CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Ranjit Singh Dhawan and others Versus State of Punjab and Chatarpal Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another Rajinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab Sandeep Goyal Versus State of Punjab and other M/S Precto Pipes, Village Chhat Versus State of Punjab and Kavil Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.17363 OF 2020 (O&M) Ranjit Singh Dhawan and others Versus State of Punjab and others CWP NO.13206 OF 2021 Chatarpal Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another CWP NO.17013 OF 2023 Rajinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and others CWP NO. Sandeep Goyal Versus State of Punjab and others CWP NO.1 M/S Precto Pipes, Village Chhat, SAS Nagar Versus State of Punjab and others CWP NO.1 Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and others No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CWP NO.17363 OF 2020 (O&M) ...Petitioners ...Respondents CWP NO.13206 OF 2021 (O&M) ...Petitioners ...Respondents CWP NO.17013 OF 2023 (O&M) ...Petitioners ...Respondents CWP NO.17931 OF 2023 (O&M) ...Petitioner ...Respondents CWP NO.18107 OF 2020 (O&M) , SAS Nagar ...Petitioner ...Respondents CWP NO.18443 OF 2020 (O&M) ...Petitioners ...Respondents SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases Gurdeep Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and Harvinder Singh and Versus State of Punjab and Puneet Jain and others Versus State of Punjab and Baljinder Singh Versus State of Punjab and Ramandeep Singh Versus State of Punjab and M and I Colonizers Private Limited Versus State of Punjab and 1. The date when the judgment is reserved 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases CWP NO.18469 OF 2020 (O&M) Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and others CWP NO. Singh and another Versus State of Punjab and others CWP NO. and others Versus State of Punjab and others CWP NO. Singh Versus State of Punjab and others CWP NO. Singh Virk and others Versus State of Punjab and others CWP NO. Colonizers Private Limited Versus State of Punjab and others The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 2 CWP NO.18469 OF 2020 (O&M) ...Petitioners ...Respondents CWP NO.29573 OF 2022 (O&M) ...Petitioners ...Respondents CWP NO.4016 OF 2021 (O&M) ...Petitioners ...Respondents CWP NO.5452 OF 2021 (O&M) ...Petitioner ...Respondents CWP NO.6088 OF 2021 (O&M) ...Petitioners ...Respondents CWP NO.5480 OF 2021 (O&M) ...Petitioners ...Respondents 26.02.2026 The date when the judgment is pronounced 26.05.2026 The date when the judgment is uploaded 27.05.2026 SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced 5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE Present : Mr. Mr. Aakash Sharma, Advocate, For the petitioners in CWP Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ruchi Jain, Advocate and Mr. Sandeep Dhiman, Advocat For the petitioners in CWP Mr. Mr. Mr. Ritvik Garg, Advocate, For the petitioners in CWP Mr. D. S. Sobti, Advocate, For the petitioners in Mr. Gagandeep Jammu, Advocate and Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate, For the petitioners in CWP Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. S. Gill, DAG, Punjab with Mr. Kuljit Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab. Mr. V. G. J For respondent Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate, For respondent No.5 in CWP Nos.17013 Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate, For respondents No.2 and 3 in CWP No.6088 of 2021. Ms. Manveen Narang, Advocate, For respondent CWP No.5480 of 2021. No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aakash Sharma, Advocate, For the petitioners in CWP-17363 Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ruchi Jain, Advocate and Mr. Sandeep Dhiman, Advocate, For the petitioners in CWP-18107 Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate and Mr. Ritvik Garg, Advocate, For the petitioners in CWP-4016- Mr. D. S. Sobti, Advocate, For the petitioners in CWP-5480- Mr. Gagandeep Jammu, Advocate and Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate, For the petitioners in CWP-13206 Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. S. Gill, DAG, Punjab with Mr. Kuljit Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab. Mr. V. G. Jauhar, Advocate, For respondent-GMADA. Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate, For respondent No.5 in CWP Nos.17013-2023 & 17931-2023. Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate, For respondents No.2 and 3 in CWP No.6088 of 2021. Ms. Manveen Narang, Advocate, For respondent-GMADA in CWP No.5480 of 2021. No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 3 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is Full The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full Not applicable HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with 17363-2020. Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate with 18107-2020. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Kunal Mulwani, Advocate and -2021. -2021. Mr. Gagandeep Jammu, Advocate and 13206-2021. Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kuljit Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab. 2023. SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases Mr. K. S. Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. P. S. Dhindsa, Advocate, For respondents No.2 and 3 in CWP No.6088 of 2021. LAPITA BANERJI, J. By this common judgment, twelve writ petitions, being CWP No.17363 of 2020 others, CWP No. Punjab and another State of Punjab and others of Punjab and others Chhat SAS Nagar v. State of Punjab and others Kavil Singh and others v. State of 2020 Gurdeep Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others No.29573 of 2022 others, CWP No. and others, CWP No others, CWP No.6088 of 2021 Punjab and other Limited v. State of Punjab and others questions of fact and law arise therein. For the sake of convenience, the facts from CWP No. State of Punjab FACTS 2. The brief facts of the case are as i) Notification dated Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases Mr. K. S. Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. P. S. Dhindsa, Advocate, For respondents No.2 and 3 in CWP No.6088 of 2021. LAPITA BANERJI, J. By this common judgment, twelve writ petitions, being CWP No.17363 of 2020 Ranjit Singh Dhawan and others v. State of Punjab and CWP No.13206 of 2021 Chatarpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, CWP No.17013 of 2023 State of Punjab and others, CWP No.17931 of 2023 of Punjab and others, CWP No.18107 of 2020 Chhat SAS Nagar v. State of Punjab and others Kavil Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others Gurdeep Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others No.29573 of 2022 Harvinder Singh and another v. State of Punjab and , CWP No.4016 of 2021 Puneet Jain and others v. State of Punjab , CWP No.5452 of 2021 Baljinder Singh v. State of Punjab and , CWP No.6088 of 2021 Ramandeep Singh Virk and others v. State of Punjab and others and CWP No.5480 of 2021 Limited v. State of Punjab and others, are being disposed of, questions of fact and law arise therein. For the sake of convenience, the facts from CWP No.17363 of 2020 (Ranjit Singh Dh Punjab and others) are taken into consideration. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Notification dated December 05, 201 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 4 Mr. K. S. Sidhu, Senior Advocate with By this common judgment, twelve writ petitions, being CWP and others v. State of Punjab and Chatarpal Singh and others v. State of 17013 of 2023 Rajinder Singh and others v. 17931 of 2023 Sandeep Goyal v. State 18107 of 2020 M/s Precto Pipes village Chhat SAS Nagar v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No.18443 of 2020 Punjab and others, CWP No.18469 of Gurdeep Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, CWP Harvinder Singh and another v. State of Punjab and Puneet Jain and others v. State of Punjab Baljinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ramandeep Singh Virk and others v. State of s and CWP No.5480 of 2021 M and I Colonizers Private , are being disposed of, as common questions of fact and law arise therein. For the sake of convenience, the Ranjit Singh Dhawan and others v. ) are taken into consideration. follows: December 05, 2017 under Section 4 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”) was issued to carry out Social Impact Assessment (SIA) regarding acquisition of Bakarpur, Rurka, Safipur, Naraingarh and Chatt “setting up of Scheme”. The land in dispute in the present writ petition No.17363 of 2020 is situated in village ii) Public notice regarding in newspapers on August 23, 2018 iii) Pursuant to the SIA report, preliminary Notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act for land acquisition was issued on 2019. In March acquisition proceedings iv) Under Section 19(1) was stipulated for publication of declaration from the date of issuance of the preliminary notification. Since the sai within the stipulated time i.e by February 05, 2020 notification dated declaration by 03 months Section 19 (7) of the 2013 Act v) Admittedly, the government was not able to publish the declaration within the extende Acquisition Collector (LAC) issued a public notice seeking to extend the per No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the was issued to carry out Social Impact Assessment (SIA) regarding acquisition of several parcels of land in 05 villages namely Bakarpur, Rurka, Safipur, Naraingarh and Chatt “setting up of Aerotropolis Residential Project ne The land in dispute in the present writ petition No.17363 of 2020 in village Chatt. Public notice regarding conducting of in newspapers on December 20, 2017. The final on August 23, 2018. Pursuant to the SIA report, preliminary Notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act for land acquisition was issued on In March 2019, the petitioners filed acquisition proceedings under Section 15 of the 2013 Act Under Section 19(1) of the 2013 Act, stipulated for publication of declaration from the date of issuance of the preliminary notification. Since the said declaration could not be published within the stipulated time i.e by February 05, 2020 notification dated February 05, 2020, extended declaration by 03 months i.e till May 04, 2020 Section 19 (7) of the 2013 Act Admittedly, the government was not able to publish the declaration within the extended period i.e by May 0 Acquisition Collector (LAC) issued a public notice extend the period of publication of No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 5 Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the was issued to carry out Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Study parcels of land in 05 villages namely Bakarpur, Rurka, Safipur, Naraingarh and Chatt for the public purpose of Residential Project near I.T. City and Aero City The land in dispute in the present writ petition No.17363 of 2020 conducting of SIA study was published final SIA Report was published Pursuant to the SIA report, preliminary Notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act for land acquisition was issued on February 6, the petitioners filed their objections against the under Section 15 of the 2013 Act. of the 2013 Act, the period of 12 months stipulated for publication of declaration from the date of issuance of the d declaration could not be published within the stipulated time i.e by February 05, 2020, the government vide , extended the time for making the 0 under the second proviso to Admittedly, the government was not able to publish the riod i.e by May 04, 2020. The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) issued a public notice dated May 06, 2020 of the said declaration under SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases Section 19(1) November 04, 2020. vi) Declaration acquisition of the disputed land The petitioners have laid challenge to the aforesaid acquisition proceedings in the present writ petitions being in violation of not only the provisions of the 2013 Act but also the principles of natural justice and the law go the field on land acquisition proceedings. SUBMISSIONS 3. Mr. Bali, learned senior (in CWP No.17363 of 2020) been made in violation of the therefore, is liable to be set second proviso to Section 4 (2) of the 2013 Act which stipulated that appropriate government Assessment Study within a period of six months from the date of its commencement 4. In the present case, the notification under Section 4(1) 2013 Act for conducting a SIA Study was published on December 05, 2017. Even though a draft SIA report was submitted on March 26, 2018, the final SIA report could not be submitted by the government by June 04, 2018 (i.e within a period of 06 months under Section 4(1) of the 2013 Act). much belatedly on August 23, 2018 in violation of Section 4(2) of the 2013 No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases Section 19(1) of the 2013 Act by a further period of 06 months i.e till November 04, 2020. Declaration under Section 19 acquisition of the disputed land was finally published on August 28, 2020. The petitioners have laid challenge to the aforesaid acquisition proceedings resent writ petitions being in violation of not only the provisions of the 2013 Act but also the principles of natural justice and the law go the field on land acquisition proceedings. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF WRIT PETITIONERS Mr. Bali, learned senior advocate (in CWP No.17363 of 2020) submitted that the acquisition in question has been made in violation of the statutory provisions of the 2013 Act and liable to be set-aside. He drew attention of this Court to the second proviso to Section 4 (2) of the 2013 Act which stipulated that appropriate government shall “ensure the completion of the tudy within a period of six months from the date of its commencement”. In the present case, the notification under Section 4(1) 2013 Act for conducting a SIA Study was published on December 05, 2017. Even though a draft SIA report was submitted on March 26, 2018, the final SIA report could not be submitted by the government by June 04, 2018 (i.e within a period of 06 months from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the 2013 Act). As the final SIA report was submitted much belatedly on August 23, 2018 in violation of Section 4(2) of the 2013 No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 6 a further period of 06 months i.e till (1) of the 2013 Act for published on August 28, 2020. The petitioners have laid challenge to the aforesaid acquisition proceedings resent writ petitions being in violation of not only the provisions of the 2013 Act but also the principles of natural justice and the law governing ON BEHALF OF WRIT PETITIONERS advocate appearing for the petitioners that the acquisition in question has statutory provisions of the 2013 Act and He drew attention of this Court to the second proviso to Section 4 (2) of the 2013 Act which stipulated that ensure the completion of the Social Impact tudy within a period of six months from the date of its In the present case, the notification under Section 4(1) of the 2013 Act for conducting a SIA Study was published on December 05, 2017. Even though a draft SIA report was submitted on March 26, 2018, the final SIA report could not be submitted by the government by June 04, 2018 (i.e from the date of publication of the notification he final SIA report was submitted much belatedly on August 23, 2018 in violation of Section 4(2) of the 2013 SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases Act, the acquisition proceedings should be set contended that there 5. Next, he submitted that under Section 6(1) of the 2013 Act, the appropriate government was under a statutory obligation to ensure that SIA Study report and the Social Impact Management in Section 4 of the 2013 Act were prepared and made languages to the the offices of the District Collectors, Sub Divisional Magistrates Tehsils and be published in the affected areas in a manner that may be prescribed and government. N made available in local languages Corporation nor Collectors, Sub D SIA report and the nor uploaded on the website of the appropriate government. were called for a public hearing on May 30, 2018 vide notice dated May 22, 2018 without being violation of Section 6(1) of the 2013 Act. 6. Next, the constitution of the Expert Group formed under Section 7(2) of the 2013 Act to evaluate the SIA report has been challenged. Under Section 7(2) of the 2013 Act, constituted for the purpose of violation of the SIA report was mandatorily required to include the following members: “(a) two non No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases the acquisition proceedings should be set contended that there was no mention of village Chatt, in Next, he submitted that under Section 6(1) of the 2013 Act, the appropriate government was under a statutory obligation to ensure that SIA Study report and the Social Impact Management in Section 4 of the 2013 Act were prepared and made languages to the Panchayats, Municipality or of the District Collectors, Sub Divisional Magistrates be published in the affected areas in a manner that may be and the same be uploaded on the website of the appropriate Neither the SIA study report nor SIM pl made available in local languages to Panchayat, Municipality nor were they made available at the office Collectors, Sub Divisional Magistrates or Tehsil SIA report and the SIM plan was neither published in a prescribed manner nor uploaded on the website of the appropriate government. were called for a public hearing on May 30, 2018 vide notice dated May 22, 2018 without being appraised of the SIA report or S violation of Section 6(1) of the 2013 Act. Next, the constitution of the Expert Group formed under Section 7(2) of the 2013 Act to evaluate the SIA report has been challenged. Under Section 7(2) of the 2013 Act, a multi constituted for the purpose of violation of the SIA report was mandatorily required to include the following members: (a) two non-official social scientists; No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 7 the acquisition proceedings should be set-aside. Furthermore, he was no mention of village Chatt, in the final report. Next, he submitted that under Section 6(1) of the 2013 Act, the appropriate government was under a statutory obligation to ensure that the SIA Study report and the Social Impact Management (SIM) Plan referred to in Section 4 of the 2013 Act were prepared and made available in local or Municipal Corporation and of the District Collectors, Sub Divisional Magistrates and the be published in the affected areas in a manner that may be the same be uploaded on the website of the appropriate either the SIA study report nor SIM plan was prepared and Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal were they made available at the offices of District Tehsil of the affected areas. The SIM plan was neither published in a prescribed manner nor uploaded on the website of the appropriate government. The petitioners were called for a public hearing on May 30, 2018 vide notice dated May 22, of the SIA report or SIM plan, in complete Next, the constitution of the Expert Group formed under Section 7(2) of the 2013 Act to evaluate the SIA report has been challenged. multi-disciplinary expert group constituted for the purpose of violation of the SIA report was mandatorily official social scientists; SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases (b) two representatives of Panchayat, Gram Sabha, Municipality (c) two experts on rehabilitation; and (d) a technical expert in the subject relating to the project. He submitted that the mandatory requirement of Panchayat, Gram Sabha, Municipality case may be) being violation of the provisions of 7. The recommendations recommendations for acquisition containing the details and reasons for such a decision had to be made available in the local language to Municipality or Sub Divisional Magistrates affected areas in the manner prescribed appropriate government, which was not done in the present case. 8. Furthermore, it has been arg by the SIA report and the recommendations given by the expert group were considered by the appropriate government have to assess whether proposed acquisition and purpose shall outweigh the social costs of the adverse social impact. The decision of the government had to be made available in the offices District Collectors, Sub D done in violation of Section 8(3) of the 2013 Act. No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases (b) two representatives of Panchayat, Gram Sabha, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be; (c) two experts on rehabilitation; and (d) a technical expert in the subject relating to the project. He submitted that the mandatory requirement of Panchayat, Gram Sabha, Municipality or Municipal Corporation being included in the expert group the provisions of Section 7(2) of the 2013 Act. The recommendations made by the expert group favouring the recommendations for acquisition containing the details and reasons for such a decision had to be made available in the local language to or Municipal Corporation and offices ivisional Magistrates or Tehsil and also had to be published in the affected areas in the manner prescribed and uploaded on the websit appropriate government, which was not done in the present case. Furthermore, it has been argued that once the proposals given by the SIA report and the recommendations given by the expert group were considered by the appropriate government, assess whether there is a legitimate and proposed acquisition and whether the potential benefits and the public purpose shall outweigh the social costs of the adverse social impact. The of the government had to be made available in the offices District Collectors, Sub Divisional Magistrates done in violation of Section 8(3) of the 2013 Act. No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 8 (b) two representatives of Panchayat, Gram Sabha, or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be; (c) two experts on rehabilitation; and (d) a technical expert in the subject relating to the project.” He submitted that the mandatory requirement of two representatives of Municipal Corporation (as the included in the expert group was not adhered to, in clear Section 7(2) of the 2013 Act. made by the expert group favouring the recommendations for acquisition containing the details and reasons for such a decision had to be made available in the local language to Panchayat, offices of District Collectors, also had to be published in the uploaded on the website of the appropriate government, which was not done in the present case. ued that once the proposals given by the SIA report and the recommendations given by the expert group were then it would independently there is a legitimate and bona fide purpose for the potential benefits and the public purpose shall outweigh the social costs of the adverse social impact. The of the government had to be made available in the offices of isional Magistrates or Tehsil which was not done in violation of Section 8(3) of the 2013 Act. SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases 9. Without complying with the statutory safeguards regarding the SIA study, assessment and recommendations of the expert group, the State published a preliminar February 06, 2019. Even though the land owners/interested persons have submitted their objections within 60 days from the date of publication of the preliminary notification under Section 15(1) of the 2013 opportunity of hearing under Section 15(2) of the 2013 Act was provided to the petitioners. only in violation of the statutory provisions but also against the principles of natural justice rendering th 10. Next, was published under Section 11 of the 2013 Act, then a declaration to th effect that the land 12 months from the date of preliminary notification as stipulated under Section 19(7) of the 2013 Act. Admittedly, the declaration was not published within the stipulated period of 12 months i.e by February 05, 2020. Thereafter, by taki the 2013 Act which permitted the government to extend the stipulated period of 12 months in the event circumstances existed justifying the same the time to publish the declaration was extended by 03 mon 04, 2020. He submitted that u 2013 Act, once the power of extension was exercised there was no provision in law 11. Since the government could not issue the declaration within the extended period i.e by May 04, 2020, the LAC No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases Without complying with the statutory safeguards regarding the SIA study, assessment and recommendations of the expert group, the State published a preliminary notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act on February 06, 2019. Even though the land owners/interested persons have submitted their objections within 60 days from the date of publication of the preliminary notification under Section 15(1) of the 2013 opportunity of hearing under Section 15(2) of the 2013 Act was provided to the petitioners. Such inaction/omission/conduct of the Collector only in violation of the statutory provisions but also against the principles of justice rendering the acquisition proceedings nugatory Next, Mr. Bali contended that once a preliminary notification was published under Section 11 of the 2013 Act, then a declaration to th that the land was required for acquisition 12 months from the date of preliminary notification as stipulated under Section 19(7) of the 2013 Act. Admittedly, the declaration was not published within the stipulated period of 12 months i.e by February 05, 2020. Thereafter, by taking the aid of the second proviso to Section 19(7) of the 2013 Act which permitted the government to extend the stipulated period of 12 months in the event circumstances existed justifying the same the time to publish the declaration was extended by 03 mon He submitted that under second proviso to Section 19 2013 Act, once the power of extension was exercised there was no in law for a further extension. Since the government could not issue the declaration within the extended period i.e by May 04, 2020, the LAC No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 9 Without complying with the statutory safeguards regarding the SIA study, assessment and recommendations of the expert group, the State y notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act on February 06, 2019. Even though the land owners/interested persons have submitted their objections within 60 days from the date of publication of the preliminary notification under Section 15(1) of the 2013 Act, no proper opportunity of hearing under Section 15(2) of the 2013 Act was provided to conduct of the Collector was not only in violation of the statutory provisions but also against the principles of e acquisition proceedings nugatory. contended that once a preliminary notification was published under Section 11 of the 2013 Act, then a declaration to the for acquisition had to be published within 12 months from the date of preliminary notification as stipulated under Section 19(7) of the 2013 Act. Admittedly, the declaration was not published within the stipulated period of 12 months i.e by February 05, ng the aid of the second proviso to Section 19(7) of the 2013 Act which permitted the government to extend the stipulated period of 12 months in the event circumstances existed justifying the same, the time to publish the