Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 946 (MP)

MALWA I T PARK LTD v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2009-08-07

VINEY MITTAL

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS order shall dispose of eleven writ petitions being WP No. 2146 of 2009, WP No. 2147 of 2009, WP no. 2180 of 2009, WP No. 2221 of 2009, WP No. 2292 of 2009, WP No. 2320 of 2009, WP No. 2321 of 2009, WP no. 2322 of 2009, WP No. 2608 of 2009, WP No. 2829 of 2009, WP No. 2830 of 2009, as a common challenge has been raised by all the writ petitioners to the process of acquisition of their lands. A specific challenge has been raised to a report dated March 19, 2009, submitted by the collector/land Acquisition Officer, Indore, recommending the rejection of the objections filed by the petitioners, under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and also an order dated March 24, 2009, passed by the Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore, (exercising the powers of the State Government), whereby the report submitted by the Collector has been approved. Although in all writ petitions, the acquisition proceedings have been challenged, in some of the writ petitions, a specific challenge has also been raised to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on April 4, 2008. For the sake of convenience, the facts are borrowed from WP no. 2146 of 2009. ( 2. ) A notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued on April 4, 2008, whereby 41. 939 hectares of land in village Khazrana Jagir, Tehsil and District Indore, was proposed for acquisition for a public purpose, which was indicated as --To provide plots and for the housing scheme under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM ). A copy of the said notification has been appended as Annexure P-10 with the petition. The Executive engineer of the Housing Board was indicated as the authorised officer in terms of Section 4 (2) of the Act. Urgency provisions under Section 17 (1) of the Act were invoked, thereby dispensing with the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act, and taking away the right of the land owners to file objections thereunder. ( 3. ) ALL the writ petitioners felt aggrieved against the said notification and approached this Court through various writ petitions. Urgency provisions under Section 17 (1) of the Act were invoked, thereby dispensing with the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act, and taking away the right of the land owners to file objections thereunder. ( 3. ) ALL the writ petitioners felt aggrieved against the said notification and approached this Court through various writ petitions. Besides challenging the process of the acquisition, a primary grievance was raised that there being no urgency in the matter, the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Act had wrongly been invoked. This Court took up all the aforesaid writ petitions together for hearing and the main order was passed in WP No. 2696 of 2008. During the course of arguments in the said writ petitions, the learned Advocate general, who had appeared for the State, as well as the housing Board, made an offer before the Court, that with a view to avoid unnecessary controversy, qua the dispensing with the right of the writ petitioners to file objections under section 5-A of the Act, the State Government could hear the objections filed by the various land owners, if the aforesaid objections were to be then filed. It was also assured by the learned Advocate General that objections filed by such land owners would be decided, in accordance with law. Consequently, the said offer made by the learned Advocate general, having been accepted by the writ petitioners, all the aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of on June 25, 2008. A liberty was granted to the land owners to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act, on or before July 18, 2008, in the office of the Land Acquisition Officer. Corresponding directions were issued to the Authorities, that in case, any such objections were received, then the same be decided by following the due procedure, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. A copy of the order passed by this Court in WP No. 2696 of 2008 on June 25, 2008 is available on record as Annexure P-12, with the petition. ( 4. ) IN terms of the liberty granted to the land owners, each one of them filed either collective or independent objections, on July 17, 2008. The objections filed by the petitioners in WP No. 2146 of 2009 are appended as annexure P-13 with the petition. ( 4. ) IN terms of the liberty granted to the land owners, each one of them filed either collective or independent objections, on July 17, 2008. The objections filed by the petitioners in WP No. 2146 of 2009 are appended as annexure P-13 with the petition. A very large number of objections, some on facts, and some on law, were raised. ( 5. ) ALTHOUGH in some cases, some individual objections were also raised by the land owners, most of objections raised by them were almost in identical terms. To notice the tenor of objections raised by the land owners, it would be relevant to notice some of the objections raised by the land owners as follows. (i ). The project in question i. e. "providing plots and the housing scheme under JNNURM" had not even been sanctioned by the Central Government and the central Sanctioning and Monitoring Committee constituted by the Ministry of Housing and Urban poverty Alleviation. Consequently, the public purpose indicated in the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act had yet to come into existence. (ii ). Indore Municipal Corporation had been indicated as the Nodal Agency. On a specific query put by the land owners, it had informed by the Housing board that no scheme had been received by it from jnnurm. (iii ). There was no sanctioned scheme of M. P. Housing Board also, as was mandatorily required under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Grih Nirman Mandal adhiniyam, 1972, before acquiring the