Date of the Judgment: 25 April 2018
Citation: Shiv Singh & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2018) INSC 341
Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J., Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Can land acquisition proceedings be deemed valid if the Collector fails to adhere to the mandatory procedure of hearing objections and submitting a report as prescribed by law? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case concerning land acquisition in Himachal Pradesh. The Court found that the Collector’s non-compliance with Section 15(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, rendered the acquisition proceedings invalid. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, with the opinion authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.
Case Background
The case revolves around the acquisition of land belonging to the appellants in Himachal Pradesh. The State of Himachal Pradesh initiated proceedings to acquire approximately 1-00-49 hectares of land, along with other landowners’ lands, for the public purpose of constructing a road from Bus Stand Ruhil to Upper Ruhil via Kuper. The appellants, whose land was included in the acquisition, filed objections to the proposed acquisition on 05 January 2016, within the stipulated time under Section 15 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 08 December 2015 | Notification issued under Section 11 of the Act for land acquisition. |
| 05 January 2016 | Appellants filed objections to the proposed land acquisition under Section 15 of the Act. |
| 01 November 2016 | High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the writ petition challenging the land acquisition. |
| 25 April 2018 | Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellants challenged the land acquisition proceedings in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh by filing a writ petition. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition on 01 November 2016, upholding the land acquisition. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court of India against the High Court’s judgment.
Legal Framework
The case is governed by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Specifically, Section 11 of the Act deals with the issuance of a preliminary notification for land acquisition, and Section 15 outlines the procedure for filing and deciding objections to the proposed acquisition. According to Section 15(2) of the Act, after receiving objections, the Collector is required to:
- Afford an opportunity of being heard to the landowners who have submitted objections.
- Make further inquiry as deemed necessary.
- Submit a report to the appropriate Government for a decision on the acquisition.
The Supreme Court emphasized that compliance with Section 15(2) of the Act is mandatory for the validity of the acquisition proceedings.
Arguments
The appellants argued that the Collector failed to comply with the mandatory procedure under Section 15(2) of the Act. Specifically, the Collector did not provide them with an opportunity to be heard, nor did the Collector submit a report to the Government after considering their objections. The State of Himachal Pradesh, on the other hand, was unable to demonstrate that the Collector had complied with Section 15(2) of the Act. The State’s counter-affidavit also did not contain any averment to prove compliance with this provision.
| Submissions | Appellants’ Arguments | Respondents’ Arguments |
|---|---|---|
| Compliance with Section 15(2) of the Act | ✓ The Collector did not provide an opportunity to be heard. ✓ The Collector did not submit a report to the Government. |
✓ The State could not demonstrate compliance with Section 15(2). ✓ The counter-affidavit did not prove compliance. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The core issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the land acquisition proceedings were valid when the Collector failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 15(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, by not affording an opportunity of being heard to the landowners and not submitting a report to the Government.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the land acquisition proceedings were valid when the Collector failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 15(2) of the Act? | The Court held that the acquisition proceedings were invalid. | The Collector did not provide an opportunity to be heard to the appellants and did not submit a report to the Government as required by Section 15(2) of the Act. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not cite any specific case laws or books in this judgment. The primary focus was on the interpretation and application of Section 15(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
| Authority | Type | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Section 11, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 | Legal Provision | Mentioned as the provision under which the initial notification for land acquisition was issued. |
| Section 15, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 | Legal Provision | The Court focused on the mandatory procedure laid down in Section 15(2), emphasizing the need for the Collector to hear objections and submit a report. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| The Collector did not provide an opportunity to be heard to the appellants as required under Section 15(2) of the Act. | The Court agreed with the appellants’ submission, noting that there was no evidence of compliance with this requirement. |
| The Collector did not submit a report to the Government as required under Section 15(2) of the Act. | The Court agreed with the appellants’ submission, noting the absence of any report submitted by the Collector. |
The Court observed that the Collector did not comply with the mandatory procedure under Section 15(2) of the Act. The Court stated that,
“In this case, we find that the Collector neither gave any opportunity to the appellants as contemplated under Section 15(2) of the Act and nor submitted any report as provided under Section 15(2) of the Act to the Government so as to enable the Government to take appropriate decision. In other words, we find that there is non-compliance of Section 15(2) of the Act by the Collector.”
