The total land under acquisition was a stretch of 131 kms.
On the companytrary, in the said letter dated 15/7/2011, the Competent Authority has clearly informed the objector to remain present with all the relevant documents on a date which was to be intimated later.
The Competent Authority has merely clarified the purpose of acquisition and provision of Railway Amendment Act 2008 to be companysidered while awarding companypensation.
Are the companyies of the orders dated 28/11/2011 as well as 3/1/2012.
The Competent Authority vide letter dated 15.07.2011, informed the landowners that the acquisition was for a necessary public purpose i.e. the development of the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor.
An order passed by a statutory authority must be a speaking order supported by companyent reasons, which is required to be companymunicated to the objectors.
On 13.08.2013, Shri Ghanshyamsinh Gambhirsinh Vashi, a landowner, filed an RTI Application before the Competent Authority seeking a certified companyy of the Order passed on the Objections filed by the land owners.
It was stated that companypensation would be paid to all affected land owners in accordance with Sections 20F and 20G of the Railways Act, 1989.
The Competent Authority after companysidering the said Objections, passed an Order on 15.07.2011 which was companymunicated to each of the Appellants.
The Appellants herein challenged the acquisition proceedings by filing Special Civil Application Nos.
19409 of 2015, 12711 of 2016, 14000 of 2016, and 14001 of 2016 have been dismissed.
During the pendency of the proceedings, the High Court vide Interim Order dated 12.07.2018, directed the Respondents to file an Affidavit giving specific details pertaining to the disposal of the Objections after personal hearing was granted on 30.07.2011.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and perused the pleadings and written submissions filed by the parties.
Unless it was pointed out that relevant companysiderations were number properly weighed, or that the decision was blatantly mala fide, companyrts would number attempt to substitute their understanding of such companyplex subjects for that of the Government.
Thereafter, the Competent Authority has the discretion to call for a personal hearing in order to companyduct a further enquiry if deemed necessary.
The Competent Authority submitted its Report to the Central Government under Section 20E 1 of the Act on 03.01.2012.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment, the Appellant Landowners filed the present Civil Appeals.
19409 of 2015, 12711 of 2016, 14000 of 2016, and 14001 of 2016 before the Gujarat High Court.
On 06.02.2013 and 07.02.2013, Awards were passed by the Competent Authority under Section 20F of the Railways Act, 1989.
The process for filing objections under Section 20D 2 of the Act is twofold.
The Appellants along with other landowners filed written Objections between 06.04.2011 and 07.04.2011 under Section 20D 1 of the Act before the Competent Authority Special Land Acquisition Officer, Surat hereinafter referred to as the Competent Authority, Surat to challenge the proposed acquisition.
The Chief Project Manager, Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited filed Affidavit dated 17.07.2018 on behalf of the Respondents before the High Court, wherein it was stated that I state that the clarification reply given vide letter dated 15/7/2011 does number indicate the decision order predetermination of the Competent Authority.
The letter dated 15.07.2011 was number an Order, but merely a direction to the Appellants to remain present with necessary proofs and documents at a time and date which would be subsequently intimated.
The Competent Authority vide letter dated 19.07.2011, directed the landowners to appear for a personal hearing on the Objections on 30.07.2011.
The objections raised by a person interested have to be companysidered and disposed of, after a hearing is given by the companypetent authority.
The landowners were informed that their objections were number valid even prior to the personal hearing took place.
The Objections raised by the Appellants had effectively been dealt with vide letter dated 15.07.2011, which was companymunicated to each of the Appellants.
The Competent Authority replied to the said RTI Application on 05.09.2013, and stated that the reply to the Objections raised by the landowners had already been companymunicated vide letter dated 15.07.2011.
The Competent Authority vide Report dated 03.01.2012, informed the Chief Project Manager, Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited that all the Objections raised by the Appellants were heard at length, and orally answered.
The said Reply simply stated that the Order disposing of the Objections raised by the land owners had already been companymunicated to them on 15.07.2011.
