JUDGMENT O.P. Jain, J.
1. The above four writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment because the facts and the legal questions involved in them are identical. These writ petitions, which are a bunch of writ petitions, arise out of Land Acquisition proceedings and the prayer in each case is to quash the Notification under Section 4(1) and under Section 6 ID of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (hereinafter called the Act). The facts are being stated with reference to Writ Petition No. 201 of 1998.
2. Kanpur Development Authority (K.D.A.) prepared an ambitious scheme for the plan development of Kanpur City and virtually a new City is to be established and, therefore, the scheme is known as "New Kanpur City". For the creation of New Kanpur City, the land is sought to be acquired in seven villages named in paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit filed by K.D.A. for the first phase of the establishment of New Kanpur City, 511 hectares of land is required out of which 39 hectares of land belonging to the Gaon Sabha and 4 hectares declared surplus has been utilised and 468 hectares is to be acquired. The State Government has contributed 6.69 crores of rupees for payment of compensation and 22 crores of rupees is to be paid by the K.D.A. Notification dated 9th August.
1996 under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Official Gazette on 7th September, 1996. It was published in Newspaper Swatantra Bharat on 19th December. 1996. Notification dated 17th December, 1997 under Section 6(1) of the Act was published in Newspaper Swatantra Bharat on 19th December, 1997. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is Annexure-1 and Notification under Section 6(1) of the Act is Annexure-2 to the petition.
3. The petitioner is a Society, registered in the year, 1952 and was formed for providing land for the construction of houses to the weaker section and middle income group. The total number of the members of petitioner's society (Kanwar Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd.) is 1233. The petitioner society purchased land through sale-deed and registered agreements in the year 1989 and onwards. It is stated by the Society that it has already allotted land to 987 members. It is further stated by the Society that K.D.A. has already given no objection certificate in the year 1989 and no objection certificate was issued by the ceiling authority in the year, 1992. The petitioner society has submitted a layout plan for the entire Scheme in 1991.
4. The petitioners filed objections under Section 5A of the Act on 17th January, 1997 though the objection Annexure-7 to the petition bears the date 13th January, 1997 as it was typed on that date. It may be stated here that by U. P. Act No. XXII of 1954, the objections under Section 5A have to be filed within 21 days of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. In the instant case, the objections have been filed after 21 days but within 30 days. In the notification itself, the affected persons were called upon to file objections within 30 days and, therefore, notwithstanding the shortening of the period by the Uttar Pradesh amendment, the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5A of the Act are within limitation. The objections filed by Kanwar Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd., is Annexure-7 to the writ petition. After filing these objections, the petitioners filed various applications which are Annexures-8, 9 and 10 and prayed for personal hearing.
5. The main objections raised by the petitioners in their objections are that in case of similarly situated societies, exemption has been granted. The objectors have given the names of Ram Ganga Grih Nirman Samiti and Vidhi Sahkari Avas Samiti whose land has not been acquired. The plea taken by the petitioners in their objections is that they are also discharging same functions, i.e., to provide land to petitioners belonging to weaker sections of society and the persons belonging to middle income group. It is alleged by the petitioners in their objections that the State of Uttar Pradesh has issued several G.Os. that the land held by the Cooperative Housing Society shall not be acquired. The contention of the petitioners is that had opportunity of hearing been given to the petitioners, it would have brought to the notice of K.D.A. that the acquisition of land belonging to the Co-operative Housing Society is against the Government policy.
6. The grievance of the petitioners is that opposite party No. 2 Collector, Kanpur Nagar, did not give any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the objections were not duly considered. The petitioners were not informed about the date of hearing and no date was fixed for the hearing of the objections.
7. The contention on behalf of the K.D.A. is two-fold. Firstly, it is contended that Section 5A is not mandatory and secondly, it is contended that the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5A of the Act were disposed of after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
8. We have heard Sri S.N. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri A. Kumar representing Kanpur Development Authority and learned standing counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and have gone through the record.
