have  

interfered  with  the  acquisition  proceedings  so  as  to  grant  

relief addressing the stage contemplated under Section   5-A. In  

our considered view, in this case the High Court while recording  

its reasons has proceeded on incorrect assumptions in respect of  

possession of acquired lands and erroneously concluded towards  

the  vesting  of  land  in  respondent  No.  1.  Therefore,  the  

aforesaid reasons recorded by the High Court for dismissal of  

the Writ Petition filed by the appellants cannot be sustained by  

us and  the High  Court ought  not to  have dismissed  the Writ  

Petition on this ground also.  

21.   The only issue that survives for our consideration and  

decision is, whether the LAO, without affording an opportunity

Page 11

11

of  hearing,  could  have  passed  the  order  rejecting  their  

objections and submitting his report adverse to the interest of  

the  land  owners,  to  the  respondent  no.  1  recommending  

acquisition  of  the  lands  in  question,  pursuant  to  which  the  

impugned notification under Section 6 of the Act is issued.  

22. Before  we  advert  to  the  aforesaid  question,  it  is  

appropriate that we briefly notice Section 5-A of the Act which  

reads as under:

“5A. Hearing of objections.-

(1) Any person interested in any land which has been  notified under section 4, sub-section (1), as being  needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or  for a Company may, within thirty days from the date of  the  publication  of  the  notification,  object  to  the  acquisition  of  the  land  or  of  any  land  in  the  locality, as the case may be.

(2) Every objection under sub- section (1) shall be  made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector  shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard  in person or by any person authorized by him in this  behalf or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such  objections and after making such further inquiry, if  any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in  respect  of  the  land  which  has  been  notified  under  section 4, sub- section (1), or make different reports  in respect of different parcels of such land, to the  appropriate Government, containing his recommendations  on  the objections,  together with  the record  of the  proceedings  held  by  him,  for  the  decision  of  that  Government. The decision of the appropriate Government  on the objections shall be final.

(3) For the purpose of this section, a person shall be  deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled  to claim an interest in compensation if the land were  acquired under this Act.”

Page 12

12

23. The sub-section (2) of Section 5-A envisages the rule  

of  audi  alteram  partem  and  makes  it  sine  qua  non to  the  

acquisition proceedings under the Act. It mandates the LAO to  

first provide an opportunity of hearing to the objector(s) in  

respect of their objections to the acquisition of lands notified  

under Section 4(1) of the Act. The LAO or the Collector may also  

conduct  a  further  enquiry  in  this  regard,  if  he  deems  it  

necessary, and thereafter decide upon the objections raised by  

such objector(s) and submit his recommendations to the State  

Government in the form of a report, on the basis of which the  

State  Government  is  to  formulate  its  opinion  in  respect  of  

acquisition of lands notified under Section 4(1) of the Act and  

issue appropriate notification under Section 6 of the Act. The  

purpose is to afford an opportunity of making representation to  

the  aggrieved  person  before  any  order,  which  may  adversely  

affect his interest in any immovable property, may be passed by  

the  LAO  and  subsequent  notification  be  issued  by  the  State  

Government.

24.    The said purpose has been noticed by this Court in State  

of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh, (1980) 2 SCC 471, wherein this Court  

has observed as under:  

“16. … it is fundamental that compulsory taking of a

Page 13

13

man’s property is a serious matter and the smaller the  man the more serious the matter. Hearing him before  depriving him is both reasonable and pre-emptive of  arbitrariness,  and  denial  of  this  administrative  fairness  is  constitutional  anathema  except  for  good  reasons.”

