NARESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA
reply given vide letter dated 15.07.2011 does not indicate the decision/order/pre-determination of the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority had informed the objectors to remain present with all material documents at the time of personal hearing, the date of which would be notified later. At the time of arguments before this Court, it was sought to be contended by the Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India that the letter dated 15.07.2011 was an order passed under Section 20D(2) of the Act. We find that the stand taken by the Respondents before the High Court and this Court is completely contradictory, and does not commend acceptance. 11.5. In any event, the order under Section 20D(2) cannot be passed prior to the personal hearing. The mandate of the law is that the order must be passed after the grant of personal hearing, and after any further enquiry is made by the Competent Authority. The whole process of granting a personal hearing would be reduced to an empty formality and a farcical exercise, if the order on the objections precedes the grant of personal hearing. This would be clearly contrary to the provisions of Section 20D(2) of the Act. It is well settled that where a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner.(Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, (1875) LR 1 Ch D 426 followed in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 322 ; State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358 ; J&K Housing Board v. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul, (2011) 10 SCC 714 ; Kunwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P., (2007) 5 SCC 85. ) The provisions of an expropriatory legislation, which compulsorily deprives a person of his right to property without his consent, must be strictly construed. (Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596; See also Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1074 ; CCE v. Orient Fabrics (P) Ltd., (2004) 1 SCC 597.) The Railways Act, 1989 being an expropriatory legislation, its provisions have to be strictly construed. (Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 705 ) 11.6. The Competent Authority being a quasi-judicial authority, is obligated by law to act in conformity with mandatory statutory provisions. It is important to note that this is the only opportunity made available to a land-owner, as on submission of the Report to the Central Government, there is no further consideration that takes place. The Central Government acts upon the Report of the Competent Authority, and issues the Declaration under Section 20E of the said Act. This is in contradistinction with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act requires the satisfaction of Central Government before the Declaration is issued. 11.7. In the absence of an order passed under Section 20D(2), the subsequent steps taken in the acquisition would consequentially get invalidated. 12. The issue which remains to be decided is that in the absence of an order passed on the objections under Section 20D, should the consequential steps be invalidated. We find that the challenge before this Court has been made by the Appellants with respect to a stretch of land admeasuring approximately 6 kms, out of the total stretch of 131 kms. The remaining stretch of land comprising of 125 kms has been acquired, and stands vested in the Government. The Respondents have stated on Affidavit that pre-construction activity and earth work has been completed on most parts of the stretch. Furthermore, most of the bridges are either in progress, or have already been completed. The Senior Counsel representing the Appellants in all the present Civil Appeals, after taking instructions from his clients, submitted that since the land was being acquired for a public utility project, his clients would be satisfied if they were granted compensation by awarding the current rate for acquisition of land. Admittedly, no mala fides have been alleged by the Appellants against the Respondents in the acquisition proceedings. The larger public purpose of a railway project would not be served if the Notification under Section 20A is quashed. The public purpose of the acquisition is the construction and operation of a Special Railway Project viz. the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor in District Surat, Gujarat. In these extraordinary circumstances, we deem it fit to balance the right of the Appellants on the one hand, and the larger public purpose on the other, by compensating the Appellants for the right they have been deprived of. The interests of justice persuade us to adopt this course of action. In Savitri Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2015) 7 SCC 21. this Court held that: Thus, we have a scenario where, on the one hand, invocation of urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Act and dispensing with the right to file objection under Section 5A of the Act, is found to be illegal. On the other hand, we have a situation where because of delay in challenging these acquisitions by the land owners, developments have taken in these villages and in most of the cases, third party rights have been created. Faced with this situation, the High Court going by the spirit behind the judgment of this Court in Bondu Ramaswamy and Others (supra) came out with the solution which is equitable to both sides. We are, thus, of the view that the High Court considered the ground realities of the matter and arrived at a more practical and workable solution by adequately compensating the land owners in the form of compensation as well as allotment of developed Abadi land at a higher rate i.e. 10% of the land acquired of each of the land owners against the eligibility and to the policy to the extent of 5% and 6% of Noida and Greater Noida land respectively. (emphasis supplied)
