Full Judgment
M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges notification dated 19.9.2009 (P-2), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act') and declaration dated 6/7.1.2010 (P-4), made under Section 6 of the Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has filed objections under Section 5A of the Act on 25.9.2009 in the office of Land Acquisition Collector-respondent No. 2 against Diary No. 4815 (P-3). However, without affording an opportunity of hearing to him by the Land Acquisition Collector, declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been made.
2. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 it has been pointed out that the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 8/17.9.2009 for a public purpose i.e. for establishment of exclusive approach road for Central University, Punjab, in the revenue estate of Village Ghuda, Tehsil and District Bathinda. A total of 3 objections were received under Section 5A of the Act, including the objection filed by the petitioner. It has further been asserted that on 6.11.2009 all the three objectors including the petitioner came present voluntarily before the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Bathinda respondent No. 2 and hearing was afforded to them. However, the petitioner refused to sign the attendance sheet in token of his presence (R-1). Thus, it has been claimed that opportunity of hearing has been validly afforded to the petitioner and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In para 4 of the preliminary submissions of the written statement it has been conceded that since the petitioner was pursuing the objections daily in the office of the Collector, therefore, he was not issued formal process/summons for hearing of his objections. It has also come on record that on 12.11.2009, the Collector has sent his report to the Government-respondent No. 1 (R-2). However, the award is yet to be announced.
3. Mr. A.S. Virk, learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in view of categorical admission by the respondents that no notice under Section 5A of the Act was issued, it must be accepted that the principles of natural justice have been violated. In support of his submission, he has drawn our attention to the averments made in para 4 of the preliminary submissions of the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
4. In para 4 of the preliminary submissions of the written statement it is conceded as a fact that the objections under Section 5A of the Act were filed by the petitioner and no notice of hearing was given. It has been claimed that 'Since the petitioner was pursuing the objections daily in the office of the answering respondent, therefore, he was not issued formal process/summons for the hearing of his objections. After going through the objections filed by the petitioner and the report of the field staff and after hearing the petitioner in person on dated 6.11.2009 at length, a detailed report was sent to the Government/respondent No. 1...'.
5. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual situation, the question which fall for consideration is whether the principles of natural justice and the mandatory provisions of Section 5A of the Act have been violated or not. It is well settled that right of hearing contemplated by Section 5A is akin to fundamental rights and it is not an empty formality, as has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Darius Shapur Chenai : (2005) 7 SCC 627. The filing of objection is one thing and issuance of notice of hearing and then affording an opportunity of hearing either to the objector in person or through his counsel are mandatory stages implicit in Section 5A of the Act. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v. Lt. Governor of Delhi : (1975) 4 SCC 298 and Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad : (1976) 3 SCC 719. However, the question which arise for consideration in the instant petition has been answered in para 10 of the judgment in the case of Shyam Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar : (1993) 4 SCC 255. The following extract answers the question raised in the instant petition:
10. ...That the objection is to be in writing, is indicative of the fact that the enquiry into the objection is to focus his individual cause as well as public cause. That at the time of the enquiry, for which prior notice shall be essential, the objector has the right to appear in person or through pleader and substantiate his objection by evidence and argument. And lastly, since the decision of the Collector may turn out to be final, unless interfered with by the Government, suo motu or on application, the Collector's decision is that of a quasi-judicial authority, arrived at by quashi-judicial methods.
6. Viewed in the aforesaid observation of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the notification under Section 6 of the Act cannot survive.
7. Faced with aforesaid legal lapse, Mr. Suvir Sehgal, learned State counsel, after obtaining instructions from Shri K.P.S. Mahi, PCS, Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Bathinda, has stated at the bar that declaration dated 6/7.1.2010 (P-4) made under Section 6 of the Act may be permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the respondents to issue notice under Section 5A of the Act for grant of hearing to the petitioner and to proceed from that stage onward in accordance with law.
8. The aforesaid statement satisfies the learned Counsel for the petitioner and accordingly the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, dated 6/7.1.2010 (P-4) is quashed with liberty in terms of the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the respondents.
9. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.