Safiya Malik

The Bombay High Court has set aside an award issued in a land acquisition case concerning a property in Nashik, citing non-compliance with statutory procedures under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The court held that the petitioners were not granted the statutorily mandated opportunity for a personal hearing before the award was passed.

The matter was heard by Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain. The bench considered two writ petitions challenging an award dated November 23, 2023, issued in Land Acquisition Case No. 05 of 2022. The petitions were filed by a public trust and its trustees, contesting the acquisition of 17,955 square meters of land situated in Nashik. The petitioners contended that the procedural requirements under Sections 21 and 23 of the 2013 Act were not followed, thereby rendering the award legally untenable.

Also Read: 'Extrajudicial confession Lacks Credibility, Circumstances Not Proved' : Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused

The dispute arose from the acquisition of the petitioners' land through proceedings initiated by the Nashik District Collector. A notice dated June 16, 2023, was issued under Section 21(2) of the 2013 Act, requiring the petitioners to submit objections and appear for a personal hearing before the Collector on June 27, 2023. The petitioners argued that this notice did not comply with the statutory requirement of providing a minimum of 30 days for response and appearance.

The petitioners, through their advocate, filed objections on July 3, 2023, which was within the required 30-day period. However, the award was subsequently issued on November 23, 2023, without granting them an opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s. Tirupati Developers v. The Union of Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli & Ors., which emphasized that statutory provisions granting a right to be heard must be adhered to strictly.

In response, the respondents, represented by Additional Government Pleader Kedar Dogje, contended that the objections filed by the petitioners had been duly considered while making the award. They argued that since the petitioners had also sought a reference under Section 64 of the Act for enhanced compensation, the writ petitions should not be entertained.

The court examined the statutory provisions governing the land acquisition process. Section 21(2) of the 2013 Act mandates that affected parties must be given a minimum of 30 days' notice before appearing for a hearing. The court noted:

"Section 21(2) explicitly provides that such a date must not be less than 30 days from the notice's publication date. In the present case, the notice was published on June 16, 2023, but the date and time fixed were only June 27, 2023, much less than the minimum 30-day period provided under Section 21(2) of the said Act."

Furthermore, the court found that the lack of a personal hearing constituted a significant procedural violation. While the respondents argued that the petitioners' written objections were considered, the court held that this did not substitute the right to a personal hearing. The bench observed:

"The mere consideration of the objections filed by the Petitioner through its lawyer would not be a substitute for the fair opportunity of hearing either to the Petitioner’s representatives or the Petitioner’s advocate in terms of the statutory scheme of the said Act."

The court also referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors., which reaffirmed that the right to property, though no longer a fundamental right, is still protected under Article 300-A of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that due process must be followed in all instances of deprivation of property. The Bombay High Court observed:

"Despite its spatial placement, Article 300-A, which declares that ‘no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law,’ has been characterised both as a constitutional and also a human right."

It further held that procedural safeguards, including the right to be heard, must be strictly followed in land acquisition matters.

Also Read: Madras High Court Upholds University Headship Rotation Policy, States ‘Merit Assessment is of Paramount Importance’ and Ensures ‘Equal Opportunity Among Senior Professors'

Based on these findings, the court quashed the impugned award and directed the respondents to provide the petitioners with a fresh hearing before issuing a new award. The order stated:

"Accordingly, the Petitioner should now appear before the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) on March 21, 2025, at 3.00 pm. On this date, the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) must hear the Petitioner’s representative or advocate on the objections already filed by the Petitioner/their advocate on July 3, 2023. The Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) must make a fresh Award by April 30, 2025. We direct accordingly."

Additionally, the court noted that since the original award had been set aside, the petitioners would withdraw their reference under Section 64 of the 2013 Act.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For Petitioners: Anil Ahuja, assisted by Bhavna Khemani and Komal Ahuja, Advocates.

For Respondents:  Kedar Dogje, Additional Government Pleader assisted by Assistant Government Pleader M.S. Bane.

Case Title: Shree Nasik Panchavati Panjrapole & Ors. v. The District Collector, Nashik & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:10897-DB
Case Number: WP No. 11299 of 2024 & WP No. 11278 of 2024
Bench: Justice M.S. Sonak & Justice Jitendra Jain

[Read/Download order]