9. So far as the first contention is concerned, it may be pointed out as early as 1923, the State Government of Uttar Pradesh framed Rules for the hearing of the objections under Section 5A of the Act. The Rules were notified on 19th November. 1923 and are to be found in Compulsory Acquisition of Land in India by Om Prakash Aggarwala (1990 Sixth Edition) at page 179. The relevant extract of Rule may usefully be reproduced as under :
"1. The right of the objector under Clause (2) of Section 5A shall extend not only to making a written objection but also to adducing evidence, if he so, desires, in support of his objection.
2. The duty of hearing objections under Section 5A shall be performed by the "Collector" (as defined in Section 3, clause (c) in person and shall not be delegated.
3. When the Collector, receives within the prescribed period a written objection from a person interested in the land, he shall cause a notice to be served on the objector to appear before him in person or a duly authorised representative oil a specified date and to produce the evidence, if any, on which he relies. Notice of the hearing and enquiry shall also be given by the Collector to the responsible officer of the department of Government or of the local authority on whose behalf it is proposed to acquire the land, and the latter, if he desires to be heard or to adduce evidence in support of the proposal to acquire the land, shall be permitted to do so, either in person or through a duly authorised representative."
10. A bare perusal of the Rules goes to show that the Collector is under an obligation to cause a notice to be served on the objector and also to a responsible officer of the Government department on whose behalf the land is proposed to be acquired. The Collector is also obliged to give opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and to hear the parties or (heir representatives.
11. It is argued on behalf of the K.D.A. respondent No. 3 that these Rules are only Government instructions and are not statutory Rules. This contention is devoid of all force. The Notification dated 19th November, 1923 clearly mentions that the rules have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 55 of the Act. Therefore, the Rules are statutory in nature.
12. Dealing with similar Rules, the Apex Court in the case of State of Mysore and others v. V.K. Kangan and others. ASR 1975 SC 219, held that the proceedings of the Collector under Section 5A are quasi-judicial and the Rules are mandatory in nature. Similar view has been taken in some other cases which may be mentioned in brief. In Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v. Governor of Delhi and others, AIR 1974 SC 1868, it has been held that the power to hear the objection under Section 5A is that of the Collector and not of the appropriate Government. It is no doubt true that the recommendation of the Land Acquisition Collector is not binding on the Government. The Government may choose either to accept the recommendation or to reject it ; but the mandatory requirement of the Section is that when a person's property is proposed to be acquired, he must be given an opportunity to show cause against it. The fact that the Collector is not the authority to decide the objection does not exonerate him from his duty to hear the objector on the objection and make the recommendation.
13. It was held in Farid Ahmad Abdul Samad and another v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and another, AIR 1976 SC 2035, that the heart of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act is the hearing of objections and under sub-section (2) of that section a personal hearing is mandatorily provided for. Section 5A does not rest on a person's demand for personal hearing. The matter may be different if a person whose property is acquired abandons the right to a personal hearing.
14. Similar view has been taken in Shyam Nandan Prasad and others v. State of Bihar and others, (1993) 4 SCC 255, in which it has been held that affording of opportunity of being heard to the objector is a must. The provision embodies a just and wholesome principle that a person whose property is being, or is intended to be acquired should have the occasion to persuade the authorities concerned that his property be not touched for acquisition.
15. Some of the above cases were considered by this Court in the case of Hausila Bux Singh v. State of U. P. and another, AIR 1977 All 474, in which it was held that in the instant case, the petitioner had not asked for any opportunity of adducing evidence. Therefore, it was not necessary for the Collector in the instant case to give any notice to the petitioner to adduce evidence in support of his objections but it is mandatory that the petitioner should be given an opportunity of hearing. This is the requirement of not only the Rules but also of Section 5A(2). This mandatory requirement, in the instant case, was not complied with. Hence impugned declaration made under Section 6 and the notice under Section 9 were vitiated so far as the plots of the land belonging to the petitioner were concerned.