declaration was extended by 03 months i.e till May nder second proviso to Section 19 (7) of the 2013 Act, once the power of extension was exercised there was no Since the government could not issue the declaration within the extended period i.e by May 04, 2020, the LAC in derogation of the statutory SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases provisions, sought to extend the extended period by a further period of 06 months i.e till November 04 when the appropriate government fail stipulated period of 12 months or the notification would be the first extension deemed to have 12. After expiry of the extended period notice issued on June 11, 2020 ( retrospectively extended the second time neither any provision for extension be made extension only by way of a ‘ the appropriate government was of the opinion that circumstances existed justifying the same. 13. In support of his contentions, following judgments: “Padma Sundara Rao (dead) and other v. State of T.N and others “BEML Employees House Building Cooperative Society Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and 248 “Manekbben Rama Tandel and another v. The Collector, Daman and others “N. Padmamma and others v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy others” No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases sought to extend the extended period by a further period of 06 months i.e till November 04, 2020. Under Section 19 (7) of the 2013 Act when the appropriate government failed to publish a declaration stipulated period of 12 months or the extended would be deemed to have rescinded. the first extension on May 04, 2020 the preliminary notification was to have rescinded pursuant to Section 19 (7) of the Act. After expiry of the extended period notice issued on June 11, 2020 (sic May 06, 2020) retrospectively extended the time period of publication of notification the second time under Section 19 of the 2013 Act neither any provision for retrospective extension under the Act no be made by a way of ‘public notice extension only by way of a ‘notification’ under Section 19 (7) of the Act, if the appropriate government was of the opinion that circumstances existed justifying the same. In support of his contentions, following judgments: Padma Sundara Rao (dead) and other v. State of T.N and others” reported in (2002) 3 SCC 533 BEML Employees House Building Cooperative Society Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and others 248 Manekbben Rama Tandel and another v. The Collector, Daman and others” reported in 2023 (5) AIR Bom.R 284 N. Padmamma and others v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy others” reported in (2008) 15 SCC 517 No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 10 sought to extend the extended period by a further period of 06 , 2020. Under Section 19 (7) of the 2013 Act to publish a declaration within the extended period, then the preliminary to have rescinded. Therefore, upon expiry of on May 04, 2020 the preliminary notification was pursuant to Section 19 (7) of the Act. After expiry of the extended period, the LAC vide public May 06, 2020) could not have the time period of publication of notification for under Section 19 of the 2013 Act. In other words, there was retrospective extension under the Act nor could an public notice’. The 2013 Act mandated under Section 19 (7) of the Act, if the appropriate government was of the opinion that circumstances existed In support of his contentions, Mr. Bali has relied on the Padma Sundara Rao (dead) and other v. State of T.N and (2002) 3 SCC 533 BEML Employees House Building Cooperative Society Ltd. others” reported in (2005) 9 SCC Manekbben Rama Tandel and another v. The Collector, 2023 (5) AIR Bom.R 284 N. Padmamma and others v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy and (2008) 15 SCC 517 SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases “D.B. Basnett (D) District, Gangtok, Sikkim and another” in Civil Appeal No.196 of 2011 “Kolkata Municipal Corporation and another v. Bimal Kumar Shah and others” 14. Reliance has been case (supra) for the proposition that the under the Land Acquisition Acts ha literal meaning unambiguous. The language the legislative discussion which has been done 15. Mr. Jain, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in CWP No.18107 of 2020 after adopting the arguments of Mr. Bali, Senior Advocate took this Court through various provisions of the 2013 Act submitted that there w Act in conducting of the SIA study estimate member drawing up of 16. He study had to, affected families along with number of the families likely to be displaced. Furthermore, it had to contain the exten houses, settlements and other common properties likely to be affected by the proposed acquisition. infirmities as neither factum of common prop No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases “D.B. Basnett (D) through LRs v. The Collector, East District, Gangtok, Sikkim and another” in Civil Appeal No.196 of 2011 “Kolkata Municipal Corporation and another v. Bimal Kumar Shah and others” reported Reliance has been primarily placed on for the proposition that the time frame for issuing notifications under the Land Acquisition Acts has to be literal meaning to the statutory provisions which unambiguous. The language used in the statute is the determining fact legislative intent. The cases relied on by Mr. Bali discussion which has been done at a subsequent stage. Mr. Jain, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in CWP No.18107 of 2020 after adopting the arguments of Mr. Bali, Senior took this Court through various provisions of the 2013 Act that there were material violations Act in conducting of the SIA study. Such violations included estimate members of the affected/displaced their rehabilitation programme. He contended that under Section 4 (4) of the 2013 Act, the SIA study had to, inter alia, contain an estimation with regard to number of affected families along with number of the families likely to be displaced. Furthermore, it had to contain the extent of the houses, settlements and other common properties likely to be affected by the proposed acquisition. The SIA Study report suffered from gross neither the number of families likely to be displaced factum of common properties, houses and settlements likely to be affected No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 11 through LRs v. The Collector, East District, Gangtok, Sikkim and another” in Civil Appeal “Kolkata Municipal Corporation and another v. Bimal reported in (2024) 10 SCC 5334 placed on Padma Sundara Rao’s time frame for issuing notifications to be strictly followed, by giving which are in plain language and in the statute is the determining factor of The cases relied on by Mr. Bali merit a detailed at a subsequent stage. Mr. Jain, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in CWP No.18107 of 2020 after adopting the arguments of Mr. Bali, Senior took this Court through various provisions of the 2013 Act and of the provisions of the 2013 violations included failure to families in the villages and . that under Section 4 (4) of the 2013 Act, the SIA estimation with regard to number of affected families along with number of the families likely to be displaced. t of the lands to be acquired and houses, settlements and other common properties likely to be affected by tudy report suffered from gross umber of families likely to be displaced nor the erties, houses and settlements likely to be affected, SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases finds mention glaring omission petitioners on the disputed land acquisition. Such omissions indicated non application of mind and procedural fairness in conducting of SIA study. 17. To point out the infirmities in the SIA report, it has been further argued Council, Zirakpur since 2016 that the Gram Panchayat understand the importance of Aero City project clearly indicat complete lack of SIA study. 18. Glaring errors whether such study was at all conducted at the ground level. It is reiterated that the study statutory requirements and there was no at the ground level 19. Upon publication of the preliminary notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act and hearing of the objections of the interested parties/land owners by the appropriate government, the Administrator for rehabilitation and resettlement had to conduct a surv census of the affected families in considering the particulars of land and immovable properties being acquired of each affected family and livelihoods lost in respect of the land losers and landless whose livelihoods are primarily dependent on the lands being No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases in the same. Lapse on the part of the authorities included glaring omission to consider the factum of petitioners on the disputed land which was likely to be affected by the Such omissions indicated non application of mind and procedural fairness in conducting of SIA study. To point out the infirmities in the SIA report, it has been argued that the village Chatt was under , Zirakpur since 2016 but it has been mentioned in the SIA report Gram Panchayat (GP) had helped the people of village Chatt to understand the importance of Aero City project clearly indicat lack of application of mind on the part of Glaring errors in the SIA study report raises serious doubt as to whether such study was at all conducted at the ground level. It is reiterated study was merely an eye wash for purportedly satisfying the statutory requirements and there was no meaningful at the ground level with the affected families. Upon publication of the preliminary notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act and hearing of the objections of the interested parties/land owners by the appropriate government, the Administrator for rehabilitation and resettlement had to conduct a surv census of the affected families in such a manner and within such time considering the particulars of land and immovable properties being acquired of each affected family and livelihoods lost in respect of the land losers and se livelihoods are primarily dependent on the lands being No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 12 Lapse on the part of the authorities included a he factum of a running factory of the which was likely to be affected by the Such omissions indicated non application of mind and lack of procedural fairness in conducting of SIA study. To point out the infirmities in the SIA report, it has been under the control of Municipal it has been mentioned in the SIA report (GP) had helped the people of village Chatt to understand the importance of Aero City project clearly indicating a on the part of the body conducting the in the SIA study report raises serious doubt as to whether such study was at all conducted at the ground level. It is reiterated was merely an eye wash for purportedly satisfying the meaningful/actual communication Upon publication of the preliminary notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act and hearing of the objections of the interested parties/land owners by the appropriate government, the Administrator for rehabilitation and resettlement had to conduct a survey and undertake a a manner and within such time considering the particulars of land and immovable properties being acquired of each affected family and livelihoods lost in respect of the land losers and se livelihoods are primarily dependent on the lands being SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases acquired. In violation of the provisions of Section 16(1) of the 2013 Act no survey was conducted by the Administrator and R&R Scheme in the affected areas was as envisaged under Section 16 (4) and (5) of the 2013 conducted thereby depriving the petitioners of their statutory right of being heard. 20. After conducting a public hearing, the Administrator required to submit claims and objections raised in the public hearing to the Collector. The entire procedure of giving a public hearing by the Administrator had been bypassed. 21. Under Section 17 of the 2013 Act mandatory obligation to review at the project level the draft R&R Scheme that was required of the 2013 Act. The scheme was required to be reviewed by the Collector in consultation to be placed to the Commissioner, Rehabilitation & Resettlement for approval of the 22. Under Section 18 of the 2013 Act, the Commissioner was under an obligation to make Panchayat, Municipality Collectors, Sub D website of the appropriate government. aforesaid proce families were followed by the government No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases acquired. In violation of the provisions of Section 16(1) of the 2013 Act no survey was conducted by the Administrator and R&R Scheme in the affected areas was widely as envisaged under Section 16 (4) and (5) of the 2013 thereby depriving the petitioners of their statutory right of being After conducting a public hearing, the Administrator required to submit a draft scheme for R&R with a specific report claims and objections raised in the public hearing to the Collector. The entire procedure of giving a public hearing by the Administrator had been Under Section 17 of the 2013 Act mandatory obligation to review at the project level the draft R&R Scheme was required to be submitted by the Administrator under Section 16 (6) of the 2013 Act. The scheme was required to be reviewed by the Collector ultation with the R&R Committee and after that his to be placed to the Commissioner, Rehabilitation & Resettlement for approval of the draft scheme. Under Section 18 of the 2013 Act, the Commissioner was under an obligation to make available the R&R Scheme in local language of Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation Collectors, Sub Divisional Magistrates or Tehsil website of the appropriate government. He submitted that n aforesaid procedures for rehabilitation and resettlement of the affected followed by the government, rendering the acquisition bad No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 13 acquired. In violation of the provisions of Section 16(1) of the 2013 Act no survey was conducted by the Administrator and no information of draft widely publicized. Public hearing, as envisaged under Section 16 (4) and (5) of the 2013, Act was not thereby depriving the petitioners of their statutory right of being After conducting a public hearing, the Administrator was a draft scheme for R&R with a specific report on the claims and objections raised in the public hearing to the Collector. The entire procedure of giving a public hearing by the Administrator had been Under Section 17 of the 2013 Act, the Collector was under a mandatory obligation to review at the project level the draft R&R Scheme submitted by the Administrator under Section 16 (6) of the 2013 Act. The scheme was required to be reviewed by the Collector Committee and after that his suggestions were to be placed to the Commissioner, Rehabilitation & Resettlement for Under Section 18 of the 2013 Act, the Commissioner was available the R&R Scheme in local language of Municipal Corporation and offices of District Tehsil and upload the same on the He submitted that none of the for rehabilitation and resettlement of the affected , rendering the acquisition bad. SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases 23. Next this Court was taken t of the 2013 Act to submit that wh satisfied after considering the report of the Collector prepared after hearing and consideration of the under Section 15(2) of the 2013 Act that the land was required for public purpose a declaration to said effect of the area identified as resettlement area for the purpose of reh and resettlement of the affected families. Collector had to publish the summary of R&R Scheme “resettlement area declaration could be made under summary of R&R Scheme was published along with such declaration. 24. Mr. Jain submitted that the declaration dated February 05, 2020 is in teeth of Section 19 of the 2013 Act as along with the declaration to acquire the land, a separate declaration of the “resettlement area the present case. 25. He reiterated that f 05, 2020, it would clearly transpire that the objections by the land owners under Section 15(1) of the 2013 Act w government recorded its disputed land being necessary for public purpo circumstances beyond its control the same could not be done within the stipulated period of 12 months extended by another 03 months i.e till May 04, 2020. No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases Next this Court was taken through the 2013 Act to submit that when the appropriate government was after considering the report of the Collector prepared after hearing and consideration of the objections of the land owners/interested persons under Section 15(2) of the 2013 Act that the land was required for public purpose a declaration to said effect shall be made of the area identified as resettlement area for the purpose of reh and resettlement of the affected families. Along with the declaration, the Collector had to publish the summary of R&R Scheme resettlement area” for the purpose of R&R of the affected families. declaration could be made under Section 19 (2) of the 2013 Act, unless the summary of R&R Scheme was published along with such declaration. Mr. Jain submitted that the declaration dated February 05, 2020 is in teeth of Section 19 of the 2013 Act as along with the declaration quire the land, a separate declaration had to be made resettlement area” for the affected families which was not done in the present case. He reiterated that from the perusal of the office note dated May it would clearly transpire that the objections by the land owners under Section 15(1) of the 2013 Act were not even considered before the government recorded its satisfaction with regard to acquisition of the disputed land being necessary for public purpo circumstances beyond its control the same could not be done within the stipulated period of 12 months, the time for publication extended by another 03 months i.e till May 04, 2020. No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 14 hrough the provisions of Section 19 the appropriate government was after considering the report of the Collector prepared after hearing of the land owners/interested persons under Section 15(2) of the 2013 Act that the land was required for public be made along with the declaration of the area identified as resettlement area for the purpose of rehabilitation Along with the declaration, the Collector had to publish the summary of R&R Scheme indicating the ” for the purpose of R&R of the affected families. No Section 19 (2) of the 2013 Act, unless the summary of R&R Scheme was published along with such declaration. Mr. Jain submitted that the declaration dated February 05, 2020 is in teeth of Section 19 of the 2013 Act as along with the declaration had to be made for identification for the affected families which was not done in rom the perusal of the office note dated May it would clearly transpire that the objections by the land owners not even considered before the with regard to acquisition of the disputed land being necessary for public purpose and since for circumstances beyond its control the same could not be done within the time for publication was required to be extended by another 03 months i.e till May 04, 2020. SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases 26. Th meaningfully considering the objections under Section 15(1) and the made by the Collector its satisfaction required to be acquired issuance of the public notice in law but the original extension was also bad/ 27. In support of his contentions, Mr. Jain following judgments: “Surinder Singh Brar v. Union of India” SCC 403 “Kolkata Municipal Corporation and another v. Bimal Kumar Shah and others” “Institute of Sisters of Charity v. State of Haryana others “Varinder Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh this High Court in CWP No.16112 of 2009 dated 27.05.2010 “Ram Kishan another 28. Mr. petitioners in CWP No.4016 of 2021 after adopting the arguments made by Mr. Bali, has stressed on the notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act being rescinded by operation of law of the 2013 Act was not i notification. The only way the stipulated period of extended by an appropriate No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases Therefore, he contended that the considering the objections under Section 15(1) and the by the Collector under Section 15(2) of the 2013 Act satisfaction under Section 19(1) of the 2013 Act red to be acquired for public purpose. issuance of the public notice on May 06, 2020 for second extension in law but the original notification dated was also bad/non-est in the eyes of law. In support of his contentions, Mr. Jain following judgments:- Surinder Singh Brar v. Union of India” SCC 403 “Kolkata Municipal Corporation and another v. Bimal Kumar Shah and others” reported in Institute of Sisters of Charity v. State of Haryana others” reported in (2025) AIR CC 707 Varinder Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh this High Court in CWP No.16112 of 2009 dated 27.05.2010 Ram Kishan Gupta and others another” reported in (2012) 3 RCR (Civil) 907 Mr. Mulwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in CWP No.4016 of 2021 after adopting the arguments made by Mr. Bali, has stressed on the notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act being rescinded by operation of law as the declaration of the 2013 Act was not issued within one year of the preliminary The only way the stipulated period of an appropriate government was by taking a decision to extend No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 15 the State government, without considering the objections under Section 15(1) and the Report under Section 15(2) of the 2013 Act could not record of the 2013 Act that the land was . Consequently, not only the on May 06, 2020 for second extension was bad February 05, 2020 for first in the eyes of law. In support of his contentions, Mr. Jain has relied on the Surinder Singh Brar v. Union of India” reported in (2013) 1 “Kolkata Municipal Corporation and another v. Bimal reported in (2024) 10 SCC 533 Institute of Sisters of Charity v. State of Haryana and (2025) AIR CC 707 Varinder Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh and others” passed by this High Court in CWP No.16112 of 2009 dated 27.05.2010 Gupta and others v. State of Haryana and (2012) 3 RCR (Civil) 907 learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in CWP No.4016 of 2021 after adopting the arguments made by Mr. Bali, has stressed on the notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act as the declaration under Section 19(1) ssued within one year of the preliminary The only way the stipulated period of 12 months could be by taking a decision to extend SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases the period (a) by recording the notifying and uploading the same on the website of the authority concerned Since the aforesaid procedures have not been followed second extension the 2013 Act is deemed to have been 29. He also defined under Section 3(v) of the Act and by issuance of a second extension satisfied. 30. In support of his contentions he relies on the following judgments: “M. Venugopal v. Divisional Manager LIC and another” reported in 1994 (2) SCC 323 “Delhi Cloth & General Mills Rajasthan and others” reported in 1996 (2) SCC 449 “State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram” reported in 2013 (4) SCC 280 “Musunuru Naveen v. State of Telangana” in WP no.17354 of 2021 “Ramesh Singh and others v. The State of and others” reported in 2025 ILR MP 373 “Chandrappa CH v. State of Karnataka” reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 11745 All the cases and discussed later. 31. The aforesaid submissions for the petitioners the other writ petitions. No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases the period (a) by recording the circumstances notifying and uploading the same on the website of the authority concerned ince the aforesaid procedures have not been followed second extension, the preliminary notification is deemed to have been rescinded He also contended that the word defined under Section 3(v) of the Act and by issuance of a second extension the requirement of issuance of a In support of his contentions he relies on the following “M. Venugopal v. Divisional Manager LIC and another” reported in 1994 (2) SCC 323 “Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd and another v. State of Rajasthan and others” reported in 1996 (2) SCC 449 “State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram” reported in 2013 (4) SCC 280 “Musunuru Naveen v. State of Telangana” in WP no.17354 of 2021 “Ramesh Singh and others v. The State of and others” reported in 2025 ILR MP 373 “Chandrappa CH v. State of Karnataka” reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 11745 All the cases cited by the learned counsel discussed later. The aforesaid submissions made by the three learned counsel for the petitioners have been adopted by the learned counsel appearing in the other writ petitions. No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 16 cumstances in writing and (b) by notifying and uploading the same on the website of the authority concerned. ince the aforesaid procedures have not been followed during the purported preliminary notification passed under Section 11 of rescinded, by operation of law. that the word “notification” has been defined under Section 3(v) of the Act and by issuance of a public notice for the requirement of issuance of a notification could not be In support of his contentions he relies on the following “M. Venugopal v. Divisional Manager LIC and another” Co. Ltd and another v. State of Rajasthan and others” reported in 1996 (2) SCC 449 “State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram” reported in 2013 (4) “Musunuru Naveen v. State of Telangana” in WP no.17354 “Ramesh Singh and others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others” reported in 2025 ILR MP 373 “Chandrappa CH v. State of Karnataka” reported in 2024 cited by the learned counsel have been analyzed made by the three learned counsel have been adopted by the learned counsel appearing in SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 32. Per contra on behalf of the Stat State in the land acquisition proceedings acres in four pockets pocket ‘A’ which dispute relates acquisition proceedings should not be set only 60 acres out of 1651 acres of land, interest. 33. It is argued on behalf of the State stipulated is 12 months for publication of the declaration under Section 19 (1) of the 2013 Act from the date of issuance of the preliminary notification under Section 11 of the mandatory. The State of declaration deemed fit, if circumstances so existed. months vide notification dated February 05, 2020 months no infirmity was committed by the State. 