The Court concluded that this non-compliance rendered the land acquisition proceedings invalid. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and directed the Collector to decide the appellants’ objections afresh, in accordance with Section 15(2) of the Act, within three months.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the principle of adherence to statutory procedure. The Court emphasized that the Collector’s failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 15(2) of the Act, specifically the failure to provide a hearing and submit a report, was a critical flaw that invalidated the entire acquisition process. The Court’s reasoning was rooted in the need to ensure transparency and fairness in land acquisition proceedings, protecting the rights of landowners against arbitrary actions. The Court did not delve into other issues, focusing solely on the procedural lapse.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Procedural Compliance | 70% |
| Fairness and Transparency | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Court’s reasoning was straightforward: the Collector’s failure to adhere to the mandatory procedure under Section 15(2) of the Act, specifically the failure to provide a hearing and submit a report, was a critical flaw that invalidated the entire acquisition process. The Court emphasized that compliance with the statutory procedure is essential to ensure fairness and transparency in land acquisition.
The Court stated, “In our view, it is mandatory on the part of the Collector to comply with the procedure prescribed under Section 15(2) of the Act so as to make the acquisition proceedings legal and in conformity with the provisions of the Act.”
The Court further stated, “The aforementioned aspect of the case does not appear to have been taken note of by the High Court, resulting in dismissal of the appellants’ writ petition requiring interference by this Court.”
The Court concluded, “We hereby direct the respondent No.2 herein (Collector, Winter Field, Shimla-3 HP) to decide the objections filed by the appellants on 05.01.2016 keeping in view the requirements of Section 15(2) of the Act and pass appropriate orders.”
Key Takeaways
- Mandatory Procedure: The judgment underscores the mandatory nature of the procedure prescribed under Section 15(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
- Collector’s Duty: The Collector must provide an opportunity to be heard to landowners who have filed objections and must submit a report to the Government.
- Invalid Acquisition: Non-compliance with the mandatory procedure renders the land acquisition proceedings invalid.
- Protection of Landowners’ Rights: The judgment reinforces the importance of protecting the rights of landowners in land acquisition proceedings.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the Collector, Winter Field, Shimla-3 HP, to decide the objections filed by the appellants on 05 January 2016, in accordance with the requirements of Section 15(2) of the Act, within three months from the date of the order.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 15(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, specifically the failure to provide a hearing and submit a report, renders the land acquisition proceedings invalid. This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural compliance in land acquisition and ensures that the rights of landowners are protected. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the Court has reiterated the importance of following the procedure laid down in the Act.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Shiv Singh & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. highlights the critical importance of adhering to the mandatory procedures outlined in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Court’s decision to quash the land acquisition proceedings due to the Collector’s non-compliance with Section 15(2) serves as a reminder of the need for transparency and fairness in land acquisition, safeguarding the rights of landowners against arbitrary actions.
Category
Parent Category: Land Acquisition Law
Child Category: Section 15, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Parent Category: Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Child Category: Section 15, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
FAQ
Q: What is the main issue in the Shiv Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh case?
A: The main issue was whether land acquisition proceedings were valid when the Collector did not follow the mandatory procedure of hearing objections and submitting a report as required by Section 15(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Q: What does Section 15(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 require?
A: Section 15(2) requires the Collector to provide an opportunity to be heard to the landowners who have filed objections and to submit a report to the Government after making further inquiry.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court decided that the land acquisition proceedings were invalid because the Collector did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 15(2) of the Act.
Q: What does this judgment mean for landowners?
A: This judgment means that landowners have a right to be heard and that the Collector must follow the correct legal procedure in land acquisition cases. If these procedures are not followed, the acquisition can be challenged and potentially invalidated.
Q: What should a landowner do if they have objections to a proposed land acquisition?
A: Landowners should file their objections within the stipulated time and ensure that the Collector follows the procedure laid down in Section 15(2) of the Act. If the Collector does not follow the procedure, the landowner can challenge the acquisition in court.