16. The learned counsel for the respondents has cited Aircraft Employee's Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore and others. (1996) 11 SCC 475, in which it was held that the respondent was given opportunity thrice to file his objections and at his instance, the case was posted for hearing on 30.11.1981 on which date neither the respondent nor his counsel was present. Under these circumstances, the respondent having failed to present himself either in person or through counsel on 30.11.1981, the omission to give a right of hearing to him does not vitiate enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. It is obvious that these observations were made in the facts of that particular case. Therefore, the observations in paragraph 5 of the authority are of no help to the respondent.
17. In view of the authorities cited above, it must be held that the provisions of Section 5A(2) of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder are mandatory and it is incumbent on the Land Acquisition Collector to afford an opportunity of hearing to the objector and also to provide opportunity to lead evidence if the same is demanded. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that in the instant case, opportunity was in fact given. We have, therefore, scrutinised the record in order to determine whether opportunity was in fact given or not. Before we proceed further, the pleadings of the parties may be adverted to. It is stated in paragraph 14 of the petition, the petitioner requested the opposite party No. 2 personally five times for personal hearing of the case and he moved applications Annexure-8, 9 and 10. It is stated in paragraph 15 that the opposite party No. 2 did not fix any date for hearing nor gave opportunity to produce evidence and no date was fixed for hearing. The same has been reiterated in paragraph 19 of the petition in which it is stated that opposite party No. 2 did not give any opportunity of hearing and the petitioner was not informed about the date of hearing. The same allegations were reiterated in paragraphs 21 and 23 of the petition.
18. These averments made in paragraphs 14, 15, 18, 19, 21 and 32 of the writ petition are not controverted in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2. In paragraph 16 of counter-affidavit, it is stated that paragraph 15 of the writ petition is incorrect and full opportunity of hearing in accordance with law was given to the petitioners. In paragraph 17 of the counter-affidavit which is in reply to paragraph 16 of the writ petition is stated that the objection under Section 5A was disposed of in accordance with law and the statement made in paragraph under reply is incorrect, misconceived and misleading, hence specifically denied. In paragraph 19 of the counter-affidavit the contents of paragraph 18 of the writ petition is denied and it is said that there was no violation of any provision of Section 5A or any other Section of the Land Acquisition Act. In paragraph 20 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2 it is stated that the contents of paragraph 19 of the writ petition is specifically denied and that the objection under Section 5A of the petitioners were duly considered by the authorities in accordance with law and the same were referred to State Government for necessary action.
19. It will, thus, be seen that the allegations made by the petitioners have not been categorically denied and the reply submitted by opposite party No. 2 in the counter-affidavit is evasive. It is nowhere stated in the counter-affidavit that any particular date was fixed for the disposal of the objection filed by the petitioners under Section 5A of the Act.
20. During the course of the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners filed a rejoinder-affidavit of Sri Vijai Kumar Singh, Secretary of the Society and along with the affidavit, a copy of the order-sheets said to have been maintained by the S.L.A.O. was enclosed. The order-sheets are marked Annexure-RA-2, it was pointed out that admittedly the objections under Section 5A were filed on 17th January, 1997, but according to order-sheet, the objections were received on 13th January. 1997. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the objections were typed on 13th January, 1997 and the same date was mentioned at the bottom of the objections. Therefore, it is argued that an order-sheet purporting to have been written on 13th January, 1997 was manufactured.
21. It is further pointed out on behalf of the petitioners that the objection under Section 5A are said to have been disposed of on 24th March, 1997 according to order-sheet RA-2. It is rightly pointed out that 24th March. 1997 was a Gazetted holiday on account of Holi Festival. Being confronted with such a situation, an attempt was made on behalf of respondent No. 2 to say that 24th March. 1997 was not a Gazetted holiday and was a restricted holiday. Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav who is at present working as S.L.A.O. stated in paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit dated 17.7.1998 that 24th March. 1997 was a restricted holiday. On 26th August. 1998 in presence of S.L.A.O. Sri R.K. Yadav who had filed affidavit dated 17.7.1998, the learned standing counsel produced a certificate issued by the District Magistrate. Kanpur to the effect that 24th March, 1997 was a holiday due to Holi at Kanpur. In view of this certificate, Sri R.K. Yadav admitted that 24th March. 1997 was a holiday. The Court gave an opportunity to Sri R.K. Yadav to explain as to why he filed a wrong affidavit sworn on 17.7.1998. Sri. R.K. Yadav, therefore, filed another affidavit sworn on 27th August. 1998 in which he categorically admitted that the affidavit dated 17.7.1998 was based on official record and he filed that affidavit under a wrong impression. Sri R.K. Yadav tendered apology for the lapse on his part and prayed that he may be pardoned for the same.