34. Once the first extension was done by way of a notification, the State was well within its rights to extend the said period for another 06 months by way of public notice dated May 06, 2020. As per the Act, subsequent extension need not have been done second extension No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Per contra, Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of Punjab submitted that total land acquired in the land acquisition proceedings in question acres in four pockets. The present bunch of 12 which ad measured 737.1252 acres out of s to only 60 acres of land in pocket n proceedings should not be set-aside only 60 acres out of 1651 acres of land, keeping It is argued on behalf of the State stipulated is 12 months for publication of the declaration under Section 19 (1) of the 2013 Act from the date of issuance of the preliminary notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act, the said period is only directory and not he State was empowered to extend the period under Section 19 (7) of the 2013 Act if circumstances so existed. By notification dated February 05, 2020 no infirmity was committed by the State. Once the first extension was done by way of a notification, the State was well within its rights to extend the said period for another 06 months by way of public notice dated May 06, 2020. As per the Act, subsequent extension need not have been done second extension enabled the State to publish No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 17 SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT , Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate appearing that total land acquired by the in question ad measured 1651 he present bunch of 12 writ petitions only relate to 737.1252 acres out of 1651 acres and the in pocket ‘A’. Therefore, the entire aside when the dispute relates to keeping in mind the greater public It is argued on behalf of the State that even though the time stipulated is 12 months for publication of the declaration under Section 19 (1) of the 2013 Act from the date of issuance of the preliminary notification the said period is only directory and not s empowered to extend the period for publication (7) of the 2013 Act as many times as it By extending the period of 12 notification dated February 05, 2020 for a period of three no infirmity was committed by the State. Once the first extension was done by way of a notification, the State was well within its rights to extend the said period for another 06 months by way of public notice dated May 06, 2020. As per the Act, any subsequent extension need not have been done by way of a notification. The enabled the State to publish the declaration by November SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases 04, 2020 and the same was published on August 28, 2020 which was well within the extended period 35. Next, he contended its entirety would reveal that time was not of essence for issuance of declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act. Even though prescribes a period of 12 mo acquisition of land proviso to Section 19 government to extend the said period. Had time been of essence, the legislature would not have permitted/empowered the State government to extend the initial existed justifying the 36. Due to intervention of COVID onwards, there were overwhelming reasons justifying both the said extensions. Moreover, s statute for non the declaration the said requirement acquisition proceedings within a reasonable time. 37. Whether or not the second extension was by way of a notification or retrospective approval for extension of time to publish the declaration issues were at best to the acquisition proceedings. The entire land acquisition proceedings ha been concluded by following the provisions of the statute and most of the No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases and the same was published on August 28, 2020 which was well within the extended period. Next, he contended that a perusal of would reveal that time was not of essence for issuance of declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act. Even though period of 12 months for issuance of final declaration acquisition of land from the date of preliminary notification proviso to Section 19 (7) of the 2013 Act government to extend the said period. Had time been of essence, the legislature would not have permitted/empowered the State government to initial period of 12 months in case where existed justifying the same. Due to intervention of COVID-19 pandemic from March 2020 onwards, there were overwhelming reasons justifying both the said extensions. Moreover, since no penal consequence statute for non-compliance of the procedural the declaration by way of a gazette notification within he said requirement was only directory in nature acquisition proceedings within a reasonable time. Whether or not the second extension was by way of a or by way of a public notice and whether or not there was a retrospective approval for extension of time to publish the declaration at best procedural irregularities, which to the acquisition proceedings. The entire land acquisition proceedings ha been concluded by following the provisions of the statute and most of the No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 18 and the same was published on August 28, 2020 which was well that a perusal of Section 19 of 2013 Act in would reveal that time was not of essence for issuance of declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act. Even though Section 19 (7) nths for issuance of final declaration for ate of preliminary notification but the second (7) of the 2013 Act also empowers the State government to extend the said period. Had time been of essence, the legislature would not have permitted/empowered the State government to in case where circumstances so 19 pandemic from March 2020 onwards, there were overwhelming reasons justifying both the said no penal consequence was provided under the compliance of the procedural formalities of not publishing by way of a gazette notification within the specified period, was only directory in nature, to conclude the acquisition proceedings within a reasonable time. Whether or not the second extension was by way of a by way of a public notice and whether or not there was a retrospective approval for extension of time to publish the declaration, such which could in no way be fatal to the acquisition proceedings. The entire land acquisition proceedings had been concluded by following the provisions of the statute and most of the SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases land owners did of land out of 1567 acres is the subject matter of the dispute. 38. To buttress his argument, he drew attention of this Court to the fact that petitioners No.3 to 8 in CWP No.17363 of 2020, have accepted the acquisition proceedings and have got plots under the land pooling scheme and favour where on land except the petitioners’ land has individuals could not be allowed to supersede the greater public interest for which the land was acquired. planned development project of residential and commercial area and if the land of the petitioners is excluded from the acquisition proceedings then the same would disturb the entire planning and layout of development. 39. It has caused to the petitioners by procedu by the State by time to publish the declaration be interfered with. dismissed. 40. Alternatively, it has been argued Court was of the view that provisions of the 2013 Act were not complied with, in acquiring the land of the petitioners, then the C relief of payment of additional compensation to the petitioners by following Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in “ No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases did not challenge the acquisition proceedings as only 60 acres of land out of 1567 acres is the subject matter of the dispute. To buttress his argument, he drew attention of this Court to the petitioners No.3 to 8 in CWP No.17363 of 2020, have accepted e acquisition proceedings and have gotten plots under the land pooling scheme and the LOIs ha where on third party rights have subsequentl land except the petitioners’ land has been developed and the rights of individuals could not be allowed to supersede the greater public interest for which the land was acquired. The disputed land has been acquired for a planned development project of residential and commercial area and if the land of the petitioners is excluded from the acquisition proceedings then the same would disturb the entire planning and layout of development. It has also been argued that in any event caused to the petitioners by procedural irregularity/ies by the State by non-publication of the notification for time to publish the declaration and the acquisition proceedings should not be interfered with. Accordingly, he urged that the writ petitions should be Alternatively, it has been argued Court was of the view that provisions of the 2013 Act were not complied with, in acquiring the land of the petitioners, then the C relief of payment of additional compensation to the petitioners by following Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in “Girias Investment Private Limited No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 19 the acquisition proceedings as only 60 acres of land out of 1567 acres is the subject matter of the dispute. To buttress his argument, he drew attention of this Court to the petitioners No.3 to 8 in CWP No.17363 of 2020, have accepted ten the residential/commercial LOIs have been issued in their subsequently accrued. The entire been developed and the rights of individuals could not be allowed to supersede the greater public interest for The disputed land has been acquired for a planned development project of residential and commercial area and if the land of the petitioners is excluded from the acquisition proceedings then the same would disturb the entire planning and layout of development. in any event no prejudice has been regularity/ies, if at all, committed publication of the notification for second extension of and the acquisition proceedings should not , he urged that the writ petitions should be Alternatively, it has been argued by Mr. Singh that in case the Court was of the view that provisions of the 2013 Act were not complied with, in acquiring the land of the petitioners, then the Court should grant the relief of payment of additional compensation to the petitioners by following Girias Investment Private Limited SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases and another v. State of Karnataka and others 53. 41. He Barangore Jute Factory and others submit that the quashing of notification at this stage several difficulties and practical problems as the ult only be the determination of quantum of compensation payable to the land owners. ISSUES 42. This Court has heard learned counsels for the parties and their able assistance that fall for consideration are as follows: i) Was the Social Impact subsequent recommendations by the expert committee made ii) Was the power of extension under Section 19(7) the appropriate government provisions iii) What Relief, if any, can be granted to the petitioners ? DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS BY THE COURT ISSUE NO.1 43. After the publication of notification under Section 4 of the 2013 Act regarding carrying out Assistant Public Relations Officer vide memo dated May 22, 2018, to issue notice for public hearing as per Section 6 of the a public notice was issued. The relevant part of the Public Notice is reproduced hereinafter: No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases and another v. State of Karnataka and others He also relied on the judgment of “ Barangore Jute Factory and others” reported in submit that the quashing of notification at this stage several difficulties and practical problems as the ult the determination of quantum of compensation payable to the land This Court has heard learned counsels for the parties and their able assistance perused the material on record. T l for consideration are as follows:- Was the Social Impact Assessment subsequent recommendations by the expert committee made in accordance with law ? Was the power of extension under Section 19(7) the appropriate government, provisions ? What Relief, if any, can be granted to the petitioners ? DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS BY THE COURT After the publication of notification under Section 4 of the 2013 Act regarding carrying out of the SIA study, the LAC directed the Assistant Public Relations Officer vide memo dated May 22, 2018, to issue notice for public hearing as per Section 6 of the a public notice was issued. The relevant part of the Public Notice is reproduced hereinafter:- No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 20 and another v. State of Karnataka and others” reported in (2008) 7 SCC on the judgment of “Competent Authority v. ” reported in (2005) 13 SCC 477 to submit that the quashing of notification at this stage would give rise to several difficulties and practical problems as the ultimate question would the determination of quantum of compensation payable to the land This Court has heard learned counsels for the parties and with perused the material on record. Three primary issues Assessment Study conducted and the subsequent recommendations by the expert committee were Was the power of extension under Section 19(7) exercised by pursuant to the statutory What Relief, if any, can be granted to the petitioners ? DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS BY THE COURT After the publication of notification under Section 4 of the of the SIA study, the LAC directed the Assistant Public Relations Officer vide memo dated May 22, 2018, to issue notice for public hearing as per Section 6 of the 2013 Act. Pursuant to that, a public notice was issued. The relevant part of the Public Notice is SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases Name of Village Kurari & Saini Majra Patton & Matran Seeon & Chhatt Chau Majra Barhi, Safipur Kishanpura & Rurka Manauli & Bakarpur Chachu Majra & Naraingarh 44. Under Section 5 of the 2013 Act, a public hearing was required to be given to the affected families. Section 5 is reproduced hereinafter for ready reference: “Public hearing for Social Impact Assessment Social Impact Assessment is required to be prepared under Section 4, the appropriate Government shall ensure that a public hearing is held at the affected area, after giving adequate pub public hearing, to ascertain the views of the affected families to be recorded and included in the Social Impact Assessment Report.” In the public hearing, specific views of the affected families were to be considered qua the social impact of acquisition of the land. The views and preferences of the concerned families were to be recorded and included in the SIA re 45. A perusal of the chart would reveal that more than one village were clubbed togethe were allotted for hearing the villagers and recording their views and preferences by the appropriate government. noting the concerns of the affected families while conduct raises serious doubt in the mind of this Court as to the intention and No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases Name of Village Dated Time Kurari & Saini Majra 30.05.2018 11:00 Patton & Matran 30.05.2018 11:45 Seeon & Chhatt 30.05.2018 12:30 30.05.2018 1:00 (in afternoon) Barhi, Safipur 31.05.2018 11:00 Kishanpura & Rurka 31.05.2018 11:45 Manauli & Bakarpur 31.05.2018 12:30 (in afternoon) Chachu Majra & 31.05.2018 01:00 (in afternoon) Under Section 5 of the 2013 Act, a public hearing was required to be given to the affected families. Section 5 is reproduced hereinafter for reference:- Public hearing for Social Impact Assessment Social Impact Assessment is required to be prepared under Section 4, the appropriate Government shall ensure that a public hearing is held at the affected area, after giving adequate publicity about the date, time and venue for the public hearing, to ascertain the views of the affected families to be recorded and included in the Social Impact Assessment Report.” In the public hearing, specific views of the affected families considered qua the social impact of acquisition of the land. The views and preferences of the concerned families were to be recorded and included in the SIA report. A perusal of the chart would reveal that more than one village were clubbed together for hearing the affected families and 40 were allotted for hearing the villagers and recording their views and preferences by the appropriate government. The time period stipulated for noting the concerns of the affected families while conduct raises serious doubt in the mind of this Court as to the intention and No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 21 Time Place 11:00 Gurudwara Sahib 11:45 Gurudwara Sahib 12:30 Gurudwara Sahib 1:00 (in afternoon) Gurudwara Sahib 11:00 11:45 Gurudwara Sahib 12:30 (in afternoon) Gurudwara Sahib 01:00 (in afternoon) Gurudwara Sahib Under Section 5 of the 2013 Act, a public hearing was required to be given to the affected families. Section 5 is reproduced hereinafter for Public hearing for Social Impact Assessment- Whenever a Social Impact Assessment is required to be prepared under Section 4, the appropriate Government shall ensure that a public hearing is held at the affected area, after giving licity about the date, time and venue for the public hearing, to ascertain the views of the affected families to be recorded and included in the Social Impact Assessment In the public hearing, specific views of the affected families considered qua the social impact of acquisition of the land. The views and preferences of the concerned families were to be recorded and A perusal of the chart would reveal that more than one village r for hearing the affected families and 40-45 minutes were allotted for hearing the villagers and recording their views and The time period stipulated for noting the concerns of the affected families while conducting the SIA Study raises serious doubt in the mind of this Court as to the intention and SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases genuineness on the part of the government authorities to appreciate the concerns of the affected families 46. After the hearing appraise the SIA report (2) of the 2013 Act is reproduced hereinafter “(2) shall include the following, namely: (a) (b) (c) (d) 47. Documents revea Social Impact Assessment Appraisal Committee (for short “SIAAC”) held on October 23, 2018, are as follows: Sr. No. 1 2 3 4 5 48. A perusal of the constituent members of the Committee will reveal that instead of 02 non Social Scientist was present. 02 representatives of the Panchayat, Gram No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases genuineness on the part of the government authorities to appreciate the concerns of the affected families. After the hearing, a multi-disciplinary expert group h appraise the SIA report under Section 7 of the 2013 Act (2) of the 2013 Act is reproduced hereinafter, for ready reference “(2) The Expert Group constituted under sub shall include the following, namely: (a) two non-official social scientists; (b) two representatives of Panchayat, Gram Sabha, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be; (c) two experts on rehabilitation; and (d) a technical expert in the subject relating to the project.” Documents reveal that the five constituent members Social Impact Assessment Appraisal Committee (for short “SIAAC”) held on October 23, 2018, are as follows: Name Prof. Rajesh Gill Sh. K.S.Sidhu (IAS) Prof. A.K.Sinha Mrs. Arina Duggal (PCS) Sh. Ashwani Gambhir A perusal of the constituent members of the Committee will reveal that instead of 02 non-official Social Scientists, only 01 non Social Scientist was present. 02 representatives of the Panchayat, Gram No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 22 genuineness on the part of the government authorities to appreciate the disciplinary expert group had to under Section 7 of the 2013 Act. Under Section 7 , for ready reference:- The Expert Group constituted under sub-section (1) shall include the following, namely:- official social scientists; two representatives of Panchayat, Gram Sabha, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may two experts on rehabilitation; and a technical expert in the subject relating to the project.” l that the five constituent members of the Social Impact Assessment Appraisal Committee (for short “SIAAC”) held Designation Chairperson & Expert Rehabilitation Non-official social scientist Professor, PU Chandigarh Collector, Land Acquisition Land Acquisition Office, Mohali A perusal of the constituent members of the Committee will official Social Scientists, only 01 non-official Social Scientist was present. 02 representatives of the Panchayat, Gram SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases Sabha, Municipality 7(2)(b) of the 2013 Act, were not Court is constrained to hold that the very constitution of the flawed and no recommendation made by it could be held valid in the eyes of law. Furthermore, from perusal of the documents a only the Chairperson had signed the said report and the other members refrained from attesting their signatures thereupon. also raises grave concern as to whether the fact approved by 49. A perusal of the Committee’s that the views and preferences of the families concerned cursorily mentioned merely an eye provisions by way of lip 50. As neither the expert group was appropriately constituted nor was the SIA Study conducted after complying Section 5 of the Act in true letter and spirit, this Court is of the firm opinion that the purported SIA acquisition in question. ISSUE NO.2 51. The preliminary notification was published on February 06, 2019. After giving personal hearing to the land owners/interested persons under Section 15 of the 2013 Act Collector was he would submit No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases Sabha, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as required under Section 7(2)(b) of the 2013 Act, were not made a part of the said Committee. Therefore, this Court is constrained to hold that the very constitution of the flawed and no recommendation made by it could be held valid in the eyes Furthermore, from perusal of the documents a only the Chairperson had signed the said report and the other members refrained from attesting their signatures thereupon. also raises grave concern as to whether the said fact approved by all the members of the purported Committee. A perusal of the Committee’s-SIAAC recommendation the views and preferences of the families concerned cursorily mentioned leading to the conclusion that the entire exercise was merely an eye wash for the purpose of only complying with the statutory by way of lip-service. As neither the expert group was appropriately constituted nor was the SIA Study conducted after complying Section 5 of the Act in true letter and spirit, this Court is of the firm opinion that the purported SIA report could not have been made the basis of the land acquisition in question. The preliminary notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act was published on February 06, 2019. After giving personal hearing to the land owners/interested persons under Section 15 of the 2013 Act Collector was satisfied with regard to necessity of submit a report containing his recommendations on the objections No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 23 Municipal Corporation, as required under Section made a part of the said Committee. Therefore, this Court is constrained to hold that the very constitution of the expert group was flawed and no recommendation made by it could be held valid in the eyes Furthermore, from perusal of the documents attached it appears that only the Chairperson had signed the said report and the other members refrained from attesting their signatures thereupon. Such patent omission said recommendations were in the members of the purported Committee. SIAAC recommendation shows the views and preferences of the families concerned were not even nclusion that the entire exercise was wash for the purpose of only complying with the statutory As neither the expert group was appropriately constituted nor was the SIA Study conducted after complying with the provisions of Section 5 of the Act in true letter and spirit, this Court is of the firm opinion report could not have been made the basis of the land under Section 11 of the 2013 Act was published on February 06, 2019. After giving personal hearing to the land owners/interested persons under Section 15 of the 2013 Act, if the with regard to necessity of the land to be acquired, commendations on the objections SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases and thereafter, objections would be final under Section 15(3) of the 2013 Act. When an appropriate government is satisfied af report(s) of the Collector made under Section 15(3) that the particular land was needed for a public purpose then a declaration that effect along with area” for the purpose of rehabilitation and resettlement of the affected families. 52. Under Section 19(7) of the 2013 Act unless a declaration was made within 12 months from the date of preliminary notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act then such notification rescinded. Since the preliminary notification was i 2019, 12 months would have expired on expiry, the notification for first extension under Section 19(7) of the 2013 Act was issued on February 05, 2020 notification is repro “ acquisition of land is necessitated in public interest and that there were circumstances beyond the control of the Department for the delay in issuance of notification under Section 9 extended. Therefore, it is hereby notified that the declaration of notification under the proviso of Section 19(7) of the “The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and aforesaid project is extended by three months i.e. upto 05.05.2020.” 53. A perusal of notification dated February 05, 2020 would reveal that the State necessitated in public interest and for No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases thereafter, the decision of the appropriate government on the said objections would be final under Section 15(3) of the 2013 Act. When an appropriate government is satisfied after considering the of the Collector made under Section 15(3) that the particular land needed for a public purpose then a declaration along with a declaration of an area identified as “ ” for the purpose of rehabilitation and resettlement of the affected Under Section 19(7) of the 2013 Act unless a declaration was made within 12 months from the date of preliminary notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act then such notification Since the preliminary notification was i , 12 months would have expired on February 05, 2020 he notification for first extension under Section 19(7) of the 2013 Act was issued on February 05, 2020. The relevant extract of the notification is reproduced hereinafter:- Whereas the Governor of Punjab acquisition of land is necessitated in public interest and that there were circumstances beyond the control of the Department for the delay in issuance of notification under Section 9 and thus, the period of one year needs to be extended. Therefore, it is hereby notified that the declaration of notification under the proviso of Section 19(7) of the “The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013” for the aforesaid project is extended by three months i.e. upto 05.05.2020.” A perusal of notification dated February 05, 2020 would reveal upon being satisfied with the acquisition of the land necessitated in public interest and for circumstances No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 24 the decision of the appropriate government on the said objections would be final under Section 15(3) of the 2013 Act. When an ter considering the objections and the of the Collector made under Section 15(3) that the particular land needed for a public purpose then a declaration shall have to be made to a declaration of an area identified as “resettlement ” for the purpose of rehabilitation and resettlement of the affected Under Section 19(7) of the 2013 Act unless a declaration was made within 12 months from the date of preliminary notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act then such notification shall be deemed to have Since the preliminary notification was issued on February 06, February 05, 2020. Prior to such he notification for first extension under Section 19(7) of the 2013 The relevant extract of the Whereas the Governor of Punjab is satisfied that acquisition of land is necessitated in public interest and that there were circumstances beyond the control of the Department for the delay in issuance of notification under and thus, the period of one year needs to be extended. Therefore, it is hereby notified that the declaration of notification under the proviso of Section 19(7) of the “The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Resettlement Act, 2013” for the aforesaid project is extended by three months i.e. upto [Emphasis supplied] A perusal of notification dated February 05, 2020 would reveal with the acquisition of the land, being circumstances existing beyond the SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases control of the department, extended the time for vide notification under Section 9 ( that needs to be answered is whether the satisfied itself regarding the necessity of the land being required in public interest, on February 05, 2020 54. As per the provisions of Sec appropriate government could only be objections filed by the land owners/interested persons under Section 15(2) of the 2013 Act and/or the report made by the Collector in that regard. 