Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 5A– It codifies the fundamental safeguard of audi altrem partem. Landowners have the opportunity to demonstrate that the 10 acquisition is against public purpose or marred by mala fides. In the event the landowner presents a cogent case, the appropriate government may exempt such land from acquisition. By enabling landowners to put forward their perspective and elucidate their remonstrances, Section 5A envisions a modus of deliberation and consultation, which must therefore be construed to be mandatory, akin to a right. – Objections under Section 5A of the 1894 Act most often proceed in four distinct stages: i. The filing stage: Landowners can file objections within thirty days of the notification issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act; ii. The hearing stage: The Collector must provide an oral hearing to the objecting landowners, either in person or through a pleader/authorized representative; iii. The recommendation stage: The Collector—after hearing objections and upon further inquiry—makes a report to the appropriate government containing their recommendations; and iv. The decision stage: The appropriate government considers the Collector’s report and takes a final decision on the objections- The Collector has no power to “decide” the case and can only give “recommendations” to the Government. It is the Government which is the ultimate arbiter for determining whether the land is to be released or not. No other authority can dictate the outcome of Section 5A proceedings neither the Collector nor the landowner- While the Collector’s report can form the “basis” of such decision, the Government is free to independently evaluate and take a final decision, of course, based on relevant and lawful considerations. (Page 12-17)
Constitution of India-Article 14– Article 14 cannot be ordinarily employed as a ground to claim negative equality, i.e., it cannot be used for claiming illicit benefits simply because someone else has been allowed such an undue favour, especially when doing so would jeopardize the entire acquisition by undermining its contiguity – A mere plea regarding differential treatment is insufficient; the claimant must instead demonstrate that similarly placed classes had been treated dissimilarly, unjustifiably. 9 The burden lies on the Respondents to not only prove disparate treatment of equals, but that it amounts to hostile discrimination as well. (Para 29-30)
Doctrine of Merger – When the previous SLPs arising out of the same impugned judgment were dismissed after granting leave, arguably, the doctrine of merger would be attracted-The doctrine of merger is neither a doctrine of constitutional law nor of statutory recognition. Since it is a common law principle directed towards judicial propriety, the same should not be applied in a straitjacket manner, and the nature of facts and circumstances of that particular case should be considered.
Quotes – Private interest of a few, should give way to the public interest of the many (Para 25)