22. It, therefore, becomes abundantly clear that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the objectors and the order-sheets relied upon by opposite party No. 2 are ante-dated and manipulated later on.
23. Sri Shyam Lal Singh Yadav who was the S.L.A.O. at the time and who is said to have decided the objections on 24th March, 1997 came out with a strange explanation and filed an affidavit sworn on 26th August. 1998 in which he stated that between 10th January, 1997 to 17th January, 1997, he received merely one thousand objections. So far as the village Bari Akbarpur is concerned, merely two hundred objections were filed and the S.L.A.O. asked the objectors "to come at their convenience and bring their evidence and they will be heard on the same day whenever they come". It is further stated by Sri Shyam Lal Singh Yadav in the affidavit that the objectors came on various dates in January, February and March. 1997 and they were informed that they must bring their evidence by the third week of January. February and March, 1997 when their objections were disposed of. He went on to say that each of the objectors appeared before him on 24th March. 1997. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit sworn by Sri Shyam Lal Singh Yadav on 26th August, 1998, it is said :
"That the deponent had told the objectors that he will not mind to decide their objections even on holiday and the deponent had requested the Kanpur Development Authority to keep the offices opened even on holidays in the afternoon when the deponent usually visits the office of the Kanpur Development Authority."
24. The contents of the affidavit of Sri Shyam Lal Singh Yadav, the then S.L.A.O. are astounding to say the least. He wishes this Court to believe that a Government office was functioning in such an informal manner that the objectors were free to come to the office on any date on which they like and they were free to come even on a holiday. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit, it is stated that the objectors agreed to come to the office on 24th March. 1997 because the colour throwing in Kanpur City on the occasion of Holi takes place on Ganga Dashahara Day. Therefore, the objections were decided on 24th March. 1997 with the consent of the objectors and none of the objectors had any objection in coming to the office on 24.3.1997.
25. For obvious reasons, this version of events cannot be believed. It may be mentioned at this stage that while issuing a certificate to the effect that 24th March. 1997 was a Gazetted holiday, the District Magistrate added on his own that some times work of urgent nature is done in Government offices even on Gazetted holidays. In this way, the District Magistrate laid foundation for the plea that though 24th March. 1997 was a Gazetted holiday, yet the office was opened on that date and the objections were disposed of after affording opportunity of hearing to the objectors. In order to further strengthen its case, the K.D.A. died a copy of the office order purporting to have been issued on 24th March, 1997 by the Secretary of Kanpur Development Authority. It is explained that the office of the S.L.A.O. is situated in the same building in which the office of K.D.A. is situated and, therefore, permission of the Secretary of the K.D.A. was required for opening the office of the S.L.A.O. on 24.3.1997. The order produced before us on 3rd September, 1998 states that S.L.A.O. has fixed 24th March. 1997 for the disposal of objections under Section 5A which is a Gazetted holiday on account of Holi Festival. For the quick disposal of the objections filed by the farmers, permission is accorded for opening the office on 24th March, 1997 so that S.L.A.O. may be able to decide the objections on the date fixed by him.