55. On a minute perusal of Collector (signed by the ACA, GMADA on May 07, 2020 transpire that due to lockdown, the under Section 15 (1) to extend the period for the 2013 Act in 56. From the conjoint reading of the notification dated February 05, 2020 along that without considering the persons, the State particular parcel of land clearly indicative of a pre statutory provisions. 57. To appreciate the safeguards provided to the land owners/ interested persons one needs to appreciate the procedure followed under Secti No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases of the department, extended the time for vide notification under Section 9 (sic 19). Therefore, the primary question that needs to be answered is whether the appropriate government self regarding the necessity of the land being required in public , on February 05, 2020. As per the provisions of Section 19 of the 2013 Act, the appropriate government could only be satisfied filed by the land owners/interested persons under Section 15(2) of the 2013 Act and/or the report made by the Collector in that regard. On a minute perusal of the office note signed by the ACA, GMADA on May 07, 2020 that due to lockdown, the objections under Section 15 (1) could not be considered. Hence, a prop to extend the period for publication of notification under Section 19 in Pocket ‘A’ ad measuring 737.1252 acres. From the conjoint reading of the notification dated February 05, 2020 along with office note signed on May 07, 2020 that without considering the objections of the land owners/interested State government recorded its purported particular parcel of land being needed for a public purpose clearly indicative of a pre-determined mind set and repugnant to statutory provisions. To appreciate the safeguards provided to the land owners/ interested persons one needs to appreciate the procedure under Section 15 of the 2013 Act No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 25 of the department, extended the time for publication of declaration ). Therefore, the primary question appropriate government in fact self regarding the necessity of the land being required in public tion 19 of the 2013 Act, the satisfied after considering the filed by the land owners/interested persons under Section 15(2) of the 2013 Act and/or the report made by the Collector in that regard. the office note by the Land Acquisition signed by the ACA, GMADA on May 07, 2020) it would objections filed by the land owners considered. Hence, a proposal was made of notification under Section 19(7) of 737.1252 acres. From the conjoint reading of the notification dated February signed on May 07, 2020, it would transpire of the land owners/interested purported satisfaction to the ublic purpose. The said act is determined mind set and repugnant to the To appreciate the safeguards provided to the land owners/ interested persons one needs to appreciate the procedure required to be on 15 of the 2013 Act before a person could be SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases deprived of his property rights. hereinafter:- “ notified under sub or likely to be required for a public purpose, may within sixty days from the date of the publication of the preliminary notification, object to (2) the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorized by him in t shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under sub section (1) of section 11, or ma different parcels of such land, to the appropriate government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him along with a separate report giving therein the appr acquisition, particulars as to the number of affected families likely to be resettled, for the decision of that government. (3) objections made under sub 58. Under Section 15(1 the land would be at liberty to file objections to the Collector in writing within 60 days of the preliminary notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act. There is no dispute with regard received well within the stipulated time. objector or his authorized representative an opportunity of hearing and making further enquiry was under an obligation to make a report in respect of the land that had been notified under Section 11(1) of the 2013 Act No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases deprived of his property rights. Section 15 of the 2013 Act is reproduced “15 (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of section 11, as being required or likely to be required for a public purpose, may within sixty days from the date of the publication of the preliminary notification, object to – (a) the area and suitability of land proposed to be acquired; (b) justification offered for public purpose; (c) the findings of the Social Impact Assessment report. (2) Every objection under sub the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorized by him in this behalf or by an Advocate and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under sub section (1) of section 11, or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him along with a separate report giving therein the appr acquisition, particulars as to the number of affected families likely to be resettled, for the decision of that government. (3) The decision of the appropriate government on the objections made under sub-section (2) shall be final.” Under Section 15(1) of the 2013 Act, any person interested in the land would be at liberty to file objections to the Collector in writing within 60 days of the preliminary notification under Section 11 of the 2013 There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the objections were received well within the stipulated time. The Collector after giving the objector or his authorized representative an opportunity of hearing and making further enquiry was under an obligation to make a report in respect of the land that had been notified under Section 11(1) of the 2013 Act No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 26 Section 15 of the 2013 Act is reproduced (1) Any person interested in any land which has been section (1) of section 11, as being required or likely to be required for a public purpose, may within sixty days from the date of the publication of the preliminary he area and suitability of land proposed to be ustification offered for public purpose; findings of the Social Impact Assessment report. Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any his behalf or by an Advocate and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under sub- ke different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him along with a separate report giving therein the approximate cost of land acquisition, particulars as to the number of affected families likely to be resettled, for the decision of that government. The decision of the appropriate government on the section (2) shall be final.” ) of the 2013 Act, any person interested in the land would be at liberty to file objections to the Collector in writing within 60 days of the preliminary notification under Section 11 of the 2013 to the fact that the objections were The Collector after giving the objector or his authorized representative an opportunity of hearing and making further enquiry was under an obligation to make a report in respect of the land that had been notified under Section 11(1) of the 2013 Act was SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases necessary for acquisition. The Collector different reports regarding different parcels of land to the appropriate government containing interested persons report a separate report of the land, particulars of the affected families likely to be resettled reports had to be placed before the appropriate g decision on the 59. The State government by the Collector owners/interested 2013 Act, record be acquired. Such a glaring omission on the part leaves no room for doubt in the mind of this cou provisions for were regarded as giving a complete gobye to t the statute, the State has violated guaranteed under Article 300 notification dated February 05, 2020 government was published Act but it is also Primarily on the above mentioned liable to be set No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases cessary for acquisition. The Collector was also empowered to make ifferent reports regarding different parcels of land to the appropriate containing the recommendations on the objections interested persons regarding various parcels of land separate report had to be made by him of the land, particulars of the affected families likely to be resettled to be placed before the appropriate g decision on the objections of the land owners/interested persons The State government without suitable report by the Collector and without considering the owners/interested persons issued the notification , recording its satisfaction that the land be acquired. Such a glaring omission on the part leaves no room for doubt in the mind of this cou for consideration of the objections regarded as merely an empty, idle formality giving a complete gobye to the mandatory procedural requirements under the State has violated the Right to Property guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The notification dated February 05, 2020 recording the was published not only in violation of Section 15 of is also in derogation of the constitutional rights of the petitioners n the above mentioned grounds, the liable to be set-aside. No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 27 was also empowered to make ifferent reports regarding different parcels of land to the appropriate the recommendations on the objections raised by the s of land. Along with the said to be made by him, giving the approximate cost of the land, particulars of the affected families likely to be resettled. All the to be placed before the appropriate government for a final of the land owners/interested persons. suitable reports being prepared and without considering the objections of the land notification under Section 19 (7) of the that the land in dispute was required to be acquired. Such a glaring omission on the part of the State government leaves no room for doubt in the mind of this court that the statutory objections and report of the Collector merely an empty, idle formality for the government. By he mandatory procedural requirements under e Right to Property of the individuals A of the Constitution of India. The recording the satisfaction of the State in violation of Section 15 of the 2013 the constitutional rights of the petitioners. the acquisition proceedings are SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases 60. This Court is also of the view that the second extension sough to be done by way of a public notice is also proviso to Section 19(7) is unambiguous be followed for extension of the period where 19(1) could not be made within date of preliminary notification. The relevant extract of Section 19 is reproduced hereinafter: “(7) Where no declaration is made under sub within twelve months from the date of preliminary notification, then such notification shall be deemed to have been rescinded: sub proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay shall be excluded: have the power to extend the period of twelve months, if in its opinion circumstances exist justifying the same: period shall be recorded in writing and the same shall be notified and be uploaded on the website of the authority concerned.” 61. The word ‘notification’ has been the 2013 Act whic “(v) Gazette of India or, as the case may be, the Gazette of a State and the expression “notify” shall be construed accordingly.” Any extension of the time under Section 19 under Section 19(1) had notified and uploaded on the website of the authority concerned. 62. T reproduced hereunder: No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases This Court is also of the view that the second extension sough to be done by way of a public notice is also proviso to Section 19(7) is unambiguous qua the for extension of the period where 19(1) could not be made within the stipulated date of preliminary notification. The relevant extract of Section 19 is reproduced hereinafter:- “(7) Where no declaration is made under sub within twelve months from the date of preliminary notification, then such notification shall be deemed to have been rescinded: Provided that in computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded: Provided further that the appropriate government shall have the power to extend the period of twelve months, if in its opinion circumstances exist justifying the same: Provided also that any such decision to extend the period shall be recorded in writing and the same shall be notified and be uploaded on the website of the authority concerned.” The word ‘notification’ has been elucid the 2013 Act which is reproduced hereinafter:- “(v) “notification” means a notification published in the Gazette of India or, as the case may be, the Gazette of a State and the expression “notify” shall be construed accordingly.” Any extension of the time under Section 19 under Section 19(1) had to be made in writing and the same had notified and uploaded on the website of the authority concerned. The public notice dated May 06, 2020 issued by the LAC is reproduced hereunder: No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 28 This Court is also of the view that the second extension sought to be done by way of a public notice is also dehors the law. The third the procedural requirement to for extension of the period where a declaration under Section period of 12 months from the date of preliminary notification. The relevant extract of Section 19 is “(7) Where no declaration is made under sub-section (1) within twelve months from the date of preliminary notification, then such notification shall be deemed to have been rescinded: Provided that in computing the period referred to in this section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on or injunction by the order of any Court Provided further that the appropriate government shall have the power to extend the period of twelve months, if in its opinion circumstances exist justifying the same: such decision to extend the period shall be recorded in writing and the same shall be notified and be uploaded on the website of the authority elucidated under Section 3 (v) of - “notification” means a notification published in the Gazette of India or, as the case may be, the Gazette of a State and the expression “notify” shall be construed accordingly.” Any extension of the time under Section 19(7) to publish a declaration made in writing and the same had to be notified and uploaded on the website of the authority concerned. otice dated May 06, 2020 issued by the LAC is SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases “ notification under Section 19 of “The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013” for acquisition of land in villages Rurka, Safipur, Bakarpur, Ch Naraingarh for the purpose of setting up of Aerocity Expansion (Aerotropolis) Part 06 months from 05.05.2020 to 04.11.2020 under Section 19(7) of the said Act. 63. A public notice cannot be termed as a notification as required under Section 3(v) of the 2013 Act by any stretch of imagination. Therefore, the same is quashed and set 64. Moreover, t announced that the same was issued authority whereas from the perusal of office note, it is clear that the same was only put up for was in fact granted on May 07, 2020. Therefore, on the date of issuance of the public notice competent authority deemed to have revived retrospectively by way of issuance of a publi authority incompetent to issue the same under the provisions of the Act. The public at large was being issued with the notice is in the teeth of provisions stipulated under Section 19 of the 2013 Act, misleading in nature and a glaring lapse on the part of the LAC No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases In view of unavoidable circumstances validity of notification under Section 19 of “The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013” for acquisition of land in villages Rurka, Safipur, Bakarpur, Ch Naraingarh for the purpose of setting up of Aerocity Expansion (Aerotropolis) Part-A (737.1252 acres) is hereby extended by 06 months from 05.05.2020 to 04.11.2020 under Section 19(7) of the said Act. This issues with approval of competent author URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar. A public notice cannot be termed as a notification as required under Section 3(v) of the 2013 Act by any stretch of imagination. Therefore, the same is quashed and set-aside on the said ground. Moreover, the LAC vide the public notice that the same was issued with authority whereas from the perusal of office note, it is clear that the same was only put up for ex-post facto approval on May 05, 2020 which granted on May 07, 2020. Therefore, on the date of issuance of otice i.e. on May 06, 2020, there was no approval from the competent authority. Consequently, the preliminary notification to have rescinded by efflux of time as same could not have been revived retrospectively by way of issuance of a publi authority incompetent to issue the same under the provisions of the Act. public at large was also misinformed by the LAC that the issued with the approval of the competent authority. The said public notice is in the teeth of provisions stipulated under Section 19 of the 2013 , misleading in nature and a glaring lapse on the part of the LAC No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 29 view of unavoidable circumstances validity of notification under Section 19 of “The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013” for acquisition of land in villages Rurka, Safipur, Bakarpur, Chatt and Naraingarh for the purpose of setting up of Aerocity Expansion A (737.1252 acres) is hereby extended by 06 months from 05.05.2020 to 04.11.2020 under Section 19(7) This issues with approval of competent authority.” Land Acquisition Collector URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar. [Emphasis Supplied] A public notice cannot be termed as a notification as required under Section 3(v) of the 2013 Act by any stretch of imagination. aside on the said ground. the public notice dated May 06, 2020 approval by the competent authority whereas from the perusal of office note, it is clear that the same approval on May 05, 2020 which approval granted on May 07, 2020. Therefore, on the date of issuance of there was no approval from the , the preliminary notification would be by efflux of time as same could not have been revived retrospectively by way of issuance of a public notice, that too by an authority incompetent to issue the same under the provisions of the Act. misinformed by the LAC that the same was of the competent authority. The said public notice is in the teeth of provisions stipulated under Section 19 of the 2013 , misleading in nature and a glaring lapse on the part of the LAC. SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases 65. On all the above scores, the declaration dated August 20, is liable to be 2019 can also be DISCUSSION 66. Mr. Bali has placed strong reliance on case (supra) proposition of law as laid down in 67. In consideration was whether after quashing of the declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Land Act”) by the Court government to issue another notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act. The contention of the petitioners with regard of limitation was not available to the State government merely because declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act had been quashed by the Court was accepted by the constitutional bench of Supreme Court. It was held that the language of Section 6 (1) is plain and unambiguous and it was never the intent of the legislature to stretch the said period. The purpose of providing the period of limitation under the first proviso to Section 6 (1) is avoidance of inconvenience to a per relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein after: “xxx 14. the law and cannot legislate it. If a provision of law is misused and subjected to the abuse of process of law, it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal it, if deemed necessary. The legis interpretative process. Language of Section 6(1) is plain and No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases On all the above scores, the declaration dated August 20, liable to be set aside and the preliminary notification dated February 06, can also be deemed to have rescinded. DISCUSSION ON CASE LAWS Mr. Bali has placed strong reliance on (supra) and BEML’s case (supra). There is no dispute with the proposition of law as laid down in the said cases In Padma Sundara Rao’s case consideration was whether after quashing of the declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1894 by the Court, a fresh period of limitation was available to the State government to issue another notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act. The contention of the petitioners with regard of limitation was not available to the State government merely because declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act had been quashed by the Court was accepted by the constitutional bench of Supreme Court. It was held that language of Section 6 (1) is plain and unambiguous and it was never the intent of the legislature to stretch the said period. The purpose of providing the period of limitation under the first proviso to Section 6 (1) is avoidance of inconvenience to a person whose land was sought to be acquired. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein after: “xxx 14. While interpreting a provision the Court only interprets the law and cannot legislate it. If a provision of law is misused and subjected to the abuse of process of law, it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal it, if deemed necessary. The legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative process. Language of Section 6(1) is plain and No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 30 On all the above scores, the declaration dated August 20, 2020 set aside and the preliminary notification dated February 06, Mr. Bali has placed strong reliance on Padma Sundara Rao’s There is no dispute with the the said cases. case (supra), the issue under consideration was whether after quashing of the declaration under Section 6 Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1894 , a fresh period of limitation was available to the State government to issue another notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act. The contention of the petitioners with regard to the fact that a fresh period of limitation was not available to the State government merely because declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act had been quashed by the Court was accepted by the constitutional bench of Supreme Court. It was held that language of Section 6 (1) is plain and unambiguous and it was never the intent of the legislature to stretch the said period. The purpose of providing the period of limitation under the first proviso to Section 6 (1) is avoidance son whose land was sought to be acquired. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein after:- While interpreting a provision the Court only interprets the law and cannot legislate it. If a provision of law is misused and subjected to the abuse of process of law, it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal it, if deemed necessary. lative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative process. Language of Section 6(1) is plain and SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases unambiguous. There is no scope for reading something into it, as was done in Narasimhaiah case. In Nanjudaiah case the period was further stre date of service of the High Court’s order. Such a view cannot be reconciled with the language of Section 6(1). If the view is accepted it would mean that a case can be covered by not only clause (i) and/or clause (ii) also by a non legislative intent. 15. omissus and the other in regard to reading the statute as a whole casus omissus cannot be supplied by the court except in the case of clear necessity and when reasons for it is found in the four corners of the statute itself but at the same time a casus omissus should not be readily the parts of a statute or section must be construed together and every clause of a section should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses thereof so that the construction to be put on a particular prov of the whole statute. This would be more so if literal construction of a particular clause leads to manifestly absurd or anomalous results which could not have been intended by the legislature. “An intention to produce a result,”, said Danckwerts, L.J., in Artemiou v. Procopiou “is not to be imputed to a statute if there is some other construction available”. Where to apply words literally would “defeat the obvious intention of the legislation and produce a wholly unreasonable result”, we must “do some violence to the words” and so achieve that obvious intention and produce a rational construction. xxx” 68. Relying on submitted that in acquisition of land Both the cases aid the arguments made on behalf of the petitioners. 69. He then (supra) to submit that the provisions of the Act seeking to divest an individual of his property right has to be strictly construed keeping in mind No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases unambiguous. There is no scope for reading something into it, as was done in Narasimhaiah case. In Nanjudaiah case the period was further stretched to have the time period run from date of service of the High Court’s order. Such a view cannot be reconciled with the language of Section 6(1). If the view is accepted it would mean that a case can be covered by not only clause (i) and/or clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 6(1), but also by a non-prescribed period. Same can never be the legislative intent. 