SC Quashed Order of Land Acquisition for Technology Park

The disputes in relation to land acquisition for public purposes under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have often reached the doors of the courts in the recent past and this time in aforesaid case, this dispute again landed up in the Apex court. The dispute in said matter was with respect to acquisition of land by notification issued by Chandigarh Administration under Sections 4 (1) and 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition act for the acquisition of land for the various public purposes including for Chandigarh technology parks. The lands of the appellants were acquired under this notification. The appellants was challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court order wherein their writ petitions filed for quashing the acquisition of their land was dismissed. This High Court order was set aside by the Supreme Court in Surinder Singh Brar and Ors. V. Union of India (2013) 1 SCC 403. This judgment was relied upon by the apex court in this matter for deciding the dispute.

The main issue in this matter was with respect to notification issued by person other the Administrator under Section 6 (1) of the act declaring acquisition of land and the non-consideration of objections (filed by the appellants) by the Land Acquisition officer. The appellants had filed detailed objections to the acquisition of their land on which the land acquisition officer had submitted a report as to acquisition which was accepted by Officers of Chandigarh Administration and declaration to the effective acquisition of land was declared under Section 6 (1) of the land acquisition act.

Generally in land acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition act, the person who is being deprived of his land files objections under section 5-A (1) of the Act to the notification declaring acquisition of land and an opportunity for hearing is provided to this person so as to show as to why he should not be deprived of his land under Section 5-A (2) of the act. The concerned officer or Collector who is hearing the objections is required to go through the objections and submit reports in respect of the said land notified under section 4 (1) to the appropriate government. These include recommendations as to on objections and thereafter the appropriate government is obliged to consider the report to the satisfaction that particular land is needed for public purpose. It is only after formation of the opinion on the issue of need of the land for public purpose that the declaration as to acquisition is made under Section 6 (1). The apex Court had held in Surinder singh case that any violation of the procedure that had to be adhered for Land acquisition process shall lead to denuding the decision of the appropriate government in respect of land acquisition of statutory finality.

Article 239 of the Constitution provides that every Union territory is required to be administered by the President through an administrator appointed by him with such designation that the president specifies and provides further that President is empowered to appoint governor of a state as an Administrator to adjoining Union territory and this governor in his capacity as an administrator has to act independently of the Council of Ministers of the state of which he is the governor.

The Union Territory of Chandigarh is administered by the Administrator who is the governor appointed by the President of India and is required to act in his capacity as Administrator independently of the Council of ministers under Article 239 of the constitution. A notification was issued by the President of India in exercise of its power under Article 239 that provided that subject to his control and further orders, all the power exercisable under the Act and under Land acquisition (Company) Rules are only delegated to the Administrator. The notification clearly provided that any acquisition of land for or on behalf of Union Territories must be sanctioned by the Administrator of the particular Union territory and no other officer is competent to exercise the power vested in appropriate government under the Act and Rules.

In aforesaid matter, the Administrator of Chandigarh under another Act issued a notification by which it delegated its power to the advisor (an officer of Indian Administrative service) including the power that was to be exclusively exercised by him in respect to land acquisition which was specifically entrusted to it by the President of India as stated above. The land acquisition of the disputed land in question belonging to the appellants was carried out by a notification issued by the advisor violating the power conferred on the administrator. The apex Court observed that the act under which administrator through a notification delegated its functions of the appropriate government (that is in relation to acquisition of land) to the advisors does not empower the administrator to delegate its functions to any other person and this is also true by virtue of the Presidential notification that does not provide for the same i.e. delegation of power.

The Apex Court also held that report (on land acquisition) by the land acquisition officer (LAO) was vitiated on account of non-application of mind and further said that LAO had mechanically rejected all the objections raised by the appellants under section 5-A (1) and observed further that LAO had not gone into the details of objections. This was based on the findings of court. The Apex Court thus set aside the order of the High Court. The Apex Court also held that officers of Chandigarh administration had accepted the report of LAO despite clear violation to Section 5–A (2).

The Apex Court relying upon Surinder Singh case observed that the satisfaction accorded by the appropriate government that the particular land is needed for public purpose and a declaration to that effect under section 6 (1) will be devoid of legal sanctity if statutory engrafted procedural safeguards are not adhered to by the authorities concerned or if there is clear violation of principles of natural justice. The Apex Court also observed that formation of opinion on the issue of need of land for public purpose is most essential or sine qua non for the declaration under section 6 (1) for the acquisition of land and any recommendation made by the concerned officer without duly considering the objections filed under Section 5-A (1) and submissions made at the hearing given under Section 5A (2) or failure of the appropriate government to take objective decisions on such objections in the light of the recommendations made by the concerned officer will denude the decision of the appropriate government of statutory finality. The court also relied upon another Supreme Court judgment of constitutional bench in Padma Sundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu (2002) 3 SCC 533 and held further that notification of land acquisition cannot be saved at belated stage and the competent officer cannot issue declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Act after 11 years of issue of notification under section 4 (1). The Court said that Chandigarh Administration cannot now issue declaration under section 6 (1) after rectifying the illegalities committed in the preparation of the report under section 5A (2) and issue of the earlier declaration.

Thus, Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the appellants and set aside the High Court order and quashed the notification in so far it related to acquisition of appellants lands.