Prior Comprehensive Survey Not A Condition Precedent To Notification U/S 4 Land Acquisition Act: Supreme Court

The Court held that the statutory power to enter upon the land, survey it, take levels and assess suitability arises only after publication of the preliminary notification.

The Court was hearing appeals filed by landowners challenging the acquisition of land for the construction of a metro car depot as part of Phase II of the Jaipur Metro Rail Project. A Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court had quashed the acquisition proceedings, but the Division Bench reversed that decision and dismissed the writ petition.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma upheld the acquisition, holding that the statutory sequence under Section 4 makes publication of the notification the first step, followed by the power of entry and survey under Section 4(2).

The Bench held: “The objection grounded on the alleged absence of a prior survey before issuance of the notification under Section 4 is equally untenable. The phraseology of Section 4 itself furnishes the answer. Sub-section (2) opens with the expression ‘Thereupon’, thereby making it lawful for the authorised officers to enter upon the land, survey it, take levels, dig or bore into the sub-soil and undertake such other acts as may be necessary to ascertain whether the land is adapted for the intended public purpose.

The Bench further explained: “The use of the expression 'Thereupon' unequivocally signifies that the statutory power to survey kicks in, upon the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). The legislative sequence is thus clear: publication of the notification first; exercise of the powers of entry and survey thereafter. The statute does not posit the conduct of a comprehensive survey as a condition precedent to the issuance of the notification under Section 4. To read such a requirement into the provision would amount to supplying words which the legislature has consciously omitted. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention that the acquisition process is flawed merely because no survey preceded the notification.”

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the appellants, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the respondents.

Background

The acquisition concerned land required for a metro car depot for the Jaipur Metro Rail Project. The landowners filed objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, alleging that they were denied an effective hearing, that their objections were not properly considered, that the authorities had not conducted a proper survey before issuing the Section 4 notification, and that other parcels of land could have been used instead.

The Land Acquisition Officer rejected the objections and forwarded his report to the State Government, which issued the declaration for acquisition. The Single Judge interfered with the acquisition, principally on the ground of non-compliance with Section 5A. The Division Bench reversed that view, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observations

The Court first examined the challenge based on the alleged denial of a hearing under Section 5A. It noted that the appellants were allowed to file a rejoinder after the Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation submitted its reply, but they neither appeared nor filed the rejoinder on the date fixed.

The Court observed: “A party might choose not to prosecute its own objection, but the LAO cannot be expected to compel such party to prosecute its objection. Absence of the appellants on 9th April, 2012, coupled with their subsequent silence, appears to have goaded the LAO to proceed on the footing that the appellants had nothing further to submit beyond the written objections. We see no infirmity in the approach.”

The Bench held that the landowners could not complain of the denial of a hearing after failing to avail the opportunity provided to them.

The Court rejected the contention that the Land Acquisition Officer had failed to consider the objections merely because his report used the expression that the objections were “not being considered”. Reading the report as a whole, the Court found that the objections and the response of JMRCL had been noticed, and the report conveyed that the objections did not merit acceptance.

The Court remarked: “Looking to the order/report of the LAO, at first blush, the argument is attractive. However, the semantics behind the phrase “objections are not being considered” in the LAO’s order cannot be pressed into service by equating it to a situation that the objections themselves were not taken on record and/or bore no application of mind by the LAO, so as to vitiate the principles of natural justice itself and the duty to consider and record reasons.”

The Court then considered the substance of the objections. It held that the proposed metro depot was an essential component of the Jaipur Metro Rail Project and could not be treated as an ancillary or unrelated commercial venture.

The Court noted: “The present acquisition is for construction of a depot constituting Phase II of the Jaipur Metro Rail Project. A depot is not an ancillary commercial venture, but an indispensable operational component without which the metro system itself cannot function. Appellants sought to contend that the project has undergone changes over the years and that the DPR has not attained finality. Such circumstances may, at its best, evince an evolving infrastructural planning, but they do not detract from the essential public purpose undergirding the acquisition.”

On the argument that alternative lands belonging to public bodies were available, the Court held that the choice of land for a public project involves technical and operational considerations, including alignment, connectivity, maintenance logistics and future expansion.

The Court relied on State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (1980) and Sooraram Pratap Reddy v. Collector (2008) to reiterate that courts ordinarily do not substitute their view for that of the Government or expert planning authorities in matters of land selection.

The Court observed: “Thus, the determination of the particular parcel of land required for acquisition falls squarely within the domain of the expert planning authorities exercising powers of eminent domain.”

The Bench further stated: “Although the respondents have justified why the suggested alternative lands were not suited nor available for the intended purpose, merely because another parcel of land may appear feasible to the landowner, the same cannot be pressed into service by the landowner, to persuade the Court to substitute its own opinion for that of the authorities entrusted with the planning and execution of the project.”

The Court also rejected the argument that the extent of land acquired was excessive. It noted that the revised project report assessed the requirement at 27 hectares and that the authorities reconsidered the land requirement after receiving the Section 5A report.

The Court held: “Appellants themselves acknowledge that the revised DPR assessed the land requirement at 27 hectares. The determination of the extent of land necessary for execution of a public project is essentially a matter falling within the province of the concerned authorities possessing the requisite technical expertise. It is not for the Court to substitute its view for that of such authorities in the absence of manifest arbitrariness, mala fides, or demonstrable error. Besides, the respondents, upon receipt of the report of the LAO under Section 5A, again reconsidered the requirement of the land requirement and came to the same conclusion.”

The Court found that the landowners had placed no material to show that the land requirement was unwarranted or excessive.

Furthermore, while addressing the contention that the land in question was forest land, the Court held that the original character of the land and the statutory planning framework were decisive in determining whether land could be treated as forest or deemed forest. The Court noted that there was no material showing that the acquired land had ever been identified as forest land in revenue records, the Master Plan, or any statutory record.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the Single Judge had erred in interfering with the acquisition proceedings on the ground of non-compliance with Section 5A. It upheld the Division Bench’s decision, dismissed the appeals, vacated the interim order, and left the appellants free to pursue remedies in accordance with law if they wished to challenge the award or seek enhanced compensation.

Cause Title: Alok Kotahwala & Ors. v. Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 682)

Appearances

Appellants: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Shyam Divan and Abhay Kumar Bhandari with Advocates Anuj Bhandari, Vaibhav Bhargava and Anuj Bhandari, AOR

Respondents: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta with Advocates Sandeep Pathak, Jaya P. Pathak, Avnish Dave and Ankita Chaudhary, AOR

Click here to read/download Judgment