15. Two principles of construction omissus and the other in regard to reading the statute as a whole- appear to be well settled. Under the first principle, a casus omissus cannot be supplied by the court except in the case of clear necessity and when reasons for it is found in the four corners of the statute itself but at the same time a casus omissus should not be readily inferred and for that purpose all the parts of a statute or section must be construed together and every clause of a section should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses thereof so that the construction to be put on a particular provision makes a consistent enactment of the whole statute. This would be more so if literal construction of a particular clause leads to manifestly absurd or anomalous results which could not have been intended by the legislature. “An intention to produce a result,”, said Danckwerts, L.J., in Artemiou v. Procopiou “is not to be imputed to a statute if there is some other construction available”. Where to apply words literally would “defeat the obvious intention of the legislation and produce a wholly unreasonable result”, we must “do some violence to the words” and so achieve that obvious intention and produce a rational construction. xxx” Relying on BEML Employees submitted that in the event there was a violation acquisition of land, the entire proceedings we Both the cases aid the arguments made on behalf of the petitioners. He then relied on the judgment of to submit that the provisions of the Act seeking to divest an individual of his property right has to be strictly construed keeping in mind No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 31 unambiguous. There is no scope for reading something into it, as was done in Narasimhaiah case. In Nanjudaiah case the tched to have the time period run from date of service of the High Court’s order. Such a view cannot be reconciled with the language of Section 6(1). If the view is accepted it would mean that a case can be covered by not only of the proviso to Section 6(1), but prescribed period. Same can never be the Two principles of construction- one relating to casus omissus and the other in regard to reading the statute as a settled. Under the first principle, a casus omissus cannot be supplied by the court except in the case of clear necessity and when reasons for it is found in the four corners of the statute itself but at the same time a casus inferred and for that purpose all the parts of a statute or section must be construed together and every clause of a section should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses thereof so that the construction to ision makes a consistent enactment of the whole statute. This would be more so if literal construction of a particular clause leads to manifestly absurd or anomalous results which could not have been intended by the legislature. “An intention to produce an unreasonable result,”, said Danckwerts, L.J., in Artemiou v. Procopiou “is not to be imputed to a statute if there is some other construction available”. Where to apply words literally would “defeat the obvious intention of the legislation and produce a wholly unreasonable result”, we must “do some violence to the words” and so achieve that obvious intention and produce a BEML Employees’ case (supra), Mr. Bali s a violation of procedure laid down for ings were required to be quashed. Both the cases aid the arguments made on behalf of the petitioners. relied on the judgment of N. Padmamma’s case to submit that the provisions of the Act seeking to divest an individual of his property right has to be strictly construed keeping in mind SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases the rights of an individual guaranteed under Constitution of India. 70. The issue involved division of property between the first wife and daughter of the deceased S.Ramachandra daughter of the said deceased that the law of prim is unconstitutional being hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The right of inheritance and succession is a statutory right and the provisions of Hindu Succession A another statute which would have an over is set-out hereinafter: “xxx 18. A right in a property which is vested of the Hindu Succession Act cannot be taken away, except in terms of provisions of another statute, which would have an overriding effect. Such special statute should be a complete code. It shall ordinarily be a later statute. Or must contain a non obstante clause. 19. Such a provision may be held to be unconstitutional being hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. 20. must mean that the same would be confined to the matters covered thereby or connected therewith. The right or the claim must be necessarily required to be dealt with by the authorities under the Act. The grievance/adjudicatory forum therein must be competent to resolve the dispute. The right of property is a human right. The Act contemplates divesting of right of an inamdar. It does not contemplate cessation of a right of a co co possession by way of personal cultivation. The word "possession" in such cases should be given a broader No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases rights of an individual guaranteed under Constitution of India. The issue involved in Padmamma division of property between the first wife and daughter of the deceased amachandra Reddy (Hindu Male) on one side and second wife, son and of the said deceased on the other. In that context it has been that the law of primogeniture is no longer applicable in is unconstitutional being hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The right of inheritance and succession is a statutory right and the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 could not be ignored another statute which would have an overriding effect. The relevant extract out hereinafter: xxx 18. Right of inheritance and succession is a statutory right. A right in a property which is vested of the Hindu Succession Act cannot be taken away, except in terms of provisions of another statute, which would have an overriding effect. Such special statute should be a complete code. It shall ordinarily be a later statute. Or must contain a non obstante clause. 19. Law of primogeniture is no longer applicable in India. Such a provision may be held to be unconstitutional being hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. 20. Where the civil court's jurisdiction must mean that the same would be confined to the matters covered thereby or connected therewith. The right or the claim must be necessarily required to be dealt with by the authorities under the Act. The grievance/adjudicatory forum therein must be competent to resolve the dispute. The right of property is a human right. The Act contemplates divesting of right of an inamdar. It does not contemplate cessation of a right of a co-sharer or recognition of a right in favour of oth co-sharer. The right has to be determined having regard to the possession by way of personal cultivation. The word "possession" in such cases should be given a broader No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 32 rights of an individual guaranteed under Article 300-A of the mma’s case (supra) related to the division of property between the first wife and daughter of the deceased on one side and second wife, son and . In that context it has been held ogeniture is no longer applicable in India and the same is unconstitutional being hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The right of inheritance and succession is a statutory right and the provisions of could not be ignored except in terms of riding effect. The relevant extract Right of inheritance and succession is a statutory right. A right in a property which is vested in terms of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act cannot be taken away, except in terms of provisions of another statute, which would have an overriding effect. Such special statute should be a complete code. It shall ordinarily be a later statute. Ordinarily again it must contain a non obstante clause. Law of primogeniture is no longer applicable in India. Such a provision may be held to be unconstitutional being hit Where the civil court's jurisdiction is barred expressly it must mean that the same would be confined to the matters covered thereby or connected therewith. The right or the claim must be necessarily required to be dealt with by the authorities under the Act. The grievance/adjudicatory forum provided therein must be competent to resolve the dispute. The right of property is a human right. The Act contemplates divesting of right of an inamdar. It does not contemplate cessation of a sharer or recognition of a right in favour of other sharer. The right has to be determined having regard to the possession by way of personal cultivation. The word "possession" in such cases should be given a broader SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases connotation. Possession of one sharer would be deemed to be the possession of others. concept cannot be held to have been done away with under the Act. 21. constitutional right, the same cannot be taken away except in accordance with law. Article 300 such right. The provisions of the Act seeking to divest such right, keeping in view of the provisions of Article 300 Constitution of India, must be strictly construed. (See Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapu The principle laid down in the said decision, having regard to the concept of Article 300 held to have some application in a case of this nature. xxx” 71. Reliance was However, it is lost upon the mind of Padmamma’s 72. Next reliance is placed the proposition that the provisions of any Act seeking to divest a person from his property rights have to be strictly followed. He also brought to the notice of this Court the procedural safeguards laid down by the Apex Court before divesting a perso case (supra). 73. The issue in without following a proper process for land acquisition, the respondent authorities could the petitioner therein published nor the Supreme Court that the rights in land of a per longer a fundamental right No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases connotation. Possession of one sharer would be deemed to be the possession of others. It is a legal concept. This legal concept cannot be held to have been done away with under the Act. 21. If a right of property is a human right as also a constitutional right, the same cannot be taken away except in accordance with law. Article 300- such right. The provisions of the Act seeking to divest such right, keeping in view of the provisions of Article 300 Constitution of India, must be strictly construed. (See Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapu The principle laid down in the said decision, having regard to the concept of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India may be held to have some application in a case of this nature. xx” Reliance was made on para 21 of the aforesaid jud it is lost upon the mind of this Court case (supra) are applicable to the facts of the Next reliance is placed on D.B. Basnett the proposition that the provisions of any Act seeking to divest a person from his property rights have to be strictly followed. He also brought to the notice of this Court the procedural safeguards laid down by the Apex Court before divesting a person of his property rights, in The issue in D.B. Basnett (D)’s without following a proper process for land acquisition, the respondent could trespass on the land of the petitioners. The plea raised the petitioner therein was that neither notice of acquisition was ever published nor was any due process followed. In that context it was held by the Supreme Court that the rights in land of a per longer a fundamental right but still remained No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 33 connotation. Possession of one sharer would be deemed to be It is a legal concept. This legal concept cannot be held to have been done away with under the If a right of property is a human right as also a constitutional right, the same cannot be taken away except in -A of the Constitution protects such right. The provisions of the Act seeking to divest such right, keeping in view of the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, must be strictly construed. (See Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai.) The principle laid down in the said decision, having regard to A of the Constitution of India may be held to have some application in a case of this nature. on para 21 of the aforesaid judgment. this Court how the facts of o the facts of the present case. D.B. Basnett (D)’s case (supra) for the proposition that the provisions of any Act seeking to divest a person from his property rights have to be strictly followed. He also brought to the notice of this Court the procedural safeguards laid down by the Apex Court n of his property rights, in Bimal Kumar Shah’s (D)’s case (supra) was whether without following a proper process for land acquisition, the respondent trespass on the land of the petitioners. The plea raised by notice of acquisition was ever any due process followed. In that context it was held by the Supreme Court that the rights in land of a person even though is no ed a constitutional right under SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and the provisions of any Act seeking to divest followed. The relevant extract is reproduced herein after: “xxx 14. more a fundamental right, still it remains a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and the provisions of any Act rights in property have to be strictly followed. 15. Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (akin to Section 5(1) of the said Act) is mandatory, and unle given in accordance with the provisions contained therein, entire acquisition proceeding would be vitiated. An entry into the premises based on such non entry being unlawful. The law being ex character, the same is required to be strictly followed. The purpose of the notice is to intimate the interested persons about the intent to acquire the land. These provisions, as they read, of the said Act, thus, are also required to be so followed. xxx” 74. Though there can be no quarrel power of the State to deprive a way of authority of law. can be no deprivation without any sanction of law. In other words, if there is no law there can be no deprivation. 75. In the recent judgment dated May 16, 2024 of Court in Bimal Kumar Shah’s and above the i) ii) compensation in lieu of acquisition No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases A of the Constitution of India and the provisions of any Act divest a person from the rights in the property had to be strictly . The relevant extract is reproduced herein after: “xxx 14. We may note that even though rights in land are no more a fundamental right, still it remains a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and the provisions of any Act seeking to divest any person from the rights in property have to be strictly followed. 15. It is also settled law that following the procedure of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (akin to Section 5(1) of the said Act) is mandatory, and unle given in accordance with the provisions contained therein, entire acquisition proceeding would be vitiated. An entry into the premises based on such non-compliance would result in the entry being unlawful. The law being ex character, the same is required to be strictly followed. The purpose of the notice is to intimate the interested persons about the intent to acquire the land. These provisions, as they read, of the said Act, thus, are also required to be so followed. xx” Though factually the afore referred no quarrel with the proposition that Article 300 power of the State to deprive an individual of his property except way of authority of law. As a natural corollary, it would follow that t can be no deprivation without any sanction of law. In other words, if there is no law there can be no deprivation. In the recent judgment dated May 16, 2024 of Bimal Kumar Shah’s case (supra), the Court has held that over and above the mandatory twin conditions for acquisition which are ) acquisition being for public purpose and ii) the divestiture being subjected to payment of compensation in lieu of acquisition No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 34 A of the Constitution of India and the provisions of any Act a person from the rights in the property had to be strictly . The relevant extract is reproduced herein after: We may note that even though rights in land are no more a fundamental right, still it remains a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and the seeking to divest any person from the rights in property have to be strictly followed. law that following the procedure of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (akin to Section 5(1) of the said Act) is mandatory, and unless that notice is given in accordance with the provisions contained therein, the entire acquisition proceeding would be vitiated. An entry into compliance would result in the entry being unlawful. The law being ex-proprietary in character, the same is required to be strictly followed. The purpose of the notice is to intimate the interested persons about the intent to acquire the land. These provisions, as they read, of the said Act, thus, are also required to be so followed. referred case is distinguishable, with the proposition that Article 300-A limits the of his property except strictly by natural corollary, it would follow that there can be no deprivation without any sanction of law. In other words, if there In the recent judgment dated May 16, 2024 of the Supreme , the Court has held that over conditions for acquisition which are: for public purpose and being subjected to payment of compensation in lieu of acquisition. SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases there were seven sub considered before deprivation of private property of an individual. The seven sub-rights are foundational components of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and absence of one or more of these components would render the action challenge. The seven sub content of the right to prope the same would amount to violation of the constitutional right and such action would be without authority of law. The relevant extract of the judgment under reference is as follows: “xxx 29. incorporated also administrative actions for compulsory acquisition of private property. The fol principles have seamlessly become an integral part of our Union and State statutes concerning acquisition and also the constitutional and administrative law culture that our courts have evolved from time to time. 30. Following are the seven principles: 30.1 of the right that the State property is a right in itself; a linear extension of the right to is embedded in Article 19(1)(a). The Constitution does not contemplate acquisition by ambush. The n clear, right. xxx 30.2 The Right to be h meaningful and effective the property to the authority acquiring the property. This right to be heard against the proposed acq sham. No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases here were seven sub-rights or strands which have to be considered before deprivation of private property of an individual. The rights are foundational components of A of the Constitution of India and absence of one or more of these components would render the action of the government challenge. The seven sub-rights even if procedural content of the right to property under Article 300 would amount to violation of the constitutional right and such action would be without authority of law. The relevant extract of the judgment under reference is as follows: These sub-rights of procedure have been synchronously incorporated in laws concerning compulsory acquisition and are also recognized by our constitutional courts while reviewing administrative actions for compulsory acquisition of private property. The following will demonstrate how these seven principles have seamlessly become an integral part of our Union and State statutes concerning acquisition and also the constitutional and administrative law culture that our courts have evolved from time to time. Following are the seven principles: The Right to notice: (i) A prior notice informing the bearer of the right that the State intends to deprive them of the right to property is a right in itself; a linear extension of the right to embedded in Article 19(1)(a). The Constitution does not contemplate acquisition by ambush. The n clear, cogent and meaningful. Some of the statutes reflect this right. 30.2 The Right to be heard: (i) Following the right to a meaningful and effective prior notice of acquisition, is the right of the property-bearer to communicate his objections and concerns to the authority acquiring the property. This right to be heard against the proposed acquisition must be meaningful and not a sham. No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 35 rights or strands which have to be considered before deprivation of private property of an individual. The rights are foundational components of law which are in tune with A of the Constitution of India and absence of one or more of of the government susceptible to rights even if procedural, still constitutes the real rty under Article 300-A and non-compliance of would amount to violation of the constitutional right and such action would be without authority of law. The relevant extract of the rights of procedure have been synchronously in laws concerning compulsory acquisition and are recognized by our constitutional courts while reviewing administrative actions for compulsory acquisition of private lowing will demonstrate how these seven principles have seamlessly become an integral part of our Union and State statutes concerning acquisition and also the constitutional and administrative law culture that our courts have Following are the seven principles: : (i) A prior notice informing the bearer intends to deprive them of the right to property is a right in itself; a linear extension of the right to know embedded in Article 19(1)(a). The Constitution does not contemplate acquisition by ambush. The notice to acquire must be cogent and meaningful. Some of the statutes reflect this : (i) Following the right to a prior notice of acquisition, is the right of bearer to communicate his objections and concerns to the authority acquiring the property. This right to be heard uisition must be meaningful and not a SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases xxx 30.3 have heard and considered the objections is evidenced only through a reasoned order. It is incumbent upon the take an informed decision and communicate the same to the objector. Xxx 30.4 acquisition must be for a public purpose is inherent and an important fetter on the discretion This requirement, which conditions the purpose of must stand to reason with the larger constitutional goals of a welfare state and distributive justice. Xxx 30.5 The Right of restitution of right to hold and enjoy property is an integral part to the constitutional right under Article 300A. Deprivation or extinguishment of that right is permissible only upon restitution, be it in the form of monetary compensation, rehabilitation other similar means. Compensation has always been considered to be an integral part of the process of acquisition. Xxx 30.6 The Right to an efficient and expeditious process: acquisition process is traumatic for more than one reason. The admin enquiry and evaluating the objections, leading to a final declaration, consume time and energy. Further, passing of the award, payment of compensation and taking over the possession are equally time to be efficient in conducting the process and within a reasonable time. This obligation must necessarily be form part of Article 300A. Xxx 30.7 The Right of conclusion acquisition and payment of compensation, the State takes possession of the property in normal circumstances. The culmination of an acquisition process is not in the payment of compensation, but also in taking over the ac possession of the land. If possession is not taken, acquisition is not complete. With the taking over of actual possession after the normal procedure of acquisition, the private holding is divested and the right, title and interest in the pro possession is vested in the State. Without final vesting, the State’s, or its beneficiary’s right, title and interest in the property is inconclusive and causes lot of difficulties. The obligation to No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases The Right to a reasoned decision have heard and considered the objections is evidenced only through a reasoned order. It is incumbent upon the take an informed decision and communicate the same to the objector. The Duty to acquire only for public purpose acquisition must be for a public purpose is inherent and an important fetter on the discretion of the authorities to acquire. This requirement, which conditions the purpose of must stand to reason with the larger constitutional goals of a welfare state and distributive justice. 30.5 The Right of restitution of fair compensation right to hold and enjoy property is an integral part to the constitutional right under Article 300A. Deprivation or extinguishment of that right is permissible only upon restitution, be it in the form of monetary compensation, rehabilitation other similar means. Compensation has always been considered to be an integral part of the process of acquisition. 30.6 The Right to an efficient and expeditious process: acquisition process is traumatic for more than one reason. The administrative delays in identifying the land, conducting the enquiry and evaluating the objections, leading to a final declaration, consume time and energy. Further, passing of the award, payment of compensation and taking over the possession are equally time consuming. It is necessary for the administration to be efficient in conducting the process and within a reasonable time. This obligation must necessarily be form part of Article 300A. 30.7 The Right of conclusion: (i) Upon conclusion of process of acquisition and payment of compensation, the State takes possession of the property in normal circumstances. The culmination of an acquisition process is not in the payment of compensation, but also in taking over the ac possession of the land. If possession is not taken, acquisition is not complete. With the taking over of actual possession after the normal procedure of acquisition, the private holding is divested and the right, title and interest in the pro possession is vested in the State. Without final vesting, the State’s, or its beneficiary’s right, title and interest in the property is inconclusive and causes lot of difficulties. The obligation to No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 36 The Right to a reasoned decision: (i) That the authorities have heard and considered the objections is evidenced only through a reasoned order. It is incumbent upon the authority to take an informed decision and communicate the same to the The Duty to acquire only for public purpose: (i)That the acquisition must be for a public purpose is inherent and an of the authorities to acquire. This requirement, which conditions the purpose of acquisition, must stand to reason with the larger constitutional goals of a welfare state and distributive justice. fair compensation: (i) A person’s right to hold and enjoy property is an integral part to the constitutional right under Article 300A. Deprivation or extinguishment of that right is permissible only upon restitution, be it in the form of monetary compensation, rehabilitation or other similar means. Compensation has always been considered to be an integral part of the process of acquisition. 