Once again cautioning the government against the “misuse” of compulsory land acquisition powers, the Supreme Court has said that the authorities have no right to acquire land without giving its owners proper hearing.
“At times, compulsory acquisition of land is likely to make the land owners landless. The degree of care required to be taken by the state is greater when the power of compulsory acquisition is exercised invoking the provisions like Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act because it results in depriving the owner of his property without being afforded an opportunity of hearing,” a bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and S. J. Mukhopadhyaya said.
In this context, the court drew government’s attention towards cautious use of its powers under Sections 4, 5A and 17(1) of the Act, which give it the authority of compulsory acquisition and dispensing with the provision of inviting “objections” form land owners.
“What needs to be emphasised is that although in exercise of the power of eminent domain, the state can acquire private property for public purpose, it must be remembered that compulsory acquisition of the property belonging to a private individual is a serious matter and has grave repercussions on his constitutional rights of not being deprived of his property without the sanction of the law and Article 300A of the Constitution,” the top court said.
While Section 4 required issuing of a prior notification for inviting objections form the land owners, Section 5A gives them the right of be heard by the competent authority and section 17(1) provides the government powers of compulsory acquisition in emergency.
In this regard, the Supreme Court cited its famous Maneka Gandhi case verdict of 1978 on the citizen’s rights, which said “it must not be forgotten that natural justice is pragmatically flexible and is amenable to capsulation under the compulsive pressure of circumstances. The core of this rule must, however, remain, namely that the person affected must have a reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relation exercise.”
Applying this principle, the top court quashed Delhi government’s notification of 2005 for acquiring 81 bighas of land of some farmers from village Mandoli in the outskirt of the national capital as it found that the officials had “misused” their emergency powers under the Act.