1[ds]9.2. The statute has mandated a strict procedure to be followed under Section 20D with respect to the submission and hearing of objections. The statute mandates that the order is required to be passed by the Competent Authority after hearing the land-owners. The order cannot precede the hearing of objections. If an order is passed prior to the personal hearing, and enquiry by the Competent Authority, it would be contrary to the statute, invalid, and vitiated by a pre-determined disposition10. In the present case, it is the admitted position that after the personal hearing took place on 30.07.2011, no decision was passed on the objections submitted by the land-owners, either allowing or disallowing their objections; nor was any communication sent to themThis is confirmed by the Affidavit of the Competent Authority dated 18.07.2018 filed before the High Court (pgs. 296 – 301, Volume II),10.1. It is abundantly clear that in the absence of an order being passed as contemplated by Section 20D of the said Act, no further steps could have been taken by the Competent Authority in the acquisition in question10.2. During the hearing of the Special Civil Applications, the High Court called for the office files of the Respondent. On a perusal of the files, the Court chanced upon a hand-written note sent by the Competent Authority to the Chief Project Manager, Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited, which is set out hereinbelow :Finally after due consideration and taking in to view the nationwide infrastructure, long lifetime permanent utility and hence public utility is greater than that of person, all the 59 objection were disallowed by order by the undersigned and their applications for objection were filed at this endThe file noting in the office files of the Competent Authority cannot be considered to be an order on the objections11. Section 20D is a mandatory provision which confers a substantive and valuable right on the land-owners, to object to the proposed acquisition, before they are forcibly divested of their right, title and interest in the land by an expropriatory legislationThe right to file objections under Section 20D of the Railways Act, 1989 is pari materia to Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 even though the scope of objections may be more limitedThe judgments rendered by this Court on the nature of the right to object under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are equally applicable to the Railways ActSub-section (2) of Section 20D mandates the Competent Authority to give the objectors an opportunity of hearing, either in person or through a legal practitionerThe Competent Authority after hearing all objections, and after making such further enquiry, if any, is mandated to pass an order either allowing or disallowing the objections11.1. The limited right given to a land-owner/interested person to file objections, and be granted a personal hearing under Section 20D cannot be reduced to an empty formality, or a mere eye-wash by the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority was duty-bound to consider the objections raised by the Appellants, andpass a reasoned order, which should reflect application of mind to the objections raised by the land-owners. In the present case, there has been a complete dereliction of duty by the Competent Authority in passing a reasoned order on the objections raised by the Appellants11.2. In the present case, it is the undisputed position that no order as contemplated in the eyes of law was passed by the Competent Authority in deciding the objections raised by the AppellantsA statutory authority discharging a quasi-judicial function is required to pass a reasoned order after due application of mind11.3. File Notings and lack of Communication It is settled law that a valid order must be a reasoned order, which is duly communicated to the parties. The file noting contained in an internal office file, or in the report submitted by the Competent Authority to the Central Government, would not constitute a valid order in the eyes of lawIn the present case, there was no order whatsoever passed rejecting the objections, after the personal hearing was concluded on 30.07.2011It is important to note that the Competent Authority did not communicate the contents of the file noting to the Appellants at any stage of the proceedings. The said file noting came to light when the matter was pending before the High Court, and the original files were summonedThe High Court, upon a perusal of the files, came across the file noting recording rejection of the objections only on the ground that the matter pertained to an infrastructure project for public utility11.4. Contradictory Stand taken by the RespondentsThe mandate of the law is that the order on the objections is required to be passed by the Competent Authority after the personal hearing is grantedThe Respondents had filed an Affidavit dated 17.07.2018 before the High Court wherein it was stated that the reply given vide letter dated 15.07.2011 does not indicate the decision/order/pre-determination of the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority had informed the objectors to remain present with all material documents at the time of personal hearing, the date of which would be notified laterAt the time of arguments before this Court, it was sought to be contended by the Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India that the letter dated 15.07.2011 was an order passed under Section 20D(2) of the ActWe find that the stand taken by the Respondents before the High Court and this Court is completely contradictory, and does not commend acceptance11.5. In any event, the order under Section 20D(2) cannot be passed prior to the personal hearing. The mandate of the law is that the order must be passed after the grant of personal hearing, and after any further enquiry is made by the Competent AuthorityThe whole process of granting a personal hearing would be reduced to an empty formality and a farcical exercise, if the order on the objections precedes the grant of personal hearing. This would be clearly contrary to the provisions of Section 20D(2) of the ActIt is well settled that where a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner.(Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, (1875) LR 1 Ch D 426 followed in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 322 ; State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358 ; J&K Housing Board v. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul, (2011) 10 SCC 714 ; Kunwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P., (2007) 5 SCC 85.  )The provisions of an expropriatory legislation, which compulsorily deprives a person of his right to property without his consent, must be strictly construed. (Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596; See also Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1074 ; CCE v. Orient Fabrics (P) Ltd., (2004) 1 SCC 597.)  The Railways Act, 1989 being an expropriatory legislation, its provisions have to be strictly construed. (Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 705 )11.6. The Competent Authority being a quasi-judicial authority, is obligated by law to act in conformity with mandatory statutory provisions. It is important to note that this is the only opportunity made available to a land-owner, as on submission of the Report to the Central Government, there is no further consideration that takes place. The Central Government acts upon the Report of the Competent Authority, and issues the Declaration under Section 20E of the said ActThis is in contradistinction with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act requires the satisfaction of Central Government before the Declaration is issued11.7. In the absence of an order passed under Section 20D(2), the subsequent steps taken in the acquisition would consequentially get invalidatedWe find that the challenge before this Court has been made by the Appellants with respect to a stretch of land admeasuring approximately 6 kms, out of the total stretch of 131 kms. The remaining stretch of land comprising of 125 kms has been acquired, and stands vested in the Government. The Respondents have stated on Affidavit that pre-construction activity and earth work has been completed on most parts of the stretch. Furthermore, most of the bridges are either in progress, or have already been completedThe Senior Counsel representing the Appellants in all the present Civil Appeals, after taking instructions from his clients, submitted that since the land was being acquired for a public utility project, his clients would be satisfied if they were granted compensation by awarding the current rate for acquisition of landAdmittedly, no mala fides have been alleged by the Appellants against the Respondents in the acquisition proceedings. The larger public purpose of a railway project would not be served if the Notification under Section 20A is quashed. The public purpose of the acquisition is the construction and operation of a Special Railway Project viz. the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor in District Surat, GujaratIn these extraordinary circumstances, we deem it fit to balance the right of the Appellants on the one hand, and the larger public purpose on the other, by compensating the Appellants for the right they have been deprived of. The interests of justice persuade us to adopt this course of actionThe file noting in the office files of the Competent Authority cannot be considered to be an order on the objections11. Section 20D is a mandatory provision which confers a substantive and valuable right on the land-owners, to object to the proposed acquisition, before they are forcibly divested of their right, title and interest in the land by an expropriatory legislationThe right to file objections under Section 20D of the Railways Act, 1989 is pari materia to Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 even though the scope of objections may be more limitedThe judgments rendered by this Court on the nature of the right to object under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are equally applicable to the Railways ActSub-section (2) of Section 20D mandates the Competent Authority to give the objectors an opportunity of hearing, either in person or through a legal practitionerThe Competent Authority after hearing all objections, and after making such further enquiry, if any, is mandated to pass an order either allowing or disallowing the objections11.1. The limited right given to a land-owner/interested person to file objections, and be granted a personal hearing under Section 20D cannot be reduced to an empty formality, or a mere eye-wash by the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority was duty-bound to consider the objections raised by the Appellants, andpass a reasoned order, which should reflect application of mind to the objections raised by the land-owners. In the present case, there has been a complete dereliction of duty by the Competent Authority in passing a reasoned order on the objections raised by the Appellants11.2. In the present case, it is the undisputed position that no order as contemplated in the eyes of law was passed by the Competent Authority in deciding the objections raised by the AppellantsA statutory authority discharging a quasi-judicial function is required to pass a reasoned order after due application of
### Instruction:
Decide if the appeal in the case proceeding is more likely to be successful (1) or unsuccessful (0), and then justify your decision by focusing on essential sentences in the document.