30.6 The Right to an efficient and expeditious process: (i) The acquisition process is traumatic for more than one reason. The istrative delays in identifying the land, conducting the enquiry and evaluating the objections, leading to a final declaration, consume time and energy. Further, passing of the award, payment of compensation and taking over the possession consuming. It is necessary for the administration to be efficient in conducting the process and within a reasonable time. This obligation must necessarily be form part of Article : (i) Upon conclusion of process of acquisition and payment of compensation, the State takes possession of the property in normal circumstances. The culmination of an acquisition process is not in the payment of compensation, but also in taking over the actual physical possession of the land. If possession is not taken, acquisition is not complete. With the taking over of actual possession after the normal procedure of acquisition, the private holding is divested and the right, title and interest in the property, along-with possession is vested in the State. Without final vesting, the State’s, or its beneficiary’s right, title and interest in the property is inconclusive and causes lot of difficulties. The obligation to SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases conclude and complete the process of a Article 300A. xxx” 76. This Court the sub-rights detailed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court non-compliance of procedural requirement proceedings bad in law 77. Reliance is also placed on judgment dated May 04, 2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.2727 of 2022 Manekbben Rama Tandel’s Act of 2013 is a complete code in itself and the government was expected to apply its mind as to whether the acquisition of the subject land was required, after taking into consideration the SIA Report. Non the mandatory acquire a particular piece of land would vitiate the entire acquisition proceedings. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment is set hereinafter: “xxx 31. expert group. Thereafter Section 8 provides for the examination of proposals for land acquisition and SIA report by the Appropriate Government. Section 11 provides for the publication of preliminary notification and the powers of officers thereupon. Sub the notification under Sub contain a statement on the nature of the public purpose involved and a summary of the SIA report. Thereafter, Section 12 provides officers to carry out the survey. Section 14 provides that if preliminary notification under Section 11 is not issued within 12 months from the date of appraisal of the SIA study report submitted by the ex No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases conclude and complete the process of a Article 300A. This Court draws its support from the reasoning s detailed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court compliance of procedural requirements proceedings bad in law. Reliance is also placed on judgment dated May 04, 2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.2727 of Manekbben Rama Tandel’s case (supra) Act of 2013 is a complete code in itself and the government was expected to apply its mind as to whether the acquisition of the subject land was required, after taking into consideration the SIA Report. Non the mandatory procedures prior to the stage of decision of government to acquire a particular piece of land would vitiate the entire acquisition The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment is set “xxx 31. Section 7 provides for appraisa expert group. Thereafter Section 8 provides for the examination of proposals for land acquisition and SIA report by the Appropriate Government. Section 11 provides for the publication of preliminary notification and the powers of officers thereupon. Sub-Section (3) of Section 11 provides that the notification under Sub-Section (1) of Section 11 shall contain a statement on the nature of the public purpose involved and a summary of the SIA report. Thereafter, Section 12 provides for a preliminary survey of land and the power of officers to carry out the survey. Section 14 provides that if preliminary notification under Section 11 is not issued within 12 months from the date of appraisal of the SIA study report submitted by the expert group under Section 7, then the such No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 37 conclude and complete the process of acquisition is also part of draws its support from the reasoning with regard to s detailed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in holding that the s would render acquisition Reliance is also placed on judgment dated May 04, 2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.2727 of (supra) for the proposition that the Act of 2013 is a complete code in itself and the government was expected to apply its mind as to whether the acquisition of the subject land was required, after taking into consideration the SIA Report. Non-compliance of procedures prior to the stage of decision of government to acquire a particular piece of land would vitiate the entire acquisition The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment is set-out Section 7 provides for appraisal of the SIA report by an expert group. Thereafter Section 8 provides for the examination of proposals for land acquisition and SIA report by the Appropriate Government. Section 11 provides for the publication of preliminary notification and the powers of the Section (3) of Section 11 provides that Section (1) of Section 11 shall contain a statement on the nature of the public purpose involved and a summary of the SIA report. Thereafter, Section for a preliminary survey of land and the power of officers to carry out the survey. Section 14 provides that if preliminary notification under Section 11 is not issued within 12 months from the date of appraisal of the SIA study report pert group under Section 7, then the such SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases report shall be deemed to have lapsed, and a fresh SIA study is required to be undertaken. 32. submitted by interested persons. Sub pr the Collector, and the Collector would give the objector an opportunity of being heard and after hearing of such objections and after making such further inquiry, if necessary, make report in r acquisition. xxx 35. Mr Deshmukh that the acquisition proceedings are vitiated due to non 2013. Firstly, regarding the hardships and prejudices caused to the Petitioners. Secondly, on the suitability of the land proposed to be acquired. Considering the exhaustive procedure prescribed for the SIA s nature of objections filed by the Petitioners relates to the subjects for consideration in the SIA study as contemplated under Sub objections raised by the P by the Collector for rejection of the objections as recorded in the report under Section 15(2), we find substance in the arguments made by Mr Deshmukh that the objections raised by the Petitioners are not taken into cons xxx 50. the SIA report is illegal, and the very object of Sections 4 and 6 is defeated. Public at large was not put to notice about the SIA study and the SIA report. Thus, the process of f and the opportunity of giving a hearing was rendered meaningless. Thus, in our view, this is a fit case to exercise our discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, we are inclined to accept the submissions ma behalf of the petitioners. xxx” The judgment High Court is squarely applicable to the present case. 78. Mr. Jain augment his argument that the Advisor to Administrator was not the No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases report shall be deemed to have lapsed, and a fresh SIA study is required to be undertaken. 32. Section 15 provides for a hearing of the objections submitted by interested persons. Sub provides that objection under Sub the Collector, and the Collector would give the objector an opportunity of being heard and after hearing of such objections and after making such further inquiry, if necessary, make report in respect of the land which has been notified for acquisition. xx 35. Thus, there is a substance in the submissions made by Mr Deshmukh that the acquisition proceedings are vitiated due to non- compliance with the necessary provisions of the Act of 2013. The objections raised by the Petitioners are twofold. Firstly, regarding the hardships and prejudices caused to the Petitioners. Secondly, on the suitability of the land proposed to be acquired. Considering the exhaustive procedure prescribed for the SIA study contemplated under the Act of 2013, the nature of objections filed by the Petitioners relates to the subjects for consideration in the SIA study as contemplated under Sub- Sections (4) and (5) of Section 4. On perusal of the objections raised by the Petitioners and the reasons assigned by the Collector for rejection of the objections as recorded in the report under Section 15(2), we find substance in the arguments made by Mr Deshmukh that the objections raised by the Petitioners are not taken into cons xx 50. In the present case, the very process of preparation of the SIA report is illegal, and the very object of Sections 4 and 6 is defeated. Public at large was not put to notice about the SIA study and the SIA report. Thus, the process of f and the opportunity of giving a hearing was rendered meaningless. Thus, in our view, this is a fit case to exercise our discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, we are inclined to accept the submissions ma behalf of the petitioners. xx” The judgment passed by the Co is squarely applicable to the present case. Mr. Jain has relied on Surinder Singh augment his argument that the Advisor to Administrator was not the No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 38 report shall be deemed to have lapsed, and a fresh SIA study is Section 15 provides for a hearing of the objections submitted by interested persons. Sub-Section (2) of Section 15 ovides that objection under Sub-Section (1) shall be made to the Collector, and the Collector would give the objector an opportunity of being heard and after hearing of such objections and after making such further inquiry, if necessary, make a espect of the land which has been notified for Thus, there is a substance in the submissions made by Mr Deshmukh that the acquisition proceedings are vitiated due compliance with the necessary provisions of the Act of The objections raised by the Petitioners are twofold. Firstly, regarding the hardships and prejudices caused to the Petitioners. Secondly, on the suitability of the land proposed to be acquired. Considering the exhaustive procedure prescribed tudy contemplated under the Act of 2013, the nature of objections filed by the Petitioners relates to the subjects for consideration in the SIA study as contemplated Sections (4) and (5) of Section 4. On perusal of the etitioners and the reasons assigned by the Collector for rejection of the objections as recorded in the report under Section 15(2), we find substance in the arguments made by Mr Deshmukh that the objections raised by the Petitioners are not taken into consideration. In the present case, the very process of preparation of the SIA report is illegal, and the very object of Sections 4 and 6 is defeated. Public at large was not put to notice about the SIA study and the SIA report. Thus, the process of filing objections and the opportunity of giving a hearing was rendered meaningless. Thus, in our view, this is a fit case to exercise our discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, we are inclined to accept the submissions made on passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of Bombay is squarely applicable to the present case. Surinder Singh Brar’s case (supra) to augment his argument that the Advisor to Administrator was not the SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases competent authority to grant approval for initiation of acquisition proceedings and purpose had to be arrived at under Sectio appropriate government upon an application of independent mind. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereinafter: “xxx 50. appropriate Government that land in any is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company, then a notification to that effect is required to be published in the Official Gazette and two daily newspapers having circulation in the locality. Of these, one paper ha regional language. A duty is also cast on the Collector, as defined in Section 3(c), to cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the locality. The last date of publication and giving of pu is treated as the date of publication of the notification. 51. dimension of the rules of natural justice, lays down that any person interested in any land notified under Section 4(1) may, within 3 objection in writing against the proposed acquisition of land or of any land in the locality to the Collector. The Collector is required to give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person o pleader. After hearing the objector(s) and making such further inquiry, as he may think necessary, the Collector has to make a report in respect of land notified under Section 4(1) with his recommendations on the obj the Government along with the record of the proceedings held by him. The Collector can make different reports in respect of different parcels of land proposed to be acquired. 52. Government is required to take action under Section 6(1) which lays down that after considering the report, if any, made under Section 5 that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, th declaration to that effect is required to be made under the signatures of a Secretary to the Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders. This section also envisages making of different declarations from time to Time in respect No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases competent authority to grant approval for initiation of acquisition proceedings and satisfaction that the land was needed for a specific public purpose had to be arrived at under Section 6(1) of the 2013 Act by the appropriate government upon an application of independent mind. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereinafter: “xxx 50. Section 4(1) lays down that whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company, then a notification to that effect is required to be published in the Official Gazette and two daily newspapers having circulation in the locality. Of these, one paper ha regional language. A duty is also cast on the Collector, as defined in Section 3(c), to cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the locality. The last date of publication and giving of pu is treated as the date of publication of the notification. 51. Section 5A, which embodies the most important dimension of the rules of natural justice, lays down that any person interested in any land notified under Section 4(1) may, within 30 days of publication of the notification, submit objection in writing against the proposed acquisition of land or of any land in the locality to the Collector. The Collector is required to give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by any person authorised by him or by pleader. After hearing the objector(s) and making such further inquiry, as he may think necessary, the Collector has to make a report in respect of land notified under Section 4(1) with his recommendations on the objections and the Government along with the record of the proceedings held by him. The Collector can make different reports in respect of different parcels of land proposed to be acquired. 52. Upon receipt of the Collector's report, the Government is required to take action under Section 6(1) which lays down that after considering the report, if any, made under Section 5-A (2), the appropriate Government is satisfied that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, th declaration to that effect is required to be made under the signatures of a Secretary to the Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders. This section also envisages making of different declarations from time to Time in respect of different parcels of land covered by the same No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 39 competent authority to grant approval for initiation of acquisition that the land was needed for a specific public n 6(1) of the 2013 Act by the appropriate government upon an application of independent mind. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereinafter: Section 4(1) lays down that whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company, then a notification to that effect is required to be published in the Official Gazette and two daily newspapers having circulation in the locality. Of these, one paper has to be in the regional language. A duty is also cast on the Collector, as defined in Section 3(c), to cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the locality. The last date of publication and giving of public notice is treated as the date of publication of the notification. Section 5A, which embodies the most important dimension of the rules of natural justice, lays down that any person interested in any land notified under Section 4(1) may, 0 days of publication of the notification, submit objection in writing against the proposed acquisition of land or of any land in the locality to the Collector. The Collector is required to give the objector an opportunity of being heard r by any person authorised by him or by pleader. After hearing the objector(s) and making such further inquiry, as he may think necessary, the Collector has to make a report in respect of land notified under Section 4(1) with his ections and forward the same to the Government along with the record of the proceedings held by him. The Collector can make different reports in respect of different parcels of land proposed to be acquired. Upon receipt of the Collector's report, the appropriate Government is required to take action under Section 6(1) which lays down that after considering the report, if any, made (2), the appropriate Government is satisfied that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, then a declaration to that effect is required to be made under the signatures of a Secretary to the Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders. This section also envisages making of different declarations from time to Time in of different parcels of land covered by the same SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases notification issued under Section 5(1). In terms of clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 6(1), no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification issu 4(1), which is expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification. To put it differently, a declaration is required to be made publication of the notificatio xxx 61 judgments does not support the stance of the Chandigarh Administration that even though there is breach of the mandate of Section 5A read with Section 6(1), the Court the issue of declaration under Section 6(1), nullify the acquisition proceedings. As a matter of fact, the ratio of both the judgments is that satisfaction of the appropriate Government envisaged in Section 6(1) must be preceded by considerat considering the objections filed under Section 5A and hearing the objectors. This necessarily implies that the Government must objectively apply its mind to the report of the Collector and the objections fi decision whether or not the land is needed for the specified public purpose. A mechanical endorsement of the report of the Collector cannot be a substitute for the requirement of application of mind by the Government w reflected in the record. xxx” 79. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that of the 1894 Act is akin to Section 15 of the 2013 Act. case under reference that owners of the disputed land, the appropriate government could not record its satisfaction By recording his of the objections of the land owners the Land Acquisition Development Department safeguarding a land owner’s rights/interest to an empty formality. The mechanical endorsement m No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases notification issued under Section 5(1). In terms of clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 6(1), no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification issu 4(1), which is published after 24 expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification. To put it differently, a declaration is required to be made under Section 6(1) within one year from the date of publication of the notification under xx 61. The proposition laid down in the aforementioned two judgments does not support the stance of the Chandigarh Administration that even though there is breach of the mandate of Section 5A read with Section 6(1), the Court the issue of declaration under Section 6(1), nullify the acquisition proceedings. As a matter of fact, the ratio of both the judgments is that satisfaction of the appropriate Government envisaged in Section 6(1) must be preceded by consideration of the report prepared by the Collector after considering the objections filed under Section 5A and hearing the objectors. This necessarily implies that the Government must objectively apply its mind to the report of the Collector and the objections filed by the landowners and then take a decision whether or not the land is needed for the specified public purpose. A mechanical endorsement of the report of the Collector cannot be a substitute for the requirement of application of mind by the Government w reflected in the record. xxx” It has been brought to the notice of this Court that of the 1894 Act is akin to Section 15 of the 2013 Act. case under reference that without considering the objections of the land owners of the disputed land, the appropriate government could not record satisfaction that the said land was required for a specific public purpose. his satisfaction to the necessity of land of the objections of the land owners the Land Acquisition Development Department has reduced the mandatory provisions of safeguarding a land owner’s rights/interest to an empty formality. The mechanical endorsement made by Land Acquisition Collector No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 40 notification issued under Section 5(1). In terms of clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 6(1), no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification issued under Section ublished after 24-9-1989 can be made after expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification. To put it differently, a declaration is required to nder Section 6(1) within one year from the date of n under Section 4(1). The proposition laid down in the aforementioned two judgments does not support the stance of the Chandigarh Administration that even though there is breach of the mandate of Section 5A read with Section 6(1), the Court cannot, after the issue of declaration under Section 6(1), nullify the acquisition proceedings. As a matter of fact, the ratio of both the judgments is that satisfaction of the appropriate Government envisaged in Section 6(1) must be preceded by ion of the report prepared by the Collector after considering the objections filed under Section 5A and hearing the objectors. This necessarily implies that the Government must objectively apply its mind to the report of the Collector led by the landowners and then take a decision whether or not the land is needed for the specified public purpose. A mechanical endorsement of the report of the Collector cannot be a substitute for the requirement of application of mind by the Government which must be clearly It has been brought to the notice of this Court that Section 5-A of the 1894 Act is akin to Section 15 of the 2013 Act. It has been held in the without considering the objections of the land owners of the disputed land, the appropriate government could not record that the said land was required for a specific public purpose. to the necessity of land prior to consideration of the objections of the land owners the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban has reduced the mandatory provisions of safeguarding a land owner’s rights/interest to an empty formality. The Land Acquisition Collector could not be SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases a substitute for the requirement of application of understanding mind by the government and therefore, the same has to be set complete agreement (supra). 