# NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2019] 10 S.C.R. 88
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-08-13
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 6270 of 2019
- **Bench:** Abhay Manohar Sapre, Indu Malhotra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/nareshbhai-bhagubhai-ors-v-union-of-india-ors-32993
- **Pages:** 37

## Headnote

Railways Act, 1989: ss. 20D - Hearing of objections - Noncompliance of s. 20D(2) - Effect of - Acquisition of 131 kms of
land including 6 kms of land of the appellant for public purpose of
construction of a Special Railway Project-Western Dedicated Freight
Corridor in District Surat - Plea of the appellant-land owners that
no order was passed on the objections raised by them in accordance
with s. 20D(2) - Appellant sought quashing of the Notification issued
u/s. 20A and declaration issued u/s. 20E - Dismissal of the
applications by the High Court - On appeal, held: Limited right
given to a land-owner/interested person to file objections, and be
granted a personal hearing u/s.20D cannot be reduced to an empty
formality, or a mere eye-wash by the Competent Authority -
Competent Authority was duty-bound to consider the objections
raised by the appellants, and pass a reasoned order reflecting
application of mind to the objections raised by the land-owners -
On facts, file noting contained in an internal office file, or in the
report submitted by the Competent Authority to the Central
Government, would not constitute a valid order in the eyes of law -
There was no order whatsoever passed rejecting the objections,
after the personal hearing was concluded - Competent Authority
did not communicate the contents of the file noting to the appellants
at any stage of the proceedings - The said file noting recording
rejection of the objections only on the ground that the matter
pertained to an infrastructure project for public utility, came to light
when the matter was pending before the High Court, and the original
files were summoned - In any event, the order u/s. 20D(2) cannot
be passed prior to the personal hearing - In the absence of an
order passed u/s. 20D(2), the subsequent steps taken in the
 [2019] 10 S.C.R. 88
88
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
89
acquisition would get invalidated - However, remaining stretch of
land comprising of 125 kms on acquisition, stands vested in the
Government and pre-construction activity and earth work has been
completed on most parts of the stretch - In order to balance the
right of the appellants on the one hand, and the larger public
purpose on the other, the appellants to be compensated as per the
current market value of the land - Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is abundantly clear that in the absence of an
order being passed as contemplated by Section 20D of the
Railways Act, no further steps could have been taken by the
Competent Authority in the acquisition in question. Section 20D
is a mandatory provision which confers a substantive and valuable
right on the land-owners, to object to the proposed acquisition,
before they are forcibly divested of their right, title and interest
in the land by an expropriatory legislation. The right to file
objections under Section 20D of the Railways Act, 1989 is pari
materia to Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 even
though the scope of objections may be more limited. The
judgments rendered by this Court on the nature of the right to
object under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are equally applicable
to the Railways Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 20D mandates the
Competent Authority to give the objectors an opportunity of
hearing, either in person or through a legal practitioner. The
Competent Authority after hearing all objections, and after making
such further enquiry, if any, is mandated to pass an order either
allowing or disallowing the objections. It has been held by this
Court that the rules of natural justice have been ingrained in the
scheme of Section 5-A of the 1894 Act with a view to ensure that
before any person is forcibly deprived of his land by way of
compulsory acquisition, he must be provided with an opportunity
to oppose the decision of the Government; and that the hearing
given to a person must be an effective one, and not a mere
formality. Formation of opinion with regard to the public purpose,
as als

## Text

_Characters 0–39,285 of 68,434. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39285 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
88
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI & ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6270 of 2019)
AUGUST 13, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Railways Act, 1989: ss. 20D - Hearing of objections - Noncompliance of s. 20D(2) - Effect of - Acquisition of 131 kms of
land including 6 kms of land of the appellant for public purpose of
construction of a Special Railway Project-Western Dedicated Freight
Corridor in District Surat - Plea of the appellant-land owners that
no order was passed on the objections raised by them in accordance
with s. 20D(2) - Appellant sought quashing of the Notification issued
u/s. 20A and declaration issued u/s. 20E - Dismissal of the
applications by the High Court - On appeal, held: Limited right
given to a land-owner/interested person to file objections, and be
granted a personal hearing u/s.20D cannot be reduced to an empty
formality, or a mere eye-wash by the Competent Authority -
Competent Authority was duty-bound to consider the objections
