Supreme Court Ruling on Land Acquisition Procedures and Section 15(2) Compliance

The case of Shiv Singh & Ors. v. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. deals with land acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act). The dispute arose when the State of Himachal Pradesh sought to acquire land from the appellants for the construction of a road, and the appellants contested the procedure followed by the Collector in not adhering to Section 15(2) of the RFCTLARR Act. The matter was brought to the Supreme Court after the High Court dismissed the appellants’ writ petition.

Background of the Case

The appellants owned land that was sought to be acquired by the State of Himachal Pradesh for the construction of a road from Bus Stand Ruhil to Upper Ruhil via Kuper. The land acquisition was initiated by a notification issued on 8 December 2015 under Section 11 of the RFCTLARR Act, with the objective of providing a public purpose. The appellants, upon receiving the notification, filed their objections to the acquisition on 5 January 2016, within the prescribed time under Section 15 of the Act.

According to Section 15 of the RFCTLARR Act, when objections are filed by the landowners, the Collector is required to decide on the objections after providing an opportunity for a hearing, and then submit a report to the appropriate government. However, the appellants argued that the Collector did not provide an opportunity to be heard and did not submit a report to the government, thus failing to comply with the mandatory provisions under Section 15(2) of the Act.

Arguments by the Appellant (Shiv Singh & Ors.)

The appellants, represented by their counsel, argued that:

• The Collector had failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements under Section 15(2) of the RFCTLARR Act, which calls for a hearing and a report to the government regarding landowner objections.
• The appellants had duly filed their objections, but the Collector did not provide the required hearing nor did the government receive the necessary report for further action, making the acquisition proceedings non-compliant with the Act.
• As the procedure was not followed correctly, the land acquisition process should be invalidated.

Arguments by the Respondent (The State of Himachal Pradesh)

The respondent, represented by the State’s counsel, argued that:

• The land acquisition was carried out following the proper legal framework, and the process was in compliance with the RFCTLARR Act.
• The appellants’ objections were considered by the authorities and rejected, thus following the procedural requirements of the Act.
• The appellants’ claim regarding the non-compliance with Section 15(2) was not substantiated by any documentary evidence, and therefore, the acquisition should proceed without further delay.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court, led by Justices R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, delivered a ruling that focused on the non-compliance of procedural requirements set forth in Section 15(2) of the RFCTLARR Act. The Court made the following key observations:

1. Non-Compliance with Section 15(2)

The Court held that the Collector had indeed failed to provide an opportunity for hearing to the appellants and had not submitted the required report to the government, as mandated by Section 15(2) of the RFCTLARR Act. The Court stated:

“The Collector did not give the appellants a hearing as prescribed under Section 15(2) of the Act, nor was there a report submitted to the government as required. This non-compliance renders the acquisition proceedings incomplete and in violation of the statutory provisions.”

2. Importance of Following Procedural Requirements

The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the procedural steps prescribed under the RFCTLARR Act for the acquisition process to be legally valid. Justice Sapre observed:

“The land acquisition process must be in strict compliance with the provisions of the Act. Procedural compliance ensures fairness and transparency, which is essential for the protection of the rights of the landowners.”

3. Remedy for the Violation

The Court found that the appellants had been prejudiced by the failure of the Collector to comply with the statutory procedure. As a result, the Court remanded the case for reconsideration, directing the Collector to decide on the objections raised by the appellants in accordance with Section 15(2) of the RFCTLARR Act. The Court ruled:

“We hereby remand the matter to the Collector, who is directed to decide the objections filed by the appellants keeping in mind the requirements of Section 15(2) of the RFCTLARR Act. The Collector must pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of this order.”

4. Remand for Further Consideration

The Court found that despite the procedural lapses, it would be unjust to annul the entire acquisition process. Instead, the Court decided to remand the case to the Collector with specific directions to follow the prescribed procedure. Justice Agrawal remarked:

“We do not find it appropriate to quash the acquisition proceedings entirely, but we direct the Collector to ensure that all objections are heard and addressed in accordance with the law.”

Final Ruling

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and remanded the case to the Collector with specific directions. The Court directed that:

• The Collector must reconsider the objections filed by the appellants and provide them with a hearing as required under Section 15(2) of the RFCTLARR Act.
• The Collector is to submit a report to the government after addressing the objections raised by the appellants.
• The matter should be decided within three months from the date of the Supreme Court’s order.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• The Court stressed the importance of procedural compliance in land acquisition matters and emphasized that statutory procedures must be followed to ensure the legitimacy of the process.
• Section 15(2) of the RFCTLARR Act mandates that landowners’ objections be heard and that the Collector submit a report to the government for appropriate action.
• The Court directed the Collector to re-evaluate the objections and pass appropriate orders, ensuring that the rights of the landowners were respected.
• The judgment highlights the importance of transparency and fairness in land acquisition proceedings to ensure justice for all affected parties.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case reaffirms the necessity for procedural fairness in land acquisition matters and sets a precedent for future cases involving similar issues. By ensuring that all statutory steps are followed, the Court reinforced the importance of protecting the rights of landowners and maintaining transparency in the acquisition process.

Petitioner Name: Shiv Singh & Ors..
Respondent Name: The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice R.K. Agrawal, Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.
Place Of Incident: Himachal Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 25-04-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Shiv Singh & Ors. vs The State of Himacha Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 25-04-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by R K Agrawal
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category