80. The case of applicable on the recommendation by the Additional Director, Urban Esta acquiring the land of the petitioners apart from the land required for construction of the sector road remain unutilised as constructed area on al development plan for utilisation by the government existed as far as the said balance area of land was concerned. Therefore, to be released Act by the competent authority. Despite such recommendation under Section 6 Therefore, a co and 6 of the 1894 Act and also 81. Varinder Kumar’s Jain for the proposition that the State has a bounden duty to consider the objections raised by the land owners after giving them an effective hearing where it has been owners should not be an empty formality. reproduced hereinafter: “12. There is another aspect of the matter. The petitioner had filed objections under Section 5A of the Act on 12.1.2009 (P.5). No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases a substitute for the requirement of application of understanding mind by the government and therefore, the same has to be set complete agreement with the reasoning in Surinder Singh Bra The case of Sisters of Charity (supra) applicable on the facts of the present case recommendation by the Additional Director, Urban Esta acquiring the land of the petitioners apart from the land required for construction of the sector road as 1.40 acres out of 3.5 acres of land remain unutilised as it was not possible to utilise the same being a thickly constructed area on all three sides had acquisition been made development plan for utilisation by the government existed as far as the said ance area of land was concerned. Therefore, after accepting the objections under Section 5 Act by the competent authority. Despite such recommendation under Section 6 was made without considering the recommendation. co-ordinate Bench quashed the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act and also the Award to that extent. Varinder Kumar’s case (supra) for the proposition that the State has a bounden duty to consider the objections raised by the land owners after giving them an effective hearing where it has been held that the consideration of objections of the land owners should not be an empty formality. reproduced hereinafter: 12. There is another aspect of the matter. The petitioner had filed objections under Section 5A of the Act on 12.1.2009 (P.5). No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 41 a substitute for the requirement of application of understanding mind by the government and therefore, the same has to be set-aside. This Court is in Surinder Singh Brar’s case (supra) cited by Mr. Jain is not case as there was a specific recommendation by the Additional Director, Urban Estates for not acquiring the land of the petitioners apart from the land required for 1.40 acres out of 3.5 acres of land would it was not possible to utilise the same being a thickly had acquisition been made. No development plan for utilisation by the government existed as far as the said ance area of land was concerned. Therefore, the same was recommended under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act by the competent authority. Despite such recommendation, declaration was made without considering the recommendation. ordinate Bench quashed the notifications under Section 4 the Award to that extent. has been relied upon by Mr. for the proposition that the State has a bounden duty to consider the objections raised by the land owners after giving them an effective hearing he consideration of objections of the land owners should not be an empty formality. The relevant extract is 12. There is another aspect of the matter. The petitioner had filed objections under Section 5A of the Act on 12.1.2009 (P.5). SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases Those objections were rejected on 10.07.2009 and the draft notification under Section 6 of the Act was already prepared on 08.7.2 objections filed by the petitioner. It is pertinent to notice that in the objections filed under Section 5 A of the Act, the petitioner has categorically raised the issue of construction in para 9. The no alongwith the land. Therefore, the consideration of objections has not been in accordance with law because right of hearing objections under Section 5 A of the Act is considered to be akin to fundamental rig Ltd v. Darius Shapur Chenaia and others (2005) 7 SCC 627. The views of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgement are discernible from the following observations made in paras 6 to 9: "6. valuable right in favour of a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its power of 'eminent domain' property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor Xxx 8. conferred by a statute, with. For the said purpose, Sections 4, 5 must be read conjointly. The court in a case, where there has been total non the provisions of Section 5 and refuse to grant a relief to the writ petitioner (3) of Section 6 of the Act renders a declaration to be conclusive evidence. But when the decision itself is in question, the power of judicial r exercised by the court in the event the order impugned suffers from well procedural impropriety. Moreover, when a statutory authority exercises such enormous power it must be done i reasonable manner. 9. effective one and not a mere formality. Formation of opinion as regards the public purpose as also suitability thereof must be preceded by application of mind as regards con relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones its decision in law. It is also not in dispute that Section 5 confers a valuable important right and having regard to the No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases Those objections were rejected on 10.07.2009 and the draft notification under Section 6 of the Act was already prepared on 08.7.2009. There is hardly any application of mind to the objections filed by the petitioner. It is pertinent to notice that in the objections filed under Section 5 A of the Act, the petitioner has categorically raised the issue of construction in para 9. The notification did not show acquisition of structure alongwith the land. Therefore, the consideration of objections has not been in accordance with law because right of hearing objections under Section 5 A of the Act is considered to be akin to fundamental right in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd v. Darius Shapur Chenaia and others (2005) 7 SCC 627. The views of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgement are discernible from the following observations made in paras 6 to 9: 6. It is not in dispute that Section 5 valuable right in favour of a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its power of 'eminent domain' may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefore must be paid. Xxx 8. When an opportunity of being heard has expressly been conferred by a statute, the same must scrupulously be complied with. For the said purpose, Sections 4, 5 must be read conjointly. The court in a case, where there has been total non- compliance or substantial non the provisions of Section 5- A of and refuse to grant a relief to the writ petitioner (3) of Section 6 of the Act renders a declaration to be conclusive evidence. But when the decision itself is in question, the power of judicial r exercised by the court in the event the order impugned suffers from well-known principles, viz., illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. Moreover, when a statutory authority exercises such enormous power it must be done i reasonable manner. 9. It is trite that hearing given to a person must be an effective one and not a mere formality. Formation of opinion as regards the public purpose as also suitability thereof must be preceded by application of mind as regards con relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones its decision-making process must not commit any misdirection in law. It is also not in dispute that Section 5 confers a valuable important right and having regard to the No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 42 Those objections were rejected on 10.07.2009 and the draft notification under Section 6 of the Act was already prepared 009. There is hardly any application of mind to the objections filed by the petitioner. It is pertinent to notice that in the objections filed under Section 5 A of the Act, the petitioner has categorically raised the issue of construction in para 9. tification did not show acquisition of structure alongwith the land. Therefore, the consideration of objections has not been in accordance with law because right of hearing objections under Section 5 A of the Act is considered to be akin ht in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd v. Darius Shapur Chenaia and others (2005) 7 SCC 627. The views of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgement are discernible from the following observations dispute that Section 5-A of the Act confers a valuable right in favour of a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation When an opportunity of being heard has expressly been the same must scrupulously be complied with. For the said purpose, Sections 4, 5-A and 6 of the Act must be read conjointly. The court in a case, where there has compliance or substantial non-compliance of A of the Act, cannot fold its hands and refuse to grant a relief to the writ petitioner. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act renders a declaration to be conclusive evidence. But when the decision making process itself is in question, the power of judicial review can be exercised by the court in the event the order impugned suffers known principles, viz., illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. Moreover, when a statutory authority exercises such enormous power it must be done in a fair and It is trite that hearing given to a person must be an effective one and not a mere formality. Formation of opinion as regards the public purpose as also suitability thereof must be preceded by application of mind as regards consideration of relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones. The State in making process must not commit any misdirection in law. It is also not in dispute that Section 5-A of the Act confers a valuable important right and having regard to the SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution i been held to be akin to a fundamental right. In that case the draft notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was prepared prior to the objections filed before the State. 82. This Court interested persons 300-A has been violated Gupta’s case (supra) Charity’s case (supra) 83. Reliance is placed on Mulwani to submit that when a statut provision, the Court has to ascertain for what purpose the fiction created and after ascerta facts and consequences which were incidental the deeming fiction in ord 84. The issue in vesting of surplus land under Section 10(3) of the Urban Regulation) Act, 1976 amount to taking of the benefit of the saving clause under Section 4 of t (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1999 Act”). 85. Mr. Mul is as follows: No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution i been held to be akin to a fundamental right. In that case the draft notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was prepared prior to the objections filed before the State. This Court finds that by not giving effective hearing to the interested persons in the present case, the Constitutional right under Article A has been violated by the State. The proposition in case (supra) is a reiteration of proposition in case (supra) and therefore, merits no independent discussion. Reliance is placed on Hari Ram to submit that when a statute creates a legal fiction/deeming provision, the Court has to ascertain for what purpose the fiction created and after ascertaining the purpose, the Court has facts and consequences which were incidental the deeming fiction in order to give effect to the legal fiction. The issue in Hari Ram’s case (supra) vesting of surplus land under Section 10(3) of the Urban Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1976 amount to taking de facto possession of the land depriving the landholders of the benefit of the saving clause under Section 4 of t (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the Mr. Mulwani has relied on para 18 of the said judgment which No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 43 provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution it has been held to be akin to a fundamental right.” [Emphasis Supplied] In that case the draft notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was prepared prior to the objections filed before the State. by not giving effective hearing to the , the Constitutional right under Article The proposition in Ram Kishan is a reiteration of proposition in Institute of Sisters of and therefore, merits no independent discussion. Hari Ram’s case (supra) by Mr. e creates a legal fiction/deeming provision, the Court has to ascertain for what purpose the fiction has been ining the purpose, the Court has to assume all the facts and consequences which were incidental to or inevitable corollaries of give effect to the legal fiction. (supra) was whether the deemed vesting of surplus land under Section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and (hereinafter referred to as “the 1976 Act”) would of the land depriving the landholders of the benefit of the saving clause under Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the wani has relied on para 18 of the said judgment which SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases “18. the purpose of assuming existence of a fact which does not really exist. Sub deeming provisions such as "deemed to have been acquired" and "deemed to have been vested absolutely". Let us first examine the legal consequences of a "deeming provision". In interpreting the provision creating a legal fiction, the court is to ascertain f ascertaining this, the court is to assume all those facts and consequences which are incidental or inevitable corollaries to the giving effect to the fiction. This Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. be deemed to exist under a legal fiction are facts and not legal consequences which do not flow from the law as it stands. 86. T the appeals by the State government under Section 10(3) would not confer any right on the State government to have de facto possession of the vacant land, unless the State c there was a dispossession. claim the benefit of Section 4 of the 1999 Act. T the said case has no application to the facts of the present case. The aforesaid case dea government by creation of a 87. He further relied on the judgment of a co Karnataka High Court in that if a declaration under Section 19 (1) of the 2013 Act is not made within 12 months of the publication of the preliminary notification then by operation of law the preliminary notification u Act would stand No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases 18. The legislature is competent to create a legal fiction, for the purpose of assuming existence of a fact which does not really exist. Sub-section (3) of Section 10 contained two deeming provisions such as "deemed to have been acquired" and "deemed to have been vested absolutely". Let us first examine the legal consequences of a "deeming provision". In interpreting the provision creating a legal fiction, the court is to ascertain for what purpose the fiction is created and after ascertaining this, the court is to assume all those facts and consequences which are incidental or inevitable corollaries to the giving effect to the fiction. This Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan held that what can be deemed to exist under a legal fiction are facts and not legal consequences which do not flow from the law as it stands. The Supreme Court on the facts of the case, the appeals by the State government has held that mere vesting of the land under Section 10(3) would not confer any right on the State government to possession of the vacant land, unless the State c there was a voluntary surrender of the vacant land or a forcible dispossession. Consequently, the land owners claim the benefit of Section 4 of the 1999 Act. T said case has no application to the facts of the present case. The aforesaid case dealt with the “vesting of excess government by creation of a “legal fiction”. He further relied on the judgment of a co High Court in Chandrappa’s case that if a declaration under Section 19 (1) of the 2013 Act is not made within 12 months of the publication of the preliminary notification then by operation of law the preliminary notification u Act would stand rescinded. No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 44 The legislature is competent to create a legal fiction, for the purpose of assuming existence of a fact which does not section (3) of Section 10 contained two deeming provisions such as "deemed to have been acquired" and "deemed to have been vested absolutely". Let us first examine the legal consequences of a "deeming provision". In interpreting the provision creating a legal fiction, the court is or what purpose the fiction is created and after ascertaining this, the court is to assume all those facts and consequences which are incidental or inevitable corollaries to the giving effect to the fiction. This Court in Delhi Cloth and Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan held that what can be deemed to exist under a legal fiction are facts and not legal consequences which do not flow from the law as it stands.” on the facts of the case, while dismissing held that mere vesting of the land under Section 10(3) would not confer any right on the State government to possession of the vacant land, unless the State could show that voluntary surrender of the vacant land or a forcible , the land owners were held to be entitled to claim the benefit of Section 4 of the 1999 Act. To the mind of this Court, said case has no application to the facts of the present case. The vesting of excess land” to the State He further relied on the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of case (supra), for the proposition that if a declaration under Section 19 (1) of the 2013 Act is not made within 12 months of the publication of the preliminary notification then by operation of law the preliminary notification under Section 11 of the 2013 SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases 88. The Chandrappa’s the said judgment is reproduced herein after: “xxx 9. declares Act, if not made within 12 months from the date of preliminary notification, shall be deemed to have been rescinded. Therefore, the preliminary notifi 2013 Act, by operation of law will stood rescinded if the declaration is not made within 12 months. 10. only requirement is the inaction on the part of the State in issuing the declaration. There are 3 provisos to Section 19(7) of the 2013 Act: the first proviso which relates to exclusion of time in the event of any Interim order granted by the Court, will not be applicable to this case because admittedly there is no i declaration 11. extend the period of 12 months if in its opinion there are circumstances which justify the extension. 12. which categorically states that the decision to extend the period should be: (a) recorded in writing; and (b) notified and be uploaded on the website of the authority concerned. xxx 15 to extend the period of 12 months provided under the second proviso, the State government is obliged, mandatorily, to publish the order which is recorded in writing to an extent the period of 12 months. If this notification is not publ gazette, by virtue have been rescinded operation. xxx” 89. Mr. Singh relied on paragraph 14 of the reproduced herein after: No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases The petitioners would benefit by relying on the ratio of Chandrappa’s case (supra) cited by Mr. Mulwani the said judgment is reproduced herein after: “xxx 9. As could be seen from the above, the statutory provision declares that a declaration under Section 19(1) of the 2013 Act, if not made within 12 months from the date of preliminary notification, shall be deemed to have been rescinded. Therefore, the preliminary notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act, by operation of law will stood rescinded if the declaration is not made within 12 months. 10. For this rescission of the preliminary notification, the only requirement is the inaction on the part of the State in ssuing the declaration. There are 3 provisos to Section 19(7) of the 2013 Act: the first proviso which relates to exclusion of time in the event of any Interim order granted by the Court, will not be applicable to this case because admittedly there is no interim order granted which impeded the issuance of declaration. 11. The second proviso confers power on the Government to extend the period of 12 months if in its opinion there are circumstances which justify the extension. 12. However, this power is circumscribed by third proviso which categorically states that the decision to extend the period should be: (a) recorded in writing; and (b) notified and be uploaded on the website of the authority concerned. xxx 5. It is thus clear that in order to take to extend the period of 12 months provided under the second proviso, the State government is obliged, mandatorily, to publish the order which is recorded in writing to an extent the period of 12 months. If this notification is not publ gazette, by virtue of the phrase used in 12(7) “be deemed to have been rescinded” would automatically come into operation. xxx” Mr. Singh, Senior Advocate, in support of his arguments relied on paragraph 14 of the Competent Authority’s reproduced herein after: No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 45 petitioners would benefit by relying on the ratio of cited by Mr. Mulwani. The relevant extract of seen from the above, the statutory provision that a declaration under Section 19(1) of the 2013 Act, if not made within 12 months from the date of preliminary notification, shall be deemed to have been rescinded. cation under Section 11 of the 2013 Act, by operation of law will stood rescinded if the declaration is not made within 12 months. For this rescission of the preliminary notification, the only requirement is the inaction on the part of the State in ssuing the declaration. There are 3 provisos to Section 19(7) of the 2013 Act: the first proviso which relates to exclusion of time in the event of any Interim order granted by the Court, will not be applicable to this case because admittedly there is nterim order granted which impeded the issuance of The second proviso confers power on the Government to extend the period of 12 months if in its opinion there are circumstances which justify the extension. ircumscribed by third proviso which categorically states that the decision to extend the period should be: (a) recorded in writing; and (b) notified and be uploaded on the website of the authority concerned. thus clear that in order to take the benefit of power to extend the period of 12 months provided under the second proviso, the State government is obliged, mandatorily, to publish the order which is recorded in writing to an extent the period of 12 months. If this notification is not published in the of the phrase used in 12(7) “be deemed to ” would automatically come into [Emphasis Supplied] , Senior Advocate, in support of his arguments has Competent Authority’s case (supra), which is SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases “xxx 14. acquisition of land is invalid because it fails to meet the statutory requirements having found that taking possession of the land of the writ petitioners in the present case in pursuance of the said not question arises as to what relief can be granted to the petitioners. The High Court rightly observed that the acquisition of land in the present case was for a project great national importance i.e highway. The construction of a national land has already been completed as informed to us during the course of hearing. No useful purpose will he served by quashing the impugned notification at this stage. We cannot be unmindful of t position that d the acquiring authority can always issue a fresh notification for acquisition of the land in the event of the impugned notification being quashed. The consequence of this will only be that keeping in view the rising trend in prices land, the amount of compensation payable to the landowners may be more. Therefore, the ultimate question will be about the quantum of compensation payable to the landowners. Quashing of the notification at this e stage will give rise to several difficu rights of the petitioners as against the problems involved in quashing the impugned notification, we are of the view that a better course will be to compensate the landowners, that is, the writ petitioners approp of. Interests of justice persuade us to adopt this course of action. xxx” 90. In that case the compulsory acquisition of certain land was made by the Cen National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the The said acquisition wa the impugned notification did not provide was sought to be comp 91. The Division Bench of the High Court held the impugned notification regarding compulsory acquisition to be bad in law. However, keeping in view the fact that the possession of the acquired land had already No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases “xxx 14. Having held that the impugned notification regarding acquisition of land is invalid because it fails to meet the statutory requirements having found that taking possession of the land of the writ petitioners in the present case in pursuance of the said notification was not in accordance with law, the question arises as to what relief can be granted to the petitioners. The High Court rightly observed that the acquisition of land in the present case was for a project great national importance i.e. the cons highway. The construction of a national land has already been completed as informed to us during the course of hearing. No useful purpose will he served by quashing the impugned notification at this stage. We cannot be unmindful of t position that d the acquiring authority can always issue a fresh notification for acquisition of the land in the event of the impugned notification being quashed. The consequence of this will only be that keeping in view the rising trend in prices land, the amount of compensation payable to the landowners may be more. Therefore, the ultimate question will be about the quantum of compensation payable to the landowners. Quashing of the notification at this e stage will give rise to several difficulties and practical problems. Balancing the rights of the petitioners as against the problems involved in quashing the impugned notification, we are of the view that a better course will be to compensate the landowners, that is, the writ petitioners appropriately for what they have been deprived of. Interests of justice persuade us to adopt this course of action. xx” In that case the compulsory acquisition of certain was made by the Central Government under Section 3 National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the The said acquisition was challenged by the land owners, the impugned notification did not provide a brief description of the land that was sought to be compulsorily acquired. The Division Bench of the High Court held the impugned notification regarding compulsory acquisition to be bad in law. However, keeping in view the fact that the possession of the acquired land had already No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 46 Having held that the impugned notification regarding acquisition of land is invalid because it fails to meet the statutory requirements having found that taking possession of the land of the writ petitioners in the present case in pursuance ification was not in accordance with law, the question arises as to what relief can be granted to the petitioners. The High Court rightly observed that the acquisition of land in the present case was for a project of . the construction of a national highway. The construction of a national land has already been completed as informed to us during the course of hearing. No useful purpose will he served by quashing the impugned notification at this stage. We cannot be unmindful of the legal position that d the acquiring authority can always issue a fresh notification for acquisition of the land in the event of the impugned notification being quashed. The consequence of this will only be that keeping in view the rising trend in prices of land, the amount of compensation payable to the landowners may be more. Therefore, the ultimate question will be about the quantum of compensation payable to the landowners. Quashing of the notification at this e stage will give rise to lties and practical problems. Balancing the rights of the petitioners as against the problems involved in quashing the impugned notification, we are of the view that a better course will be to compensate the landowners, that is, the riately for what they have been deprived of. Interests of justice persuade us to adopt this course of In that case the compulsory acquisition of certain parcels of tral Government under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the NHA Act”). s challenged by the land owners, on the ground that a brief description of the land that The Division Bench of the High Court held the impugned notification regarding compulsory acquisition to be bad in law. However, keeping in view the fact that the possession of the acquired land had already SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases been taken by the author authority could use the fresh notification for acquiring the land Court felt that notification. Consequently, it ordered an additional amount of compensation to be awarded to the land owners. 