### Input:
reply given vide letter dated 15.07.2011 does not indicate the decision/order/pre-determination of the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority had informed the objectors to remain present with all material documents at the time of personal hearing, the date of which would be notified later. At the time of arguments before this Court, it was sought to be contended by the Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India that the letter dated 15.07.2011 was an order passed under Section 20D(2) of the Act. We find that the stand taken by the Respondents before the High Court and this Court is completely contradictory, and does not commend acceptance. 11.5. In any event, the order under Section 20D(2) cannot be passed prior to the personal hearing. The mandate of the law is that the order must be passed after the grant of personal hearing, and after any further enquiry is made by the Competent Authority. The whole process of granting a personal hearing would be reduced to an empty formality and a farcical exercise, if the order on the objections precedes the grant of personal hearing. This would be clearly contrary to the provisions of Section 20D(2) of the Act. It is well settled that where a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner.(Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, (1875) LR 1 Ch D 426 followed in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 322 ; State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358 ; J&K Housing Board v. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul, (2011) 10 SCC 714 ; Kunwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P., (2007) 5 SCC 85. ) The provisions of an expropriatory legislation, which compulsorily deprives a person of his right to property without his consent, must be strictly construed. (Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596; See also Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1074 ; CCE v. Orient Fabrics (P) Ltd., (2004) 1 SCC 597.) The Railways Act, 1989 being an expropriatory legislation, its provisions have to be strictly construed. (Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 705 ) 11.6. The Competent Authority being a quasi-judicial authority, is obligated by law to act in conformity with mandatory statutory provisions. It is important to note that this is the only opportunity made available to a land-owner, as on submission of the Report to the Central Government, there is no further consideration that takes place. The Central Government acts upon the Report of the Competent Authority, and issues the Declaration under Section 20E of the said Act. This is in contradistinction with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act requires the satisfaction of Central Government before the Declaration is issued. 11.7. In the absence of an order passed under Section 20D(2), the subsequent steps taken in the acquisition would consequentially get invalidated. 12. The issue which remains to be decided is that in the absence of an order passed on the objections under Section 20D, should the consequential steps be invalidated. We find that the challenge before this Court has been made by the Appellants with respect to a stretch of land admeasuring approximately 6 kms, out of the total stretch of 131 kms. The remaining stretch of land comprising of 125 kms has been acquired, and stands vested in the Government. The Respondents have stated on Affidavit that pre-construction activity and earth work has been completed on most parts of the stretch. Furthermore, most of the bridges are either in progress, or have already been completed. The Senior Counsel representing the Appellants in all the present Civil Appeals, after taking instructions from his clients, submitted that since the land was being acquired for a public utility project, his clients would be satisfied if they were granted compensation by awarding the current rate for acquisition of land. Admittedly, no mala fides have been alleged by the Appellants against the Respondents in the acquisition proceedings. The larger public purpose of a railway project would not be served if the Notification under Section 20A is quashed. The public purpose of the acquisition is the construction and operation of a Special Railway Project viz. the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor in District Surat, Gujarat. In these extraordinary circumstances, we deem it fit to balance the right of the Appellants on the one hand, and the larger public purpose on the other, by compensating the Appellants for the right they have been deprived of. The interests of justice persuade us to adopt this course of action. In Savitri Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2015) 7 SCC 21. this Court held that: Thus, we have a scenario where, on the one hand, invocation of urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Act and dispensing with the right to file objection under Section 5A of the Act, is found to be illegal. On the other hand, we have a situation where because of delay in challenging these acquisitions by the land owners, developments have taken in these villages and in most of the cases, third party rights have been created. Faced with this situation, the High Court going by the spirit behind the judgment of this Court in Bondu Ramaswamy and Others (supra) came out with the solution which is equitable to both sides. We are, thus, of the view that the High Court considered the ground realities of the matter and arrived at a more practical and workable solution by adequately compensating the land owners in the form of compensation as well as allotment of developed Abadi land at a higher rate i.e. 10% of the land acquired of each of the land owners against the eligibility and to the policy to the extent of 5% and 6% of Noida and Greater Noida land respectively. (emphasis supplied)

### Response:
1