raised by the appellants, and pass a reasoned order reflecting
application of mind to the objections raised by the land-owners -
On facts, file noting contained in an internal office file, or in the
report submitted by the Competent Authority to the Central
Government, would not constitute a valid order in the eyes of law -
There was no order whatsoever passed rejecting the objections,
after the personal hearing was concluded - Competent Authority
did not communicate the contents of the file noting to the appellants
at any stage of the proceedings - The said file noting recording
rejection of the objections only on the ground that the matter
pertained to an infrastructure project for public utility, came to light
when the matter was pending before the High Court, and the original
files were summoned - In any event, the order u/s. 20D(2) cannot
be passed prior to the personal hearing - In the absence of an
order passed u/s. 20D(2), the subsequent steps taken in the
 [2019] 10 S.C.R. 88
88
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
89
acquisition would get invalidated - However, remaining stretch of
land comprising of 125 kms on acquisition, stands vested in the
Government and pre-construction activity and earth work has been
completed on most parts of the stretch - In order to balance the
right of the appellants on the one hand, and the larger public
purpose on the other, the appellants to be compensated as per the
current market value of the land - Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is abundantly clear that in the absence of an
order being passed as contemplated by Section 20D of the
Railways Act, no further steps could have been taken by the
Competent Authority in the acquisition in question. Section 20D
is a mandatory provision which confers a substantive and valuable
right on the land-owners, to object to the proposed acquisition,
before they are forcibly divested of their right, title and interest
in the land by an expropriatory legislation. The right to file
objections under Section 20D of the Railways Act, 1989 is pari
materia to Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 even
though the scope of objections may be more limited. The
judgments rendered by this Court on the nature of the right to
object under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are equally applicable
to the Railways Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 20D mandates the
Competent Authority to give the objectors an opportunity of
hearing, either in person or through a legal practitioner. The
Competent Authority after hearing all objections, and after making
such further enquiry, if any, is mandated to pass an order either
allowing or disallowing the objections. It has been held by this
Court that the rules of natural justice have been ingrained in the
scheme of Section 5-A of the 1894 Act with a view to ensure that
before any person is forcibly deprived of his land by way of
compulsory acquisition, he must be provided with an opportunity
to oppose the decision of the Government; and that the hearing
given to a person must be an effective one, and not a mere
formality. Formation of opinion with regard to the public purpose,
as also suitability thereof, must be preceded by application of
mind having due regard to the relevant factors. Section 5-A of
NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
90
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 confers a valuable right on the
land-owners. Having regard to the provisions contained in Article
300-A of the Constitution, the right to raise and file objections
has been held to be akin to a fundamental right. [Para 10.1, 11]
[109-C-D; G-H; 110-A-F]
1.2 The limited right given to a land-owner/interested
person to file objections, and be granted a personal hearing under
Section 20D cannot be reduced to an empty formality, or a mere
eye-wash by the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority
was duty-bound to consider the objections raised by the
appellants, and pass a reasoned order, which should reflect
application of mind to the objections raised by the land-owners.
In the instant case, there has been a complete dereliction of duty
by the Competent Authority in passing a reasoned order on the
objections raised by the Appellants. No order as contemplated in
the eyes of law was passed by the Competent Authority in deciding
the objections raised by the appellants. A statutory authority
discharging a quasi-judicial function is required to pass a reasoned
order after due application of mind. [Para 11.1, 11.2] [112-D-H]
1.3 A valid order must be a reasoned order, which is duly
communicated to the parties. The file noting contained in an
internal office file, or in the report submitted by the Competent
Authority to the Central Government, would not constitute a valid
order in the eyes of law. In the instant case, there was no order
whatsoever passed rejecting the objections, after the personal
hearing was concluded on 30.07.2011. The Competent Authority
did not communicate the contents of the file noting to the
Appellants at any stage of the proceedings. The said file noting
came to light when the matter was pending before the High Court,
and the original files were summoned. The High Court, upon a
perusal of the files, came across the file noting recording rejection
of the objections only on the ground that the matter pertained to
an infrastructure project for public utility. [Para 11.3] [119-A-H]
1.4 The respondents submitted that the mandate of the law
is that the order on the objections is required to be passed by
the Competent Authority "after the personal hearing" is granted.
