- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The importance of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), which represents statutory embodiment of one of the facets of the rules of natural justice, i.e., audi alteram partem, has been highlighted in several judgments of this Court including Nandeshwar Prasad v. U.P. Govt., 1964 3 SCR 425, Munshi Singh v. Union of India, 1973 2 SCC 337, Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra, 1977 1 SCC 133, Shyam Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1993 4 JT 590, Union of India v. Mukesh Hans, 2004 8 SCC 14, Krishan Lal Arneja, 2004 7 JT 526, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai, 2005 8 JT 470, Essco Fabs (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, 2008 12 JT 315, Babu Ram v. State of Haryana, 2009 13 JT 99, Anand Singh v. State of U.P., 2010 8 JT 15, Dev Sharan v. State of U.P., 2011 3 JT 102, Radhy Shyam v. State of U.P., 2011 4 JT 524, Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana, 2011 13 JT 549, Kamal Trading (P) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 2012 2 SCC 25, Surinder Singh Brar v. Union of India, 2012 10 JT 295, and Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, 2013 5 Scale 118.
(3.) In Raghbir Singh Sehrawat's case, this Court referred to earlier precedents and observed: 'In this context, it is necessary to remember that the rules of natural justice have been ingrained in the scheme of Section 5-A with a view to ensure that before any person is deprived of his land by way of compulsory acquisition, he must get an opportunity to oppose the decision of the State Government and/or its agencies/instrumentalities to acquire the particular parcel of land. At the hearing, the objector can make an effort to convince the Land Acquisition Collector to make recommendation against the acquisition of his land. He can also point out that the land proposed to be acquired is not suitable for the purpose specified in the notification issued under Section 4(1). Not only this, he can produce evidence to show that another piece of land is available and the same can be utilised for execution of the particular project or scheme. Though it is neither possible nor desirable to make a list of the grounds on which the landowner can persuade the Collector to make recommendations against the proposed acquisition of land, but what is important is that the Collector should give a fair opportunity of hearing to the objector and objectively consider his plea against the acquisition of land. Only thereafter, he should make recommendations supported by brief reasons as to why the particular piece of land should or should not be acquired and whether or not the plea put forward by the objector merits acceptance. In other words, the recommendations made by the Collector must reflect objective application of mind to the objections filed by the landowners and other interested persons.';