Once an Advocate or the party put in appearance then requirement of personal hearing gets satisfied: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Validity of Land Acquisition in Bharatpur

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) upheld the legality of land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Division Bench comprising Justices Anand Sharma and Inderjeet Singh dismissed a batch of intra-court appeals challenging acquisition of small residential plots in Bharatpur, affirming that the acquisition was for a legally valid public purpose and complied with procedural safeguards.

The Court decisively rejected claims regarding lapse of acquisition, non-service of notices, denial of hearing, vague purpose, and discrimination, holding:
"Upon careful scrutiny of the relevant statutory framework and the procedural steps undertaken by the authorities, this Court finds no justifiable basis to interfere with the acquisition proceedings."

The appellants were residents and landowners in Bharatpur who sought to quash the acquisition of their plots, arguing procedural irregularities and violation of their constitutional and statutory rights. The acquisition was initiated through a notification dated 06.09.2006 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for Multipurpose Scheme No.10 and culminated in an award approved on 10.11.2009.

Previously, similar acquisition schemes had been dropped, and the petitioners argued that the current scheme lacked clarity and specificity. They challenged the process before the Single Judge, who dismissed the writ petitions in 2017. The current special appeals arose from that dismissal.

The appellants raised several contentions against the acquisition:

1. Vagueness of Public Purpose
   The petitioners argued that "Multipurpose Scheme" was an imprecise term that failed to satisfy the public purpose requirement under Section 4. Rejecting this, the Court observed:
   “The term ‘Multipurpose Scheme No.10’ shows specific purpose... the law does not require a detailed scheme to be disclosed at the stage of Section 4 notification.”
   Citing Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Sooraram Pratap Reddy v. District Collector, the Court concluded that mere generality in nomenclature does not vitiate the acquisition.

2. Violation of Section 5A – Personal Hearing
   The appellants claimed they were denied personal hearings. The Court, after examining dispatch registers, appearance records, and Vakalatnamas, held:
   "Once an advocate or the party put in appearance then requirement of personal hearing gets satisfied... I am unable to accept that an opportunity of personal hearing was not given to those who raised objections under Section 5A."
   The Court emphasized that appearance by counsel and documented hearings nullified claims of procedural violation.

3. Limitation under Sections 6 and 11A
   It was argued that the declaration under Section 6 and award under Section 11 were issued beyond the prescribed time limits. The Court found otherwise:
   “The declaration under Section 6 was issued within one year from the last publication under Section 4; the award was passed and approved within two years from the last publication under Section 6.”
   The Court relied on precedents including SH Rangappa v. State of Karnataka to interpret limitation provisions strictly by the dates of publication, not initial issuance.

4. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – Deemed Lapse
   The appellants invoked Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Dismissing this, the Court observed:
   “Section 24(2) is applicable only where the award was passed at least five years prior to 01.01.2014. In this case, the award was dated 22.10.2009. Therefore, Section 24(2) does not apply.”

5. Non-Service of Notice Under Section 9
   On the issue of notice under Section 9 not being served, the Court held:
   “Even otherwise, the provisions of Section 9 are directory in nature. Non-compliance thereof would not render the acquisition proceedings illegal.”
   Relying on May George v. Tahsildar, the Court reaffirmed that the absence of such notice does not affect the validity of acquisition once possession is taken.

6. Discrimination in Selection of Land
   The appellants alleged arbitrary exclusion of certain plots. The Court rejected this, stating:
   “For establishing such allegation, the appellants are required to lay proper factual foundation. However, no sufficient facts have been given.”

7. Delay and Laches
   Writ petitions were filed in 2012, years after the award in 2009. The Court held this delay to be fatal:
   “When the award is passed and the possession is taken, the writ petitions challenging acquisition notice or proceedings should not be entertained by the Courts.”
   The Court quoted Syed Maqbool Ali v. State of U.P. to reinforce the principle that delay without satisfactory explanation bars relief under Article 226.

The Division Bench methodically addressed each legal contention and upheld the view taken by the learned Single Judge. On the compliance of Section 5A, it was stated:

“The respondents have produced the dispatch register and other documents to show dispatch of the notices for hearing and appearance thereupon through the Advocates... Once an Advocate or the party put in appearance then requirement of personal hearing gets satisfied.”

Further, it was held that the publication dates were crucial for determining limitation under Sections 6 and 11A, and those deadlines had not been breached. On the applicability of the 2013 Act, the Court categorically held that Section 24(2) could not be invoked unless the award predated January 1, 2009, by five years—which was not the case here.

In conclusion, the Bench ruled:

“This Court finds no infirmity in the acquisition proceedings that would justify the invocation of writ jurisdiction... No element of malafide, procedural impropriety or constitutional violation has been demonstrated.”

The Rajasthan High Court's verdict reinforces key principles governing land acquisition law: statutory timelines must be read strictly, procedural safeguards must be evidenced rather than assumed, and courts will not entertain belated challenges when acquisition is complete and possession taken. The judgment also affirms that “public purpose” need not be detailed at the preliminary notification stage, and procedural compliance is judged by the existence of notice and appearance, not post-facto assertions of ignorance.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed all the intra-court appeals, holding that the acquisition was valid, lawful, and beyond judicial interference.

Date of Decision: 30 May 2025