The respondents had filed an Affidavit dated 17.07.2018 before
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
91
the High Court wherein it was stated that the reply given vide
letter dated 15.07.2011 does not indicate the decision/order/predetermination of the Competent Authority. The Competent
Authority had informed the objectors to remain present with all
material documents at the time of personal hearing, the date of
which would be notified later. The Union of India submitted that
the letter dated 15.07.2011 was an order passed under Section
20D(2) of the Act. The stand taken by the respondents before
the High Court and this Court is completely contradictory, and
cannot be accepted. [Para 11.4] [120-G-H; 121-A-C]
1.5 In any event, the order under Section 20D(2) cannot be
passed prior to the personal hearing. The mandate of the law is
that the order must be passed "after" the grant of personal
hearing, and after any further enquiry is made by the Competent
Authority. The whole process of granting a personal hearing would
be reduced to an empty formality and a farcical exercise, if the
order on the objections precedes the grant of personal hearing.
This would be clearly contrary to the provisions of Section 20D(2)
of the Act. It is well settled that where a statute provides for a
thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in
that manner and in no other manner. The provisions of an
expropriatory legislation, which compulsorily deprives a person
of his right to property without his consent, must be
strictly construed. The Railways Act, 1989 being an expropriatory
legislation, its provisions have to be strictly construed. [Para 11.5]
[121-D-G; 122-A]
1.6 The Competent Authority being a quasi-judicial
authority, is obligated by law to act in conformity with mandatory
statutory provisions. This is the only opportunity made available
to a land-owner, as on submission of the Report to the Central
Government, there is no further consideration that takes place.
The Central Government acts upon the Report of the Competent
Authority, and issues the Declaration under Section 20E of the
said Act. This is in contradistinction with the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act requires the satisfaction of Central Government before the
Declaration is issued. In the absence of an order passed u/s
NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
92
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
20D(2), the subsequent steps taken in the acquisition would
consequentially get invalidated. [Para 11.6, 11.7] [122-A-D]
1.7 The challenge before this Court has been made by the
appellants with respect to a stretch of land admeasuring
approximately 6 kms, out of the total stretch of 131 kms. The
remaining stretch of land comprising of 125 kms has been
acquired, and stands vested in the Government. The respondents
have stated on affidavit that pre-construction activity and earth
work has been completed on most parts of the stretch.
Furthermore, most of the bridges are either in progress, or have
already been completed. Appellants' counsel submitted that since
the land was being acquired for a public utility project, his clients
would be satisfied if they were granted compensation by awarding
the current rate for acquisition of land. Admittedly, no mala fides
have been alleged by the appellants against the respondents in
the acquisition proceedings. The larger public purpose of a railway
project would not be served if the Notification under Section 20A
is quashed. The public purpose of the acquisition is the
construction and operation of a Special Railway Project viz. the
Western Dedicated Freight Corridor in District Surat, Gujarat.
In these extraordinary circumstances, it is deemed fit to balance
the right of the appellants on the one hand, and the larger public
purpose on the other, by compensating the appellants for the
right they have been deprived of. The interests of justice persuade
to adopt this course of action. In the instant case, the relief is
being moulded by granting compensation to the appellants, to be
assessed under Section 20G of the said Act as per the current
market value of the land. The Competent Authority is directed
to compute the amount of compensation on the basis of the
current market value of the land, which may be determined with
reference to Section 20G(2) of the Act. [Para 12] [122-E-H]
1.8 With respect to the remaining 125 kms stretch of land,
the land-owners were satisfied with the amount awarded, and
have not approached this Court. Under these circumstances,
despite the finding that the respondents have breached the
mandatory provisions of the Act, this is not a fit case to set aside
the entire acquisition proceedings. [Para 13] [124-B-C]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
93
Union of India v. Shivraj (2014) 6 SCC 564 : [2014]
8 SCR 751 ; Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius
Shapur Chenai (2005) 7 SCC 627 : [2005] 3 Suppl.
SCR 388 ; Om Prakash v. State of U.P. (1998) 6 SCC
1 : [1998] 3 SCR 643 ; Laxmi Devi v. State of Bihar
(2015) 10 SCC 241 : [2015] 11 SCR 179 ; Raghbir
Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 792
: [2011] 14 SCR 1113 ; Usha Stud & Agricultural Farms
(P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2013) 4 SCC 210 : [2013]
5 SCR 645 ; Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood
Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 : [2010] 10 SCR 1070
; Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 395
: [1962] Suppl. SCR 713 ; Shanti Sports Club v. Union
of India (2009) 15 SCC 705 : [2009] 13 SCR 710 ;
Sethi Auto Service Station v. DDA (2009) 1 SCC 180 :
[2008] 14 SCR 598 ; Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State
of Vindhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 322 : [1954]
SCR 1038 ; State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh AIR 1964
SC 358 : [1964] SCR 485 ; J&K Housing Board v.
Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul (2011) 10 SCC 714 :
[2011] 14 SCR 976 ; Kunwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P.
(2007) 5 SCC 85 : [2007] 4 SCR 409 ; Jilubhai
Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat (1995) Supp (1)
SCC 596 : [1994] 1 Suppl. SCR 807 ; Khub Chand
v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 1074 : [1967] SCR
120 ; CCE v. Orient Fabrics (P) Ltd. (2004) 1 SCC
597 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 243 ; Indore Vikas
Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd.
(2007) 8 SCC 705 : [2007] 6 SCR 799 ; Savitri Devi v.
State of U.P. & Ors. (2015) 7 SCC 21 : [2015]
7 SCR 512 - referred to.
Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor (1875) LR 1 Ch D 426
- referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 8 SCR 751
referred to
Para 11
[2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 388
referred to
Para 11
NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
94
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
[1998] 3 SCR 643
referred to
Para 11
[2015] 11 SCR 179
referred to
Para 11.2
[2011] 14 SCR 1113
referred to
Para 11.2
[2013] 5 SCR 645
referred to
Para 11.2
[2010] 10 SCR 1070
referred to
Para 11.2
[1962] Suppl. SCR 713
referred to
Para 11.3
[2009] 13 SCR 710
referred to
Para 11.3
[2008] 14 SCR 598
referred to
Para 11.3
[1954] SCR 1038
referred to
Para 11.5
[1964] SCR 485
referred to
Para 11.5
[2011] 14 SCR 976
referred to
Para 11.5
[2007] 4 SCR 409
referred to
Para 11.5
[1994] 1 Suppl. SCR 807
referred to
Para 11.5
[1967] SCR 120
referred to
Para 11.5
[2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 243
referred to
Para 11.5
[2007] 6 SCR 799
referred to
Para 11.5
[2015] 7 SCR 512
referred to
Para 12
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 62706273 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2018 by the High Court
of Gujarat in Special Leave Application Nos. 19409/2015, 12711/2016,
14000/2016 and 14001/2016.
C. A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv., C. G. Sharma, Galav C. Sharma, Ms.
Rohini Musa, Abhishek Gupta, Zafar Inayat, Arjun Singh, Nachiketa
Joshi, Advs. for the Appellants.
Sanjay Jain, ASG, Durga Dutt, Ms. Rekha Pandey, Arun Kumar
Yadav, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Ms. Kumud Lata Das, Ms. Indu Kaul, Ravi
Agrawal, A. P. Mayee, A. Rajarajan, Sanjeev Kr. Choudhary, Advs. for
the Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
95
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
INDU MALHOTRA, J. Leave granted.
1. The present Civil Appeals have been filed to challenge the
Final Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the Gujarat High
Court, whereby the Special Civil Application Nos. 19409 of 2015, 12711
of 2016, 14000 of 2016, and 14001 of 2016 have been dismissed.
2. Since a common issue arises in all 4 Civil Appeals, they are
being disposed of by the present common Judgment and Order.
3. The factual matrix in which the present Civil Appeals have
been filed is as under :
3.1.
On 08.02.2011, a Notification was issued under Section
20A of the Railways Act, 1989 [hereinafter referred to
as "the said Act"] by the Ministry of Railways notifying
its intention to acquire the lands specified in 18 Villages,
situated in District Surat, Gujarat for the public purpose
of construction of the Western Dedicated Freight
Corridor. The total land under acquisition was a stretch
of 131 kms.
 The land owned by the Appellants, comprising of
approximately 6 kms, was included under the Notification.
3.2.
The Appellants along with other land-owners filed written
Objections between 06.04.2011 and 07.04.2011 under
Section 20D(1) of the Act before the Competent
Authority/ Special Land Acquisition Officer, Surat
[hereinafter referred to as "the Competent Authority"],
Surat to challenge the proposed acquisition.
3.3.
The Competent Authority vide letter dated 15.07.2011,
informed the land-owners that the acquisition was for a
necessary public purpose i.e. the development of the
Western Dedicated Freight Corridor. It was stated that
compensation would be paid to all affected land-owners
in accordance with Sections 20F and 20G of the Railways
Act, 1989.
NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
96
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
 The land-owners were asked to remain present with
necessary proofs at the time of personal hearing, the
date of which would be intimated to them.
3.4.
The Competent Authority vide letter dated 19.07.2011,
directed the land-owners to appear for a personal hearing
on the Objections on 30.07.2011.
3.5.