25. Further, this Court in Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State  

of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 792, has reflected upon the purpose of  

inclusion  of  principles  of  natural  justice  in  the  mandatory  

provisions of Section 5-A of the Act and their strict compliance  

by the LAO in the following words:  

“39. … it is necessary to remember that the rules of  natural justice have been ingrained in the scheme of  Section  5-A  with  a  view  to  ensure  that  before  any  person is deprived of his land by way of compulsory  acquisition, he must get an opportunity to oppose the  decision  of  the  State  Government  and/or  its  agencies/instrumentalities  to  acquire  the  particular  parcel of land. At the hearing, the objector can make  an effort to convince the Land Acquisition Collector  to make recommendation against the acquisition of his  land. He can also point out that the land proposed to  be acquired is not suitable for the purpose specified  in  the  notification  issued  under  Section  4(1).  Not  only  this,  he  can  produce  evidence  to  show  that  another piece of land is available and the same can be  utilised for execution of the particular project or  scheme.

40.  Though it  is neither  possible nor  desirable to  make a list of the grounds on which the landowner can  persuade the Collector to make recommendations against  the  proposed  acquisition  of  land,  but  what  is  important  is that  the Collector  should give  a fair  opportunity of hearing to the objector and objectively  consider  his  plea  against  the  acquisition  of  land.  Only  thereafter,  he  should  make  recommendations  supported by brief reasons as to why the particular  piece of land should or should not be acquired and  whether or not the plea put forward by the objector  merits acceptance. In other words, the recommendations

Page 14

14

made  by  the  Collector  must  reflect  objective  application  of mind  to the  objections filed  by the  landowners and other interested persons.”

26. This Court in Munshi Singh v. Union of India, (1973) 2  

SCC 337, has highlighted the importance of the rule of  audi  

alteram  partem  embodied  in  Section  5-A  of  the  Act  in  the  

following words:

 “7.  Section 5-A embodies a very just and wholesome  principle that a person whose property is being or is  intended  to  be  acquired  should  have  a  proper  and  reasonable opportunity of persuading the authorities  concerned that acquisition of the property belonging  to that person should not be made. We may refer to the  observation  of  this  Court  in  Nandeshwar  Prasad v.  State of U.P., AIR 1964 SC 1217 that the right to file  objections under Section 5-A is a substantial right  when  a  person’s  property  is  being  threatened  with  acquisition and that right cannot be taken away as if  by a side wind. Sub-section (2) of Section 5-A makes  it obligatory on the Collector to give an objector an  opportunity  of  being  heard.  After  hearing  all  objections and making further inquiry he is to make a  report  to  the  appropriate  Government  containing  his  recommendation on the objections. The decision of the  appropriate  Government  on  the  objections  is  then  final. The declaration under Section 6 has to be made  after the appropriate Government is satisfied, on a  consideration  of  the  report,  if  any,  made  by  the  Collector under Section 5-A(2). The legislature has,  therefore,  made  complete  provisions  for  the  persons  interested  to  file  objections  against  the  proposed  acquisition and for the disposal of their objections.”

(emphasis supplied)

27. This Court in Surinder Singh Brar v. Union of India,  

(2013)  1  SCC  403,  while  analyzing  the  legality  of  the  

notification issued under Section 6 of the Act in the light of

Page 15

15

principles  of  natural  justice  as  envisaged  in  the  mandatory  

provisions of the Act under Sections 5-A and 6, has observed  

that the opportunity of hearing as envisaged under Section 5-

A(2) must not be denuded to mere formality and the LAO/Collector  

must  take  into  consideration  the  objections  raised  by  the  

objectors and record reasons in his report as to why or why not  

the lands requires to be acquired for public purpose. This Court  

has  emphasized  that  it  is  the  reasons  recorded  by  the  

LAO/Collector,  after  providing  appropriate  hearing  to  the  

objectors that contribute to the decision reached by the State  

authorities in issuing the notification under Section 6 of the  

Act. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:

“84.  What  needs  to  be  emphasised  is  that  hearing  required to be given under Section 5-A(2) to a person  who is sought to be deprived of his land and who has  filed  objections  under  Section  5-A(1)  must  be  effective and not an empty formality. The Collector  who is enjoined with the task of hearing the objectors  has the freedom of making further enquiry as he may  think necessary. In either eventuality, he has to make  report in respect of the land notified under Section  4(1) or make different reports in respect of different  parcels  of  such  land  to  the  appropriate  Government  containing his recommendations on the objections and  submit the same to the appropriate Government along  with the record of proceedings held by him for the  latter’s  decision.  The  appropriate  Government  is  obliged  to consider  the report,  if any,  made under  Section 5-A(2) and then record its satisfaction that  the particular land is needed for a public purpose.  This  exercise  culminates  into  making  a  declaration  that the land is needed for a public purpose and the  declaration  is  to  be  signed  by  a  Secretary  to  the  Government or some other officer duly authorized to  certify its orders. The formation of opinion on the

Page 16

16

issue  of  need  of  land  for  a  public  purpose  and  suitability thereof is sine qua non for issue of a  declaration under Section 6(1). Any violation of the  substantive  right  of  the  landowners  and/or  other  interested  persons  to  file  objections  or  denial  of  opportunity  of  personal  hearing  to  the  objector(s)  vitiates the recommendations made by the Collector and  the decision taken by the appropriate Government on  such recommendations. The recommendations made by the  Collector  without  duly  considering  the  objections  filed under Section 5-A(1) and submissions made at the  hearing given under Section 5-A(2) or failure of the  appropriate Government to take objective decision on  such objections in the light of the recommendations  made by the Collector will denude the decision of the  appropriate Government of statutory finality.  To put  it  differently,  the  satisfaction  recorded  by  the  appropriate  Government  that  the  particular  land  is  needed for a public purpose and the declaration made  under Section 6(1) will be devoid of legal sanctity if  statutorily  engrafted  procedural  safeguards  are  not  adhered to by the authorities concerned or there is  violation of the principles of natural justice. The  cases before us are illustrative of flagrant violation  of the mandate of Sections 5-A(2) and 6(1)…”

(emphasis supplied)

28. It is not in dispute that at the initial stages and  

after issuance of the notice under Section 5-A of the Act, the  

LAO,  after  considering  the  objections  had  sent  a  report  

favorable to the appellants inasmuch as recommending that the  

lands  in  question  need  not  be  acquired  by  the  respondent-

authorities  for  the  purpose  intended  in  the  acquisition  

notification.  Thereafter, upon the survey of lands, the LAO has  

changed his stance and has suggested that the said lands should  

not be exempted from acquisition and thus, must be acquired by  

the respondent-authorities. The order so passed by the LAO was

Page 17

17

adverse  to  the  interests  of  the  appellants  and  they  were  

entitled to be provided with a reasonable opportunity of hearing  

to  represent  their  stand  before  the  LAO  in  the  altered  

circumstances of the case. This non-adherence to the principles  

envisaged under the Act at the stage of making recommendations,  

not only defeats the purpose and object of the provisions of  

Section 5-A(2) but also introduces illegality into the opinion  

formulated by the State Government after considering the report  

so submitted by the LAO and therefore, by necessary implication,  

permeates the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act  

with such illegality.

 29. In  our  considered  opinion,  before  passing  the  said  

order, opportunity of hearing ought to have been granted to the  

land  owners  who  have  immovable  property  rights  in  the  lands  

acquired.  Since  that  has  not  been  done,  the  action  of  the  

respondent-authorities is contrary to the statutory provisions  

and also in violation of the principles of natural justice.

30. In view of the above, we set aside the notification  

issued under Section 6 of the Act by the State Government  qua  

the petitioners only. However, we permit the State Government  

and its authorities, if they so desire, to proceed from the  

stage from which we have pointed out the mistake/defect in the  

course of acquisition proceedings in so far as the lands of the

Page 18

18

appellants.

31. We clarify that the award in respect of other lands  

shall stand as it is and is not disturbed.

32. The appeal  is disposed  of accordingly.   Parties  to  

bear their own costs.

Ordered accordingly.

....................J. (H.L. DATTU)

....................J. (DIPAK MISRA)

NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 27, 2013.