26. We failed to appreciate as to why the objections could not have been decided one day earlier or one day later. The only conclusion which can be drawn is that a back dated order-sheet was manufactured and without seeing the calendar, the objections were shown to have been disposed of on 24th March, 1997. When it was later on found that Gazetted holiday, an attempt was made to say that it was only a restricted holiday. When that attempt failed, a plea was raised that the matter was so urgent that it had to be disposed of on a holiday. Sri Shyam Lal Singh Yadav thought that it is better to stick to the false plea taken earlier. On the one hand Sri Shyam Lal Singh Yadav S.L.A.O. says in his affidavit dated 26.3.1998 that the objectors were told that they may come whenever they like even on a holiday and on the other hand, an office order is being produced to show that elaborate steps are required to be taken for opening a office on a holiday. It had to be done on Holi holiday which is celebrated with great gusto in whole of Northern India and more so at Kanpur.
27. We have come to the conclusion that 24th March, 1997 was not the date fixed and the objections were not heard on that dale. For preparing a manipulated order-sheet, some date was picked up at random and unfortunately for the S.L.A.O., it turned out to be a Gazetted holiday. At this date (24.3.1997) was the date fixed, there was no reason why this fact was not mentioned in paragraphs 16, 17, 19 and 20 of the counter-
affidavit which, as we have stated earlier, have purposely been left vague and are evasive in nature.
28. Now we come to the notices issued to the then S.L.A.O. Sri R.K. Yadav and the present S.L.A.O. Sri Shyam Lal Singh Yadav. So far as Sri R.K. Yadav is concerned, he has stated in his affidavit dated 17.7.1998 that 24th March, 1997 was a restricted holiday. As soon as he was faced with the certificate issued by the District Magistrate Sri R.K. Yadav admitted his mistake and he filed another affidavit on 27th August, 1998 stating that his earlier affidavit dated 17.7.1998 was wrong and it was sworn by him on the basis of official record which was communicated to him on telephone. Sri R.K, Yadav tendered apology which we are inclined to accept. Therefore, so far as Sri R.K. Yadav is concerned, a simple warning is sufficient and we hold that he shall take better care while filing affidavits before any Court.
29. The case of Sri Shyam Lal Singh Yadav stands on a different footing. Instead of admitting his wrong doing, he tried to support the stand taken by him by ante-dated order-sheet. He persisted in advancing the theory that at the time when the objections were filed, he told every objector to feel free and walk in whenever the objectors so desire. Sri Shyam Lal Singh Yadav further admitted that the objectors were free to come to his office on any holiday because it was his practice to go to his office in the afternoon on holidays also. We have already stated above that this theory cannot be believed by any reasonable person.
30. The law raises a presumption that all official acts are done in a regular manner. When instances come to the notice of Court that order-sheets are written in a back date, the confidence of Court in relying on official papers is shaken. The Court has evolved the method of taking evidence on affidavit for the speedy disposal of cases. If false affidavits can be sworn with impunity, the whole edifice will crumble down. We are, therefore, unable to take a lenient view in the case of Sri Shyam Lal Singh Yadav and we direct the Registry to file a complaint under Sections 193, 465, I.P.C. against Sri Shyam Lal Singh Yadav.
31. We regret to note that a senior officer like a Collector of the district not only connived at the filing of the false affidavit but also facilitated it by gratuitously stating in his certificate filed on 26.8.1998 that Government offices are opened on Gazetted holidays if the urgency of the matter so requires.
32. This Court is very reluctant to quash Notification issued under Section 4(1) and Notification under Section 6(1) of the Act because doing so will cause considerable delay in land acquisition proceedings and the work connected with the establishment of a big scheme like "New Kanpur City Scheme" will receive a set back. But the action of S.L.A.O. Sri Shyam Lal Singh Yadav leaves us with no other option.
33. In view of the above discussion, the above four writ petitions are allowed and the Notifications issued by the Collector. Kanpur Nagar, under Section 4(1) and under Section 6(1) of the Act are quashed in so far as they relate to the land belonging to the petitioners. The costs of these proceedings are assessed at Rs. 10,000 which will be paid to the petitioners by the respondents in the first instance. The respondents will be at liberty to realise this amount from Sri Shyam Lal Singh Yadav, against whom a complaint will be filed by the Registrar as directed in para 30 of the judgment.