The land-owners appeared before the Competent
Authority on 30.07.2011 for personal hearing, and
submitted further written Objections on 31.07.2011.
3.6.
The Competent Authority submitted its Report to the
Central Government under Section 20E(1) of the Act on
03.01.2012.
 On 06.02.2012, the Ministry of Railways issued a
Notification under Section 20E(1) of the Railways Act,
1989 stating that 59 Objections had been received in
respect of the proposed acquisition, which had been
considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority.
3.7.
On 06.02.2013 and 07.02.2013, Awards were passed
by the Competent Authority under Section 20F of the
Railways Act, 1989.
3.8.
On 13.08.2013, Shri Ghanshyamsinh Gambhirsinh Vashi,
a land-owner, filed an RTI Application before the
Competent Authority seeking a certified copy of the
Order passed on the Objections filed by the land-owners.
3.9.
The Competent Authority replied to the said RTI
Application on 05.09.2013, and stated that the reply to
the Objections raised by the land-owners had already
been communicated vide letter dated 15.07.2011.
3.10.
The Appellants herein challenged the acquisition
proceedings by filing Special Civil Application Nos. 19409
of 2015, 12711 of 2016, 14000 of 2016, and 14001 of
2016 before the Gujarat High Court.
 The principal ground of challenge raised by the
Appellants was that no Order had been passed on the
Objections in accordance with Section 20D(2) of the
said Act.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
97
 The Appellants prayed for quashing and setting aside
the Notification issued under Section 20A on 08.02.2011,
and the Declaration issued under Section 20E on
06.02.2012.
3.11.
During the pendency of the proceedings, the High Court
vide Interim Order dated 12.07.2018, directed the
Respondents to file an Affidavit giving specific details
pertaining to the disposal of the Objections after personal
hearing was granted on 30.07.2011.
3.12.
The Chief Project Manager, Dedicated Freight Corridor
Corporation of India Limited filed Affidavit dated
17.07.2018 on behalf of the Respondents before the High
Court, wherein it was stated that :
"4. I state that the clarification/reply given vide
letter dated 15/7/2011 does not indicate the
decision/order/predetermination of the Competent
Authority. The Competent Authority has merely
clarified the purpose of acquisition and provision
of Railway Amendment Act 2008 to be considered
while awarding compensation. On the contrary,
in the said letter dated 15/7/2011, the Competent
Authority has clearly informed the objector to
remain present with all the relevant documents on
a date which was to be intimated later.
...
8. I state that the Competent Authority, after
hearing all the objectors of land under
acquisition, has passed two orders dated 28//11/
2011 and 3/1/2012 disallowing all the objections
raised by the objectors in public interest. Annexed
hereto and marked as Annexure VI Colly. Are the
copies of the orders dated 28/11/2011 as well as
3/1/2012."
3.13. The High Court vide Final Judgment and Order dated
25.07.2018 dismissed the Special Civil Applications filed
by the Appellants.
NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI v. UNION OF INDIA
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
98
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
 The Court took the view that in matters involving
highly technical and scientific fields, courts would be
extremely slow in overruling the decision taken by the
Government after due deliberation. Unless it was pointed
out that relevant considerations were not properly
weighed, or that the decision was blatantly mala fide,
courts would not attempt to substitute their understanding
of such complex subjects for that of the Government.
The Appellants failed to produce any material to support
their objection that the proposed railway line was not
advisable.
 It was, however, held that Section 20D of the Act
confers a valuable right on a person interested in the
land under acquisition, to raise objections, and be heard
on such objections. The objections raised by a person
interested have to be considered and disposed of, after
a hearing is given by the competent authority. If the
objections received by persons interested have not been
disallowed by the competent authority, it would not be
open for the Central Government to proceed to issue
the Declaration under Section 20E(1) of the Act.
 The High Court recorded its concern about the manner
in which the entire matter was dealt with by the
Respondents. The land-owners were informed that their
objections were not valid even prior to the personal
hearing took place.
 After the personal hearing took place on 30.07.2011,
the Competent Authority disposed of the objections on
the office file, but never conveyed the decision to the
objectors. The Competent Authority had not fulfilled the
important stage of disposal of the objections prior to the
Declaration being issued under Section 20E.
 It was further observed that the Competent Authority
gave a completely wrong reply to the RTI Application
filed by the land-owners. This was an act of utter
carelessness which had serious ramifications.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
99
 The Competent Authority vide Report dated
03.01.2012, informed the Chief Project Manager,
Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited
that all the Objections raised by the Appellants were
heard at length, and orally answered.