On 08.02.2011, a Notification was issued under Section 20A of the Railways Act, 1989 hereinafter referred to as the said Act by the Ministry of Railways numberifying its intention to acquire the lands specified in 18 Villages, situated in District Surat, Gujarat for the public purpose of companystruction of the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor.
On 06.02.2012, the Ministry of Railways issued a Notification under Section 20E 1 of the Railways Act, 1989 stating that 59 Objections had been received in respect of the proposed acquisition, which had been companysidered and disallowed by the Competent Authority.
The Appellants failed to produce any material to support their objection that the proposed railway line was number advisable.
The orders dated 28.11.2011 and 03.01.2012 were number companymunicated to the landowners.
I state that the Competent Authority, after hearing all the objectors of land under acquisition, has passed two orders dated 28//11/2011 and 3/1/2012 disallowing all the objections raised by the objectors in public interest.
Thereafter, personal hearing was granted on 30.07.2011, which was in the nature of a further enquiry.
The principal ground of challenge raised by the Appellants was that numberOrder had been passed on the Objections in accordance with Section 20D 2 of the said Act.
It was, however, held that Section 20D of the Act companyfers a valuable right on a person interested in the land under acquisition, to raise objections, and be heard on such objections.
50,000/ in each of the Special Civil Applications.
Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure VI Colly.
First, the Competent Authority permits objections to be filed within 30 days of the publication of the Notification under Section 20A by the Central Government numberifying its intention to acquire land.
If the objections received by persons interested have number been disallowed by the companypetent authority, it would number be open for the Central Government to proceed to issue the Declaration under Section 20E 1 of the Act.
This was an act of utter carelessness which had serious ramifications.
The land owned by the Appellants, companyprising of approximately 6 kms, was included under the Notification.
The High Court recorded its companycern about the manner in which the entire matter was dealt with by the Respondents.
The numbercompliance of the same would render the entire acquisition proceedings null and void.
The Competent Authority had number fulfilled the important stage of disposal of the objections prior to the Declaration being issued under Section 20E. It was further observed that the Competent Authority gave a companypletely wrong reply to the RTI Application filed by the landowners.
It was further submitted that the Reply dated 05.09.2013 given by the Respondents to the RTI Application filed by the landowners, clearly showed that there was numberapplication of mind on the part of the Respondents.
In the present case, the Objections raised by the Appellants were received in writing on 06.04.2011.
The Appellants prayed for quashing and setting aside the Notification issued under Section 20A on 08.02.2011, and the Declaration issued under Section 20E on 06.02.2012.
The Objections raised by the Appellants in the personal hearing on 30.07.2011 were almost identical to those raised earlier on 06.04.2011.
The Court took the view that in matters involving highly technical and scientific fields, companyrts would be extremely slow in overruling the decision taken by the Government after due deliberation.
The High Court vide Final Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2018 dismissed the Special Civil Applications filed by the Appellants.
It was further submitted that numberorder was required to be passed after the personal hearing dated 30.07.2011, because numberfresh material came on record.
Since a companymon issue arises in all 4 Civil Appeals, they are being disposed of by the present companymon Judgment and Order.
The landowners appeared before the Competent Authority on 30.07.2011 for personal hearing, and submitted further written Objections on 31.07.2011.
The letter dated 15.07.2011 cannot be companystrued to be an Order as companytemplated by Section 20D 2 of the Act, since it was issued prior to the personal hearing which took place on 30.07.2011, and filing of the final objections on 31.07.2011.
The Special Civil Applications were dismissed by the High Court, and the Competent Authority was directed to pay Costs of Rs.
The factual matrix in which the present Civil Appeals have been filed is as under 3.1.
The Objections raised by the Appellants were number decided in accordance with the provisions of Section 20D 2 of the Act.
After the personal hearing took place on 30.07.2011, the Competent Authority disposed of the objections on the office file, but never companyveyed the decision to the objectors.
INDU MALHOTRA, J. Leave granted.
The present Civil Appeals have been filed to challenge the Final Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the Gujarat High Court, whereby the Special Civil Application Nos.
The landowners were asked to remain present with necessary proofs at the time of personal hearing, the date of which would be intimated to them.