92. The fundamental difference between LA Act, 1894 reason for moulding the reason for the same is encapsulated reproduced hereinafter: “xxx 8. objections under Section 3 plan, it is impossible to ascertain or know which part of the acquired land was to be used and in what manner. Without this knowledge no obj Since the objection regarding use of the land had been given up by the writ petitions, we need not go any further in this aspect. We would, however, like to add that unlike Section 5 of the Land Acquisition A right to object to acquisition of land under Section 4 of the said Act, Section 3 limited right to object. The objection can be only to the use of the land under acquisition f Section 3 as such. This answers the argument advanced by the learned counsel for NHA that failure to file objection disentitles the writ petitioners to object to the general right to object, therefore, failure to object becomes irrelevant. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Delhi Admn. V. Gurdip Singh Uban. In our view, this judgment has no application in the fa where the right to object is a very limited right. The case cited is a case under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which confers a general right to object to acquisition of land under Section 5 Failure to exercise that right could The National Highways Act confers no such right. Under this Act there is no right to object to acquisition of land except on the question of its user. Therefore, the present objection has to No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases been taken by the authorities and taking note authority could use the fresh notification for acquiring the land that no useful purpose would be served notification. Consequently, it ordered an additional amount of compensation to be awarded to the land owners. The fundamental difference between Act, 1894 and the NHA, 1956 needs to be considered to appre reason for moulding the relief in paragraph 14 of the said judgment reason for the same is encapsulated in paragraph 8 of the judgment reproduced hereinafter: “xxx 8. The absence of a plan also renders the right to file objections under Section 3-C(1), nugatory. In the absence of a plan, it is impossible to ascertain or know which part of the acquired land was to be used and in what manner. Without this knowledge no objections regarding use of land could be filed. Since the objection regarding use of the land had been given up by the writ petitions, we need not go any further in this aspect. We would, however, like to add that unlike Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 18944 which confers a general right to object to acquisition of land under Section 4 of the said Act, Section 3-C(1) of the National Highways Act gives a very limited right to object. The objection can be only to the use of the land under acquisition for purposes other than those under Section 3-A(1). The Act confers no right to object to acquisition as such. This answers the argument advanced by the learned counsel for NHA that failure to file objection disentitles the writ petitioners to object to the acquisition. The Act confers no general right to object, therefore, failure to object becomes irrelevant. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Delhi Admn. V. Gurdip Singh Uban. In our view, this judgment has no application in the fa where the right to object is a very limited right. The case cited is a case under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which confers a general right to object to acquisition of land under Section 5 Failure to exercise that right could The National Highways Act confers no such right. Under this Act there is no right to object to acquisition of land except on the question of its user. Therefore, the present objection has to No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 47 ities and taking note of the fact that the acquiring authority could use the fresh notification for acquiring the land, the High no useful purpose would be served by quashing the notification. Consequently, it ordered an additional amount of compensation The fundamental difference between the acquisition under the to be considered to appreciate the relief in paragraph 14 of the said judgment. The aragraph 8 of the judgment which is The absence of a plan also renders the right to file C(1), nugatory. In the absence of a plan, it is impossible to ascertain or know which part of the acquired land was to be used and in what manner. Without this ections regarding use of land could be filed. Since the objection regarding use of the land had been given up by the writ petitions, we need not go any further in this aspect. We would, however, like to add that unlike Section 5-A ct, 18944 which confers a general right to object to acquisition of land under Section 4 of the said C(1) of the National Highways Act gives a very limited right to object. The objection can be only to the use of or purposes other than those under A(1). The Act confers no right to object to acquisition as such. This answers the argument advanced by the learned counsel for NHA that failure to file objection disentitles the acquisition. The Act confers no general right to object, therefore, failure to object becomes irrelevant. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Delhi Admn. V. Gurdip Singh Uban. In our view, this judgment has no application in the facts of the present case where the right to object is a very limited right. The case cited is a case under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which confers a general right to object to acquisition of land under Section 5-A. Failure to exercise that right could be said to be acquiescence. The National Highways Act confers no such right. Under this Act there is no right to object to acquisition of land except on the question of its user. Therefore, the present objection has to SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases be decided independently of the right the right to file objection, the validity of the notification has to be considered. Failure to file objection to the notification under Section 3 petitioners in this case. xxx” 93. Sinc right to object to the acquisition, the Apex Court held that the ultimate question would only land owners and a better course would be to compensate th instead of quashing the notification. The said decision was also arrived at after duly weighing the interests of the parties and that the construction of the national highway had already been completed during the course quashing of the impugned notification. development project and not an infrastructural project where construction is yet to start on the disputed land. reference is not well founded. 94. In paragraph 27 to submit that the Courts have to vis private interest Constitution of India could be awarded acquisition proceedings. In the said case Development Board (hereinafter notification for acquisition of and 116 for constructing a trumpet No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases be decided independently of the right the right to file objection, the validity of the notification has to be considered. Failure to file objection to the notification under Section 3-C, therefore, cannot non petitioners in this case. xxx” Since under the NHA Act, the land owners hardly had any right to object to the acquisition, the Apex Court held that the ultimate question would only relate to the quantum of compensation payable to the land owners and a better course would be to compensate th instead of quashing the notification. The said decision was also arrived at duly weighing the interests of the parties and that the construction of the national highway had already been completed during the course of hearing and no useful purpose would be served by quashing of the impugned notification. The case at hand relates to a planned development project and not an infrastructural project where construction is yet to start on the disputed land. Therefore, rel reference is not well founded. In Girias Investment’s case (supra) paragraph 27 to submit that the Courts have to private interest while exercising the powers under Constitution of India, which is a discretionary power. The land owners be awarded an enhanced compensation instead of quashing the acquisition proceedings. In the said case, Development Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) issued notification for acquisition of parcels of land bearing serial Nos.114, 115 and 116 for constructing a trumpet interchang No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 48 be decided independently of the right to file objections. Dehors the right to file objection, the validity of the notification has to be considered. Failure to file objection to the notification C, therefore, cannot non-suit the writ Act, the land owners hardly had any right to object to the acquisition, the Apex Court held that the ultimate the quantum of compensation payable to the land owners and a better course would be to compensate the land owners instead of quashing the notification. The said decision was also arrived at duly weighing the interests of the parties and considering the factum that the construction of the national highway had already been completed and no useful purpose would be served by The case at hand relates to a planned development project and not an infrastructural project where construction is Therefore, reliance on the case under (supra), Mr. Singh has relied on paragraph 27 to submit that the Courts have to weigh public interest vis-a- while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the onary power. The land owners enhanced compensation instead of quashing the , Karnataka Industrial Area referred to as “the Board”) issued land bearing serial Nos.114, 115 interchange and access road from SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases national highway 07 to Bang KSIIDC proposed the change of location on the ground that only 53 acres of land was required for the said two projects instead proposed to be acquired by 95. Bang the proposed location was final and there was no reason to make a change in their alignment. The Board did not accept the said communication and released the land lieu of which it made a fresh proposal serial Nos.118 the interregnum by the appellants acquiring the proposed second acquisition. the appellants were given effective personal h following the due procedure, the final notification was issued. A detailed recording as to how effective hearing ha recorded in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the judgment. The said paragraphs are reproduced hereinafter: “xxx 25. personal hearing interested person and the judgments cited by the learned counsel therefore eminently support the appellants' case. The question as to whether an effective personal hearing was given or not, however, is a question of fa perusal of the record that such hearing was indeed given and that the appellant had exercised his rights thereunder and it was only after the procedure under Section 28(3) had been followed, that the final notification had been issu that the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court have given categorical findings against the No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases national highway 07 to Bangalore airport. The technical consultant for KSIIDC proposed the change of location on the ground that only 53 acres of land was required for the said two projects instead to be acquired by the notification. Bangalore International Airport Limited informed KSIIDC that the proposed location was final and there was no reason to make a change in their alignment. The Board did not accept the said communication and released the land that was which it made a fresh proposal to acquire the .118-119. The said land in serial Nos.118 the interregnum by the appellants but the Board issued notification for said land. The appellants submitted their objections to the proposed second acquisition. On the facts of the case, the appellants were given effective personal h following the due procedure, the final notification was issued. A detailed recording as to how effective hearing had been given to the appellants paragraphs 25 and 26 of the judgment. The said paragraphs are reproduced hereinafter: “xxx 25. Concededly, Section 28 (3) of the Act gives a right of personal hearing to the owner of the land or any other interested person and the judgments cited by the learned counsel therefore eminently support the appellants' case. The question as to whether an effective personal hearing was given or not, however, is a question of fa perusal of the record that such hearing was indeed given and that the appellant had exercised his rights thereunder and it was only after the procedure under Section 28(3) had been followed, that the final notification had been issu that the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court have given categorical findings against the No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 49 lore airport. The technical consultant for KSIIDC proposed the change of location on the ground that only 53 acres of land was required for the said two projects instead of 80 acres that was ernational Airport Limited informed KSIIDC that the proposed location was final and there was no reason to make any change in their alignment. The Board did not accept the said that was proposed to be acquired in to acquire the parcels of land bearing 119. The said land in serial Nos.118-119 was purchased in the Board issued notification for submitted their objections to the of the case, the Court found that the appellants were given effective personal hearing and only after following the due procedure, the final notification was issued. A detailed been given to the appellants was paragraphs 25 and 26 of the judgment. The said paragraphs are Concededly, Section 28 (3) of the Act gives a right of to the owner of the land or any other interested person and the judgments cited by the learned counsel therefore eminently support the appellants' case. The question as to whether an effective personal hearing was given or not, however, is a question of fact and we notice from a perusal of the record that such hearing was indeed given and that the appellant had exercised his rights thereunder and it was only after the procedure under Section 28(3) had been followed, that the final notification had been issued. We find that the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court have given categorical findings against the SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases appellant on this score and we have no reason to differ therefrom. We have nevertheless examined the record to reassure ourselves decision. 26. was taken up by the Collector on 16 N.R. Prakash representing the landowners was not present. The Collector, after the case to 24 28(3) of the Act and the final orders on the proceedings under Section 28(3) of the Act were, in fact, made on 2 Dave has emphasised that as t 16 finalising the proceedings on 2 hearing to the appellants. We observe, however, that merely because the word "orders" has been recorded proceedings of 16 remained inchoate or that it envisaged a further hearing. The record shows that comprehensive objections along with documents had been filed by the appellants on 16 wherein after sta owners of the land they had given their objections to its acquisition and in Paras 19 and 21 stated as under: 96. After considering the objection of the appellants which was primarily the projects, the Collector observed that the same the acquisit.ion No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases appellant on this score and we have no reason to differ therefrom. We have nevertheless examined the record to reassure ourselves as to the correctness of the High Court's decision. 26. After the objections/documents had been filed, the file was taken up by the Collector on 16 N.R. Prakash representing the landowners was not present. The Collector, after examining the facts of the case, adjourned the case to 24-1-2006 for orders in accordance with Section 28(3) of the Act and the final orders on the proceedings under Section 28(3) of the Act were, in fact, made on 2 Dave has emphasised that as the matter had been adjourned on 16-1-2006 for "orders" there was absolutely no justification in finalising the proceedings on 2 hearing to the appellants. We observe, however, that merely because the word "orders" has been recorded proceedings of 16-1-2006, it does not imply that the matter remained inchoate or that it envisaged a further hearing. The record shows that comprehensive objections along with documents had been filed by the appellants on 16 wherein after stating the history as to how they had become owners of the land they had given their objections to its acquisition and in Paras 19 and 21 stated as under: “ In the event of your requiring any clarification, we also request you to offer us a personal hearing the above matter for us to place the above facts for your kind consideration. We do hope that justice would be done and valuable investment in the land would be protected and we are permitted to carry on the construction of the shopping complex as pl necessary finance has been made available to us by Andhra Bank. We have to request you to provide us with a personal hearing in the matter, as also permit us to file any other documents or additional statements as may be required.” xxx” After considering the objection of the appellants which was primarily the availability of an alternate piece of land he Collector observed that the same ion of the appellants’ land was necessary for Bang No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 50 appellant on this score and we have no reason to differ therefrom. We have nevertheless examined the record to as to the correctness of the High Court's After the objections/documents had been filed, the file was taken up by the Collector on 16-1-2006 on which date Shri N.R. Prakash representing the landowners was not present. examining the facts of the case, adjourned 2006 for orders in accordance with Section 28(3) of the Act and the final orders on the proceedings under Section 28(3) of the Act were, in fact, made on 2-2-2006. Mr he matter had been adjourned on 2006 for "orders" there was absolutely no justification in finalising the proceedings on 2-2-2006 without giving a hearing to the appellants. We observe, however, that merely because the word "orders" has been recorded in the 2006, it does not imply that the matter remained inchoate or that it envisaged a further hearing. The record shows that comprehensive objections along with documents had been filed by the appellants on 16-1-2006 ting the history as to how they had become owners of the land they had given their objections to its acquisition and in Paras 19 and 21 stated as under: In the event of your requiring any clarification, we also request you to offer us a personal hearing in the above matter for us to place the above facts for We do hope that justice would be done and valuable investment in the land would be protected and we are permitted to carry on the construction of the shopping complex as planned towards which the necessary finance has been made available to us by We have to request you to provide us with a personal hearing in the matter, as also permit us to file any other documents or additional statements as may After considering the objection of the appellants which was piece of land for the aforesaid he Collector observed that the same was liable to be rejected, as was necessary for Bangalore airport. SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases In such circumstances, the Apex Court held that even though the individual’s right to propert scrupulously respected at large, extra- said case are completely distinguishable from the present one and the ratio of the same cannot be relied upon in the present case. ISSUE NO.3 97. This Court is mindful of the fact that only (approximately) the present writ petition(s) and a planned development project has already commenced on the acquired land restricts the relief granted to the disputed parcel of land that is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petitions. The Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by proceedings and owners have already accepted their compensation without protest or demur. CONCLUSION 98. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the preliminary notification dated February Act is deemed 2020 issued under land which is the subject matter of dispute in the present wri the grounds that proper and meaningful hearing persons/landowners while conducting No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases In such circumstances, the Apex Court held that even though the individual’s right to property that is sought to be acquired scrupulously respected but when acquisition is -ordinary reasons may exist for not completely distinguishable from the present one and the ratio of the same cannot be relied upon in the present case. This Court is mindful of the fact that only ately) out of total 1651 acres is the subject matter of dispute in the present writ petition(s) and a planned development project has already commenced on the acquired land that was not restricts the relief granted to the disputed parcel of land that is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petitions. The Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by setting aside the entire acquisit proceedings and scuttling a project of public importance, where the land owners have already accepted their compensation without protest or demur. CONCLUSION n the light of the aforesaid discussion, the preliminary notification dated February 06, 2019 issued under Section 11 of the 2013 deemed to have been rescinded and the issued under Section 19 (1) of the 2013 Act which is the subject matter of dispute in the present wri the grounds that no expert committee was appropriately constituted proper and meaningful hearing was persons/landowners while conducting SIA Study, No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 51 In such circumstances, the Apex Court held that even though the y that is sought to be acquired must be is for the benefit of the public not doing so. The facts of the completely distinguishable from the present one and the ratio of the same cannot be relied upon in the present case. This Court is mindful of the fact that only 60 acres of land out of total 1651 acres is the subject matter of dispute in the present writ petition(s) and a planned development project has already that was not in dispute and therefore, restricts the relief granted to the disputed parcel of land that is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petitions. The Court is of the view setting aside the entire acquisition scuttling a project of public importance, where the land owners have already accepted their compensation without protest or demur. n the light of the aforesaid discussion, the preliminary issued under Section 11 of the 2013 and the declaration dated August 28, (1) of the 2013 Act is set-aside only qua the which is the subject matter of dispute in the present writ petition(s) on expert committee was appropriately constituted, no given to the interested SIA Study, the extension of SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases publication of declaration could not be made b sought to be done by the LAC who was not the competent authority and the State could not have recorded the land in dispute for public purpose 2020 without considering the objections of the landowners/interested persons. 99. Consequently, all the twelve writ petitions being No.17363 of 2020 others, CWP No. Punjab and another State of Punjab and others of Punjab and others Chhat SAS Nagar v. Kavil Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others 2020 Gurdeep Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others No.29573 of 2022 others, CWP No.016 of 2021 others, CWP No.5452 of 2021 others, CWP No.6088 of 2021 Punjab and other Limited v. State of Punjab and others disputed land contained therein. 100. 100. Since this Court has quashed the declaration under Section 19 of the 2013 Act of the 2013 Act No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases publication of declaration could not be made b sought to be done by the LAC who was not the competent authority and the could not have recorded its satisfaction the land in dispute for public purpose vide notification without considering the objections of the landowners/interested Consequently, all the twelve writ petitions being No.17363 of 2020 Ranjit Singh Dhawan and others v. State of Punjab and CWP No.13206 of 2021 Chatarpal Si Punjab and another, CWP No.17013 of 2023 State of Punjab and others, CWP No.17931 of 2023 of Punjab and others, CWP No.18107 of 2020 Chhat SAS Nagar v. State of Punjab and others Kavil Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others Gurdeep Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others No.29573 of 2022 Harvinder Singh and another v. State of Punjab and , CWP No.016 of 2021 Puneet Jain and others v. State of Punjab and , CWP No.5452 of 2021 Baljinder Singh v. State of Punjab and , CWP No.6088 of 2021 Ramandeep Singh Virk and others v. State of Punjab and others and CWP No.5480 of 2021 Limited v. State of Punjab and others are allowed disputed land contained therein. Since this Court has quashed the declaration under Section 19 of the 2013 Act and held that the preliminary notification und of the 2013 Act has rescinded on the aforesaid ground No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 52 publication of declaration could not be made by way of a public notice as sought to be done by the LAC who was not the competent authority and the to the necessity of acquiring notification dated February 05, without considering the objections of the landowners/interested Consequently, all the twelve writ petitions being CWP Ranjit Singh Dhawan and others v. State of Punjab and Chatarpal Singh and others v. State of 17013 of 2023 Rajinder Singh and others v. , CWP No.17931 of 2023 Sandeep Goyal v. State , CWP No.18107 of 2020 M/s Precto Pipes village State of Punjab and others, CWP No.18443 of 2020 Kavil Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No.18469 of Gurdeep Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, CWP Harvinder Singh and another v. State of Punjab and Puneet Jain and others v. State of Punjab and Baljinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ramandeep Singh Virk and others v. State of s and CWP No.5480 of 2021 M and I Colonizers Private allowed to the extent of the Since this Court has quashed the declaration under Section 19 and held that the preliminary notification under Section 11 on the aforesaid grounds in respect of the SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases petitioners’ land been considered in the present set of case later in an appropriate case 101. Connected application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE MAY 26, 2026 Shalini Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases petitioners’ land, the other issues raised on behalf of been considered in the present set of case(s) and in an appropriate case. Connected application(s), if any, also stand disposed of (DEEPAK SIBAL) (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE 6 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No No.17363 of 2020 (O&M) along with 11 connected cases p. 53 on behalf of the petitioners have not and left open to be considered Connected application(s), if any, also stand disposed of (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No SHALINI BHATIA 2026.05.27 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document