 The Special Civil Applications were dismissed by the
High Court, and the Competent Authority was directed
to pay Costs of Rs. 50,000/- in each of the Special Civil
Applications.
3.14.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment, the Appellant -
Land-owners filed the present Civil Appeals.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and perused
the pleadings and written submissions filed by the parties.
5. Mr. C. A. Sundaram, Senior Counsel appearing for the
Appellants inter alia submitted that :
5.1.
The Objections raised by the Appellants were not decided
in accordance with the provisions of Section 20D(2) of
the Act. The non-compliance of the same would render
the entire acquisition proceedings null and void.
5.2.
It was further submitted that the Reply dated 05.09.2013
given by the Respondents to the RTI Application filed
by the land-owners, clearly showed that there was no
application of mind on the part of the Respondents. The
said Reply simply stated that the Order disposing of the
Objections raised by the land-owners had already been
communicated to them on 15.07.2011.
5.3.
The letter dated 15.07.2011 cannot be construed to be
an Order as contemplated by Section 20D(2) of the Act,
since it was issued prior to the personal hearing which
took place on 30.07.2011, and filing of the final objections
on 31.07.2011.
5.4.
The letter dated 15.07.2011 was not an Order, but merely
a direction to the Appellants to remain present with
necessary proofs and documents at a time and date which
would be subsequently intimated.
NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI v. UNION OF INDIA
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
100
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
5.5.
It was submitted that even though the land-owners were
granted a personal hearing, there was no order passed
either allowing or disallowing the objections as per the
mandate of S. 20 D(2) of the Act.
5.6.
The orders dated 28.11.2011 and 03.01.2012 were not
communicated to the land-owners. They were merely
notations made on the internal files of the Competent
Authority.
 The rejection of the Objections vide an endorsement
or file noting would not constitute an order in the eyes of
the law. An order passed by a statutory authority must
be a speaking order supported by cogent reasons, which
is required to be communicated to the objectors.
6. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Additional Solicitor General appearing for the
Union of India inter alia submitted that :
6.1.
The land acquisition proceedings in the present case
have been undertaken in compliance with Chapter IV A
of the Railways Act, 1989.
6.2.
Chapter IV A of the Railways Act, 1989 is a selfcontained code. The Court should not resort to, or seek
the aid of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to interpret the
provisions of the Railways Act, particularly since Section
20N of the Act makes the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 inapplicable to acquisitions under
the Railways Act.
6.3.
The process for filing objections under Section 20D(2)
of the Act is two-fold. First, the Competent Authority
permits objections to be filed within 30 days of the
publication of the Notification under Section 20A by the
Central Government notifying its intention to acquire land.
 Thereafter, the Competent Authority has the discretion
to call for a personal hearing in order to conduct a further
enquiry if deemed necessary.
6.4.
In the present case, the Objections raised by the
Appellants were received in writing on 06.04.2011. The
Competent Authority after considering the said
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
101
Objections, passed an Order on 15.07.2011 which was
communicated to each of the Appellants. Thereafter,
personal hearing was granted on 30.07.2011, which was
in the nature of a further enquiry.
 The Objections raised by the Appellants in the personal
hearing on 30.07.2011 were almost identical to those
raised earlier on 06.04.2011. The Objections raised by
the Appellants had effectively been dealt with vide letter
dated 15.07.2011, which was communicated to each of
the Appellants.
6.5.
It was further submitted that no order was required to
be passed after the personal hearing dated 30.07.2011,
because no fresh material came on record.
7. The issues which arise for our consideration are :
i)
Whether the provisions of Section 20D(2) have not been
complied with by the Competent Authority in the present
case?
ii)
If so, what would be the consequences of the non
compliance of Section 20D(2) with respect to the acquisition
proceedings, and the rights of the Appellants?
8. Relevant Statutory Provisions
To determine the issues raised by the Appellants in the present
proceedings, the statutory provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 as
amended in 2008, would require to be considered.
 The statutory provisions for acquisition of land for a Special
Railway Project are contained in Chapter IV A of the Railways Act,
1989. Chapter IV A is a complete self-contained code for the acquisition
of land.
Chapter IV A was incorporated vide Amendment Act 11 of 2008.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Railways (Amendment)
Act, 2008 states that :
"2. There is a need to provide for land acquisition provisions
in the Railways Act, 1989 to empower the Central Government
in the Ministry of Railways for land acquisition on fast track
basis for the special railway projects on the lines of the land
NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI v. UNION OF INDIA
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
102
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
acquisition provisions available in the National Highways Act,
1956."