### Explanation:
for the Union of India that the letter dated 15.07.2011 was an order passed under Section 20D(2) of the ActWe find that the stand taken by the Respondents before the High Court and this Court is completely contradictory, and does not commend acceptance11.5. In any event, the order under Section 20D(2) cannot be passed prior to the personal hearing. The mandate of the law is that the order must be passed after the grant of personal hearing, and after any further enquiry is made by the Competent AuthorityThe whole process of granting a personal hearing would be reduced to an empty formality and a farcical exercise, if the order on the objections precedes the grant of personal hearing. This would be clearly contrary to the provisions of Section 20D(2) of the ActIt is well settled that where a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner.(Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, (1875) LR 1 Ch D 426 followed in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 322 ; State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358 ; J&K Housing Board v. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul, (2011) 10 SCC 714 ; Kunwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P., (2007) 5 SCC 85.  )The provisions of an expropriatory legislation, which compulsorily deprives a person of his right to property without his consent, must be strictly construed. (Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596; See also Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1074 ; CCE v. Orient Fabrics (P) Ltd., (2004) 1 SCC 597.)  The Railways Act, 1989 being an expropriatory legislation, its provisions have to be strictly construed. (Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 705 )11.6. The Competent Authority being a quasi-judicial authority, is obligated by law to act in conformity with mandatory statutory provisions. It is important to note that this is the only opportunity made available to a land-owner, as on submission of the Report to the Central Government, there is no further consideration that takes place. The Central Government acts upon the Report of the Competent Authority, and issues the Declaration under Section 20E of the said ActThis is in contradistinction with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act requires the satisfaction of Central Government before the Declaration is issued11.7. In the absence of an order passed under Section 20D(2), the subsequent steps taken in the acquisition would consequentially get invalidatedWe find that the challenge before this Court has been made by the Appellants with respect to a stretch of land admeasuring approximately 6 kms, out of the total stretch of 131 kms. The remaining stretch of land comprising of 125 kms has been acquired, and stands vested in the Government. The Respondents have stated on Affidavit that pre-construction activity and earth work has been completed on most parts of the stretch. Furthermore, most of the bridges are either in progress, or have already been completedThe Senior Counsel representing the Appellants in all the present Civil Appeals, after taking instructions from his clients, submitted that since the land was being acquired for a public utility project, his clients would be satisfied if they were granted compensation by awarding the current rate for acquisition of landAdmittedly, no mala fides have been alleged by the Appellants against the Respondents in the acquisition proceedings. The larger public purpose of a railway project would not be served if the Notification under Section 20A is quashed. The public purpose of the acquisition is the construction and operation of a Special Railway Project viz. the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor in District Surat, GujaratIn these extraordinary circumstances, we deem it fit to balance the right of the Appellants on the one hand, and the larger public purpose on the other, by compensating the Appellants for the right they have been deprived of. The interests of justice persuade us to adopt this course of actionThe file noting in the office files of the Competent Authority cannot be considered to be an order on the objections11. Section 20D is a mandatory provision which confers a substantive and valuable right on the land-owners, to object to the proposed acquisition, before they are forcibly divested of their right, title and interest in the land by an expropriatory legislationThe right to file objections under Section 20D of the Railways Act, 1989 is pari materia to Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 even though the scope of objections may be more limitedThe judgments rendered by this Court on the nature of the right to object under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are equally applicable to the Railways ActSub-section (2) of Section 20D mandates the Competent Authority to give the objectors an opportunity of hearing, either in person or through a legal practitionerThe Competent Authority after hearing all objections, and after making such further enquiry, if any, is mandated to pass an order either allowing or disallowing the objections11.1. The limited right given to a land-owner/interested person to file objections, and be granted a personal hearing under Section 20D cannot be reduced to an empty formality, or a mere eye-wash by the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority was duty-bound to consider the objections raised by the Appellants, andpass a reasoned order, which should reflect application of mind to the objections raised by the land-owners. In the present case, there has been a complete dereliction of duty by the Competent Authority in passing a reasoned order on the objections raised by the Appellants11.2. In the present case, it is the undisputed position that no order as contemplated in the eyes of law was passed by the Competent Authority in deciding the objections raised by the AppellantsA statutory authority discharging a quasi-judicial function is required to pass a reasoned order after due application of