land. (iv ). Various directions issued through the circulars/orders issued by the State Government, from time to time, had not been followed, in as much as, it had been clearly mandated by the Government that till there was a sanctioned scheme in existence, no acquisition proceedings could be initiated. (v ). There was an I. T. policy formulated by the state Government, and the acquisition in question was in complete violation of the said policy. (vii ). The land owners had entered into various memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with the State government, under the provisions of the Special economic Zone Act, 2005. The petitioners had obtained various clearances required from the Competent authorities under various enactments in the month of october 2007 itself, and even a viability report had been submitted in the year 2007 itself. An inspection etc. The petitioners had obtained various clearances required from the Competent authorities under various enactments in the month of october 2007 itself, and even a viability report had been submitted in the year 2007 itself. An inspection etc. had been carried out on the land in question by the officers of the Commerce and Industries Department, so much so, even a single window had been set up for the purpose to facilitate the land owners to set up the I. T. park. ( 6. ) IN WP Nos. 2180 of 2009 (Smt. Rekha Mehta)and 2221 of 2009 (M/s Shanti Infrastructure), it had been specifically maintained by the said landowners that the petitioner-Rekha Mehta had purchased the land in question in the year 2006, and even a mutation had been entered in her name in the year 2006 itself. Thereafter, she had collaborated with M/s Shanti Infrastructure for construction of a multiplex over the land in question. The aforesaid land owners claimed that sanctions for construction of the multiplex had been granted to the previous owner on October 28, 2005 and December 27, 2005 i. e. even before the purchase of the land by the present land owner. It was also maintained that the aforesaid sanction granted earlier, having lapsed in the meantime, was again issued by the Competent Authority on February 3, 2007. It was also stated that the building permission for the said multiplex had been sanctioned by the Competent Authorities on January 8, 2008. A reliance was placed on a diversion order issued by the Competent authority for using the land for the said purpose. According to the said land owners, they had already commenced the construction of the multiplex, and in the entire process for obtaining the diversion order and sanctions etc. and by commencing the construction of the multiplex, they had incurred huge expenses. (vii) Various other land-owners also filed identical objections before the Land Acquisition Officer, relying upon either the sanctions for construction for multiplexes, or on some MOUs with the State government, for certain projects. It was maintained that in view of the aforesaid sanctions granted by the State government, and in view of the MOUs having been entered into between the land owners and the State government, the said land could not be later on acquired for the purposes of the project of JNNURM. It was maintained that in view of the aforesaid sanctions granted by the State government, and in view of the MOUs having been entered into between the land owners and the State government, the said land could not be later on acquired for the purposes of the project of JNNURM. In these circumstances, a plea of promissory estoppal was also raised. (viii ). An objection was raised that the project in question was not feasible or viable. (ix ). It was also maintained by some of the land owners that there was an initial proposal mooted in the office of the Housing Board, to acquire 43. 654 hectares of land, but later on 1. 715 hectares of land was not included, while issuing the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, and not only that, even survey numbers, which were originally proposed to be acquired, as per the record in the Housing Board, were changed. On account of the said fact, it was maintained that the entire procedure adopted by the respondents was arbitrary and even malafide. (x ). Another objection was raised that the executive Engineer of the Housing Board, Indore, had absolutely no jurisdiction or authority to issue a request letter to the Collector, Indore, for acquiring the land in question, since such a request, if at all, could have been made by the Housing Board itself, after passing an appropriate resolution in this regard. (xi ). It was further maintained that the project in question, for which the land of the land owners was sought to be acquired, was in complete violation of the master Plan of Indore. The aforesaid objections were clubbed together for adjudication by the Land Acquisition Officer/collector, indore. Replies to the objections were filed by the Housing board. The objectors also filed rejoinders and submitted various documents, in support of the objections. ( 7. ) THE Land Acquisition Collector, after categorizing all objections, formulated ten objections (issues), for adjudication. Vide a report dated March 19, 2009, all the objections filed by various land owners were found to be without any basis. A report in this regard was submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer/collector, Indore, to the commissioner, Indore Division, Indore, (exercising the powers of the State Government), for approval. Vide a report dated March 19, 2009, all the objections filed by various land owners were found to be without any basis. A report in this regard was submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer/collector, Indore, to the commissioner, Indore Division, Indore, (exercising the powers of the State Government), for approval. On March 24, 2009, the Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore, while exercising the powers of the State Government, has granted his approval to the report submitted by the Collector. The report dated March 19, 2009 submitted by the Land acquisition Officer/collector, Indore, along with the approval order passed thereupon by the Commissioner, Indore division, Indore, on March 24, 2009, has been appended as annexure P-29 with WP No. 2146 of 2009. ( 8. ) AS noticed above, it is with the identical challenge to the said report of the Land Acquisition Officer, along with the approval order passed by the Commissioner that all writ petitioners have approached this Court through present bunch of writ petitions. ( 9. ) THE grievance raised by the petitioners, in all these writ petitions is, that while submitting the report, the collector had taken irrelevant facts into consideration and as such had erred in law, as well as on facts, in rejecting the genuine objections raised by the land owners. It has been maintained by the writ petitioners that the land owners had obtained the requisite sanctions for development of IT park; construction of the multiplexes; and various other projects, much prior to the notification dated April 4, 2008 had been issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act, and therefore, when there were diversion orders qua the land in question passed by the Competent Authorities; various sanctions had been granted under various provisions of different Acts; MOUs had been signed between the land owners/developers and the State Government, then all the aforesaid facts were required to be taken into consideration by the Authorities, while considering the objections filed by the land owners under Section 5-A. According to the petitioners, sufficient material had been placed by them on record, to prove the said facts, but the said material had almost been brushed aside by the Authorities, without due application of mind. ( 10. ) IT has also been pleaded that the public purpose in question, for which the land was proposed to be acquired viz. ( 10. ) IT has also been pleaded that the public purpose in question, for which the land was proposed to be acquired viz. for providing plots and for housing scheme of JNNURM, no such project had been granted the requisite sanction by the Central Government and even by the Central Sanctioning and Monitoring Committee, constituted by the Ministry of housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, and therefore, on april 4, 2008, on the date when the notification in question had been issued under Section 4 (1), the said public purpose had, infact, not even come into existence. According to the petitioners, there was not even a sanctioned scheme of the housing Board, which could justify a proposal for the acquisition. ( 11. ) ALL other objections, raised by the land owners before the Collector/land Acquisition Officer, have been reiterated in the writ petitions. ( 12. ) A very serious challenge has been raised in all writ petitions to the report submitted by the Collector on March 19, 2009, and the approval thereof granted by the commissioner on March 24, 2009, by maintaining that the report had been submitted by the Collector, taking into consideration the extraneous and irrelevant material, but the relevant material/evidence, brought on record by the landowners had not been kept in view and therefore, the aforesaid report could not be treated to be a valid report/recommendation on the objections filed by the land owners under Section 5-A. Additionally, a challenge has been raised to the order dated March 24, 2009 passed by the commissioner, (exercising the powers of the State government ). It has been maintained that the aforesaid order passed by the State Government, could not be treated to be in conformity with the requirements of Section 5-A, in as much as, various objections raised by the land owners were required, infact, to be decided by the State government itself, whereas in the present cases, the commissioner, while exercising those powers, had merely approved the report submitted by the Collector. According to the petitioners, the order dated March 24, 2009, passed by the Commissioner, could not be treated to be a legal and valid order, in terms of the provisions of the Act, and could not even be treated to be passed with the appropriate and due application of mind. ( 13. ) THE claim made by the petitioners has been contested by the respondents. ( 13. ) THE claim made by the petitioners has been contested by the respondents. Two separate replies have been filed. A detailed reply has been filed by the M. P. Housing Board, on behalf of respondents No. 5 and 6. A reply has also been filed by respondents No. 1 to 4. In the reply filed by the Housing Board, it has been maintained that the objections filed by various land owners under Section 5-A of the Act, had been duly considered by the Land Acquisition officer/collector, and thereafter the Commissioner, while exercising the powers of the State Government, had also given a decision thereupon. The existence of public purpose for the acquisition of the land in question has been asserted. It has been maintained that the pre-existence of a sanctioned scheme by the Housing Board was not even the requirement of law. According to the Housing Board, the major portion of the housing scheme, under the project, is meant for the persons of lower income group and economically weaker sections, and therefore, is a valid public purpose. The housing Board has also, strangely, maintained that most of the land in question is in the hands of only few land owners, who are infact developers, and have their own hidden agenda. The Housing Board has also pleaded that the project of JNNURM was only one of the purposes for acquisition, whereas the acquired land could also be used for a housing scheme of the Housing Board. ( 14. ) IT may be noticed that almost identical pleas have been raised by the Housing Board in all the writ petitions. ( 15. ) A reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 has been submitted by Shri Shielendra Singh, Land Acquisition officer, Indore (OIC of the case ). He has defended the report submitted by the Collector, and also the order passed by the commissioner. It has been maintained that the Collector had heard the objections by granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all concerned, and the appropriate government, thereafter, had examined the grounds for rejection shown in the report, and after due application of mind, had recorded that there was no reason to disagree with the findings recorded in the report. ( 16. It has been maintained that the Collector had heard the objections by granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all concerned, and the appropriate government, thereafter, had examined the grounds for rejection shown in the report, and after due application of mind, had recorded that there was no reason to disagree with the findings recorded in the report. ( 16. ) THE arguments on behalf of the petitioners have been addressed by Shri G. M. Chaphekar, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in WP No. 2146 of 2009 and WP No. 2221 of 2009, Shri A. K. Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing in WP No. 2147 of 2009, Shri A. K. Chitale, learned senior counsel appearing in WP No. 2292 of 2009, Shri B. L. Pavecha, learned senior counsel appearing in writ Petitions No. 2320 of 2009, 2321 of 2009 and 2322 of 2009 and Shri Piyush Mathur, learned counsel, who has appeared in WP No. 2180 of 2009. However, the learned counsel appearing in the remaining writ petitions have adopted the arguments of the learned counsel in the above said cases. ( 17. ) ON behalf of the respondents, the Housing Board has been represented by Shri R. N. Singh, learned senior counsel, and Shri A. S. Kutumbale, learned Additional advocate General has addressed the arguments on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4. ( 18. ) SHRI Shekhar Bhargav, learned senior counsel has appeared on behalf of an intervenor-Omi Khandelwal, in writ petitions 2146 of 2009 and 2147 of 2009. Although, I do not find any locus-standi of the intervenor, to intervene in the matter of challenge to the acquisition of the private lands of the land owners, since I find that the controversy is essentially between the land owners and the Acquiring authorities, but with a view to obtain assistance, I have also heard the learned senior counsel for the intervenor. ( 19. ) ALL the learned senior counsel for the petitioners have reasserted, during the course of arguments, the various pleas raised by the petitioners in the writ petitions, and various objections raised by the objectors in their objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act. ( 20. ( 19. ) ALL the learned senior counsel for the petitioners have reasserted, during the course of arguments, the various pleas raised by the petitioners in the writ petitions, and various objections raised by the objectors in their objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act. ( 20. ) SHRI G. M. Chaphekar, learned senior counsel, has argued that the project in question, proposed by JNNURM had yet not been sanctioned by the Central Government or by the committee constituted by the Ministry of Housing and urban Poverty Alleviation, on the day when the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act had been issued on April 4, 2008. On that basis, it has been maintained that no public purpose could be taken to have even come into existence on that date, and therefore, the notification in question under section 4 (1) and initiation of the proceedings for acquisition was clearly illegal. Shri Chaphekar has also stressed on the fact that no scheme had been sanctioned even by the housing Board as yet, and therefore, the land in question could also be not proposed to be acquired for the said purpose as well. ( 21. ) LEARNED senior counsel has relied upon a Division bench judgment of this Court in 1993 MPWN 214 Sharif patel Vs. State of M. P. , to contend that various circulars issued by the State Government, from time to time, were required to be followed, while initiating the acquisition proceedings, and since on the date of issuance of the notification in question, no sanctioned scheme had come into existence, therefore, as per the said circulars, no land could be acquired. ( 22. ) SHRI Chaphekar has also referred to the I. T. policy framed by the State Government and MOUs between the landowners and the State Government and argues that since the projects being undertaken by the land owners had been sanctioned under the aforesaid policy, therefore, the said projects could not be aborted for such a public purpose, which was yet to come into existence. ( 23. ) SHRI Chaphekar has also referred to the report under Section 5-A submitted by the Collector and the order of approval passed by the Commissioner, thereupon, to contend that the said report and the order could not be treated to be in conformity with the mandatory provisions of section 5-A of the Act. ( 24. ( 23. ) SHRI Chaphekar has also referred to the report under Section 5-A submitted by the Collector and the order of approval passed by the Commissioner, thereupon, to contend that the said report and the order could not be treated to be in conformity with the mandatory provisions of section 5-A of the Act. ( 24. ) SHRI A. K. Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners has adopted the aforesaid arguments addressed by Shri Chaphekar. Additionally, it has been argued by the learned senior counsel that description of the land proposed to be acquired had not been given in the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, and therefore, the notification in question was to be treated as vague. According to the learned senior counsel, the notification in question was liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Shri sethi relies upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Mohammad Shafi Vs. State of M. P. and others, 1989 JLJ 501 , wherein an identical view had been taken by this Court, and it was held that in a big village, to enable the land owners to raise objections effectively, particulars of the area should be mentioned in the notification, under Section 4 (1) of the Act. Shri Sethi informs the Court that the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench had even been upheld by the Apex Court, when a challenge raised thereto by the Housing Board had been rejected. In this regard, my attention has been drawn to the case of M. P. Housing Board vs. Mohammad Shafi 1992 (2) SCC 168. ( 25. ) SHRI Sethi has vehemently argued that objections filed under Section 5-A by a land owner are required to be heard by the Collector/land Acquisition Officer, after affording an opportunity of hearing and for leading evidence to the land owner, and thereafter a report is required to be submitted by the said Authority to the appropriate government, making his recommendation on various objections. Shri Sethi asserts that final decision on the objections is, in any case, required to be taken by the appropriate Government, on consideration of the report, and on consideration of the entire record. Shri Sethi asserts that final decision on the objections is, in any case, required to be taken by the appropriate Government, on consideration of the report, and on consideration of the entire record. According to the learned senior counsel, neither the report submitted by the collector/land Acquisition Officer in the present cases, could be treated to be in conformity with the provisions of section 5-A of the Act, nor in any case, the order of approval passed by the Commissioner, could be treated to be a decision of the objections by him. Thus, maintains the learned senior counsel, that the mandatory provisions of section 5-A had been given a complete go bye, by the authorities, required to deal with the objections. ( 26. ) SHRI Sethi has also referred to the provisions of sections 31 and 34 of Madhya Pradesh Grih Nirman Mandal adhiniyam, 1972. A specific reliance has been placed on section 33 (a) of the Adhiniyam, and it has been maintained that existence of a Housing Scheme, as per the provisions of the said Adhiniyam is an essential pre-requisite, before even a proposal for acquiring any land for such a scheme could be visualized. ( 27. ) RAISING another objection against the impugned report submitted by the Collector, Shri Sethi has referred to certain observations made therein. The objections had been raised by the land owners that requisite sanctions/approvals had been obtained by the land owners, much prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 (1) on April 4, 2008, and even the diversion orders had been passed earlier to the said notification, and MOUs had been entered into and duly signed between the land owners and the State government. However, all the aforesaid facts have been ruled out of consideration by the Collector/land Acquisition officer, by merely observing that all the aforesaid facts had actually come into existence after December 27, 2005, when a proposal was mooted by the Housing Board for acquisition. Learned senior counsel vehemently argues that the aforesaid date December 27, 2005, has unnecessarily been taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Officer, though not relevant at all, in as much as, the only date which was relevant for the purposes of determination of the objections was the date of issuance of the notification, which was April 4, 2008. Learned senior counsel vehemently argues that the aforesaid date December 27, 2005, has unnecessarily been taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Officer, though not relevant at all, in as much as, the only date which was relevant for the purposes of determination of the objections was the date of issuance of the notification, which was April 4, 2008. It is thus argued, that the Collector, while submitting the report, had taken irrelevant facts and material into consideration, and therefore, the report was entirely vitiated, on this ground alone. ( 28. ) ANOTHER fact, which has been pointed out by the learned senior counsel is that on the objections submitted by various land owners, an order had been passed by the collector, directing the Tehsildar to submit a report, after conducting a spot inspection, to determine the factual position at the site. Shri Sethi has also referred to the report of the Collector, in which, it has been observed while dealing with the objection No. 2, that such a spot inspection report to be submitted by the Tehsildar, was not available on record. Thus, it has been maintained that the Collector/land acquisition Officer, had actually failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him, because earlier having directed the spot inspection of the site, the objections had been adjudicated without availability of the said spot inspection report. ( 29. ) THE order passed by the Commissioner on March 24, 2009 has also been seriously criticized by learned senior counsel. It has been maintained that under the provisions of section 5-A of the Act, decision on the objections raised by a land owner was required to be given by the appropriate government only, on the basis of a report submitted by the collector. According to Shri Sethi, however, on perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner, it is apparent that it had been observed that there was no infirmity in the recommendations made by the Collector and therefore, the said report had been merely approved. It has been argued that the said approval of the report of the Collector could not be treated to be a decision on the objections by the appropriate Government i. e. the Commissioner. A plea of promissory estoppal has also been raised by learned senior counsel. It has been argued that the said approval of the report of the Collector could not be treated to be a decision on the objections by the appropriate Government i. e. the Commissioner. A plea of promissory estoppal has also been raised by learned senior counsel. It has been maintained that in view of the earlier mous with the State Government with regard to the certain projects, such as the I. T. park etc. , the land owners had spent considerable amount on the said projects. In these circumstances, the State Government was estopped from acquiring the land in question. ( