IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.10205 of 2014 Between:
Sri Pradeep Singh Bagga, S/o. Late Sunaj Singh Bagga, Aged 53 years, Occ: Business & 2 others AND The Special Grade Deputy Collector & Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Rail Project, GHMC, Hyderabad, 4th Floor, Municipal Complex, Tank Bund, Hyderabad & 2 others .. Petitioners .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.10205 of 2014 ORDER:
The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners own property to an extent of 197.63 square yards with buildings already constructed bearing Municipal Nos.8-2-172 and 8-2-17, situated at St. Marys Road, Secunderabad, Section 4(1) notification was published in the Gazette, dated 21.10.2013, proposing to acquire property of the petitioners to an extent of 51.17 square yards from out of the total extent of property owned by the petitioners. Section 5-A notice was issued to the petitioners calling for petitioners’ objections. The petitioners filed objections, dated 09.11.2013. One of the objections raised by the petitioners was that the widening of the road on this stretch was not equally proposed on both sides of the road by taking the center point of the road as the basis. The petitioners also enclosed the relevant documents in support of their claim. Overruling the objection, an order was passed on 28.01.2014. However, the order is silent on the reasons for overruling the objection raised by the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is filed.
2. Based on the para-wise remarks, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the acquisition of land is made in accordance with the road development plan of the year 2004.
3. Under Section 5(A) of the Act, the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Rail Project (Special Grade Deputy Collector) has to conduct enquiry by giving opportunity to any person interested in the property proposed for acquisition. Section 5A(2) of the Act mandates Special Grade Deputy Collector to conduct enquiry by giving an opportunity to file objections by the persons interested in the property proposed for acquisition. The procedure of hearing incorporated in Section 5A of the Act, is a statutory safeguard provided to owner of the property proposed for acquisition and is a substantive provision. It is intended to eliminate arbitrariness and ensure fairness in such
[1]
acquisitions. In State of Pubjab Vs. Gurdian Singh , the Supreme Court held as under:
“….. it is fundamental that compulsory taking of a 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.”
4. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Surinder Singh Brar and others Vs.
[2]
Union of India and others , before seeking to acquire property of a person, there must be strict compliance of statutory provisions and such acquisition should not be made in arbitrary and discriminatory manner. It is held that proper enquiry must be held under section 5(A) of the Act by affording due opportunities to the owners of the properties, which were proposed for acquisition and acquisition must be done in fair and proper manner. It is held that Section 5(A) enquiry cannot be an empty formality and full fledged enquiry has to be held.
5. When hearing required to be given under Section 5(A)(2) of the Act is held to be effective and not an empty formality, a laconic order cannot be passed in pursuant to such enquiry.
6. The order which results in civil and evil consequences must contain detailed reasons for taking such course and reasons for not accepting the explanation submitted by the concerned persons. More particularly when a decision affects the right to own property and on compulsory acquisition, strict compliance of procedural formalities is mandatory and any violation thereof would vitiate the decision to acquire the private property. The order impugned has not assigned reasons on the specific objection of the petitioner that widening was not done equally on both sides. Whether objection was valid or not is a different matter, but an authority while passing an adverse order cannot withhold reasons which compelled it to pass an adverse order.
7. The Delhi High Court in Mekaster Trading Corporation Vs. Union of India (UOI)
[3]
and others on exhaustive consideration of the principles of law on the issue of assigning reasons and of providing an opportunity held that it is now well settled proposition of law that even the administrative authority is required to support its decision by reasons. The most impelling consideration for insistence upon disclosure of reasons in support of an order or decision is that it ensures proper application of mind, reduces the possibility of casualness and minimizes whim and caprice, and thereby serves to provide legal protection to persons against arbitrary official conduct. It is held as under:
“In short, the reasons must show that the decision maker successfully came to grips with the main contention advanced by the parties, and must tell the parties in broad terms why they lost, or as the case may be won. Reasons are links between materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusion drawn. They would disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter; whether done relevantly or rationally. Therefore, it would be sufficient if reasons indicate application of mind is discernible and mental process leading from the dispute to its solution is found in the order.”
8. Thus, the order being bereft of reasons, it has violated the mandate of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. It is, accordingly, set aside insofar as the petitioners are concerned. The matter is remitted back to the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad (1st respondent) to conduct Section 5-A enquiry afresh by giving due opportunity to the petitioners. As requested by both parties, the enquiry shall be held on 08.05.2014 in the Office of the first respondent. The first respondent shall intimate the time and place where the enquiry shall be held to the petitioners, a copy of which also can be served on the learned counsel for the petitioners and the petitioners shall appear on the said date and make their submissions. After considering the objections filed by the petitioners, the 1st respondent shall deal with the said objections and by duly assigning the reasons, he shall pass appropriate orders as warranted by law and communicate the decision to the petitioners.
9. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 25th April, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.10205 of 2014 Date: 25th April, 2014 KL
[1] (1980) 2 SCC 471
[2] 2013 (1) SCC 403
[3] 2003 (71) DRJ 376