Chapter IV A comprises of Section 20A to 20P of the amended
Act. The relevant provisions under Chapter IV A are set out hereinbelow
for ready reference :
 "20A. Power to acquire land, etc.
(1) Where the Central Government is satisfied that for a public
purpose any land is required for execution of a special
railway project, it may, by notification, declare its intention
to acquire such land.
(2) Every notification under sub-section (1), shall give a brief
description of the land and of the special railway project for
which the land is intended to be acquired.
(3) The State Government or the Union territory, as the case
may be, shall for the purposes of this section, provide the
details of the land records to the competent authority,
whenever required.
(4) The competent authority shall cause the substance of the
notification to be published in two local newspapers, one of
which shall be in a vernacular language.
20D. Hearing of objections, etc.
(1) Any person interested in the land may, within a period of
thirty days from the date of publication of the notification
under sub-section (1) of section 20A, object to the acquisition
of land for the purpose mentioned in that sub-section.
(2) Every objection under sub-section (1), shall be made to
the competent authority in writing, and shall set out the grounds
thereof and the competent authority shall give the objector
an opportunity of being heard, either in person or by a legal
practitioner, and may, after hearing all such objections and
after making such further enquiry, if any, as the competent
authority thinks necessary, by order, either allow or disallow
the objections.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, "legal
practitioner" has the same meaning as in clause (1) of sub-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
103
section (1) of section 2 of the Advocates Act, 1961(25 of
1961).
(3) Any order made by the competent authority under subsection (2) shall be final.
20E. Declaration of acquisition
(1) Where no objection under sub-section (1) of section 20D
has been made to the competent authority within the period
specified therein or where the competent authority has
disallowed the objections under sub-section (2) of that section,
the competent authority shall, as soon as may be, submit a
report accordingly to the Central Government and on receipt
of such report, the Central Government shall declare, by
notification, that the land should be acquired for the purpose
mentioned in subsection (1) of section 20A.
(2) On the publication of the declaration under sub-section
(1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government
free from all encumbrances.
(3) Where in respect of any land, a notification has been
published under subsection (1) of section 20A for its
acquisition, but no declaration under sub-section (1) of this
section has been published within a period of one year from
the date of publication of that notification, the said notification
shall cease to have any effect:
Provided that in computing the said period of one year, the
period during which any action or proceedings to be taken
in pursuance of the notification issued under sub-section (1)
of section 20A is stayed by an order of a court shall be
excluded.
(4) A declaration made by the Central Government under subsection (1) shall not be called in question in any court or by
any other authority.
20G. Criterion for determination of market-value of land
(1) The competent authority shall adopt the following criteria
in assessing and determining the market-value of the land,-
NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI v. UNION OF INDIA
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
104
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
(i) the minimum land value, if any, specified in the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899(2 of 1899), for the registration of sale deeds
in the area, where the land is situated; or
(ii) the average of the sale price for similar type of land situated
in the village or vicinity, ascertained from not less than fifty
per cent, of the sale deeds registered during the preceding
three years, where higher price has been paid, whichever is
higher.
(2) Where the provisions of sub-section (1) are not applicable
for the reason that:-
(i) the land is situated in such area where the transactions in
land are restricted by or under any other law for the time
being in force in that area; or
(ii) the registered sale deeds for similar land as mentioned in
clause (i) of sub-section (1) are not available for the preceding
three years; or
(iii) the minimum land value has not been specified under the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899(2 of 1899) by the appropriate
authority, the concerned State Government shall specify the
floor price per unit area of the said land based on the average
higher prices paid for similar type of land situated in the
adjoining areas or vicinity, ascertained from not less than
fifty per cent, of the sale deeds registered during the preceding
three years where higher price has been paid, and the
competent authority may calculate the value of the land
accordingly.
(3) The competent authority shall, before assessing and
determining the market-value of the land being acquired under
this Act,-
(a) ascertain the intended land use category of such land;
and
(b) take into account the value of the land of the intended
category in the adjoining areas or vicinity, for the purpose
of determination of the market-value of the land being
acquired.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
105
(4) In determining the market-value of the building and other
immovable property or assets attached to the land or building
which are to be acquired, the competent authority may use
the services of a competent engineer or any other specialist
in the relevant field, as may be considered necessary by the
competent authority.
(5) The competent authority may, for the purpose of
determining the value of trees and plants, use the services of
experienced persons in the field of agriculture, forestry,
horticulture, sericulture, or any other field, as may be
considered necessary by him.
(6) For the purpose of assessing the value of the standing
crops damaged during the process of land acquisition
proceedings, the competent authority may utilise the services
of experienced persons in the field of agriculture as he
considers necessary.
20I. Power to take possession
(1) Where any land has vested in the Central Government
under sub-section (2) of section 20E, and the amount
determined by the competent authority under section 20F with
respect to such authority by the Central Government, the
competent authority may, by notice in writing direct the owner
as well as any other person who may be in possession of
such land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the
competent authority or any person duly authorised by it in
this behalf within a period of sixty days of the service of the
notice.
(2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with any direction
made under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall
apply-
(a) In case of any land situated in any area falling within the
metropolitan area, to the Commissioner of Police;
(b) In case of any land situated in any area other than the
area referred to in clause (a), to the Collector of a district,
NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI v. UNION OF INDIA
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
106
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
And such Commissioner or Collector, as the case may be, shall
enforce the surrender of the land, to the competent authority
or to the person duly authorised by it.
20J. Right to enter into land where land has vested in Central
Government
Where the land has vested in the Central Government under
section 20E, it shall be lawful for any person authorised by
the Central Government in this behalf, to enter and do other
act necessary upo0n the land for carrying out the building,
maintenance, management or operation of the special railway
project or part thereof or nay other work connected therewith.
20N. Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 not to apply
Nothing in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall apply to an
acquisition under this Act."
9. The scheme of Chapter IV A is as follows :
i)
The Central Government is empowered under Section
20A to issue a preliminary Notification, notifying its
intention to acquire land for a public purpose required
for the execution of a special railway project.
ii)
Section 20D provides for filing of objections and grant
of personal hearing. The provision is in two parts :
a)
Sub-section (1) states that any person interested
in the land, may within a period of 30 days from
the date of publication of the notification under
sub-section (1) of Section 20A, file objections to
the acquisition of land for the purpose mentioned
in that sub-section.
b)
Under sub-section (2) of Section 20D, the
mandate of the statute is that :
Every objection shall be made in writing to the
Competent Authority;
The Competent Authority is mandated to give an
opportunity of hearing to the Objector, either in
person or by a legal practitioner;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
107
That "after hearing" all objections, and after
making such further enquiry, if any, the Competent
Authority may either allow or disallow the
objections by an order.
c)
Sub-section (3) of Section 20D states that an
order passed by the Competent Authority under
Section 20D (2) shall be final.
iii)
Sub-section (1) of Section 20E provides that if no
objections are received, or if the objections are
disallowed, then the Competent Authority shall submit a
report to the Central Government.
iv)
On receipt of such report from the Competent Authority,
the Central Government shall declare by notification, that
the land should be acquired for the purpose mentioned
in sub-section (1) of Section 20A.
v)
On the publication of the declaration under Section
20E(1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central
Government free from all encumbrances.
vi)
Sub-section (3) of Section 20E states that if the
declaration is not published within a period of one year
from the date of publication of the Notification under
Section 20A(1), the Notification shall cease to have any
effect.
vii)
Sub-section (4) of Section 20E states that the declaration
made by the Central Government under sub-section (1)
shall not be called in question in any court of law or by
any authority.
9.1.
A reading of the aforesaid statutory provisions shows
that the land-owner or interested person has been
granted a limited right to file objections under Section
20D of the Railways Act, 1989. The scope of the
objections is limited to the purpose for which the
acquisition is made. It is not a general right to file
objections as under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894.
NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI v. UNION OF INDIA
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
108
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
9.2.
The statute has mandated a strict procedure to be
followed under Section 20D with respect to the
submission and hearing of objections.
 The statute mandates that the order is required to be
passed by the Competent Authority "after hearing" the
land-owners. The order cannot precede the hearing of
objections. If an order is passed prior to the personal
hearing, and enquiry by the Competent Authority, it
would be contrary to the statute, invalid, and vitiated by
a pre-determined disposition.
10. In the present case, it is the admitted position that after the
personal hearing took place on 30.07.2011, no decision was passed on
the objections submitted by the land-owners, either allowing or disallowing
their objections; nor was any communication sent to them.
This is confirmed by the Affidavit of the Competent Authority
dated 18.07.2018 filed before the High Court (pgs. 296 - 301, Volume
II), wherein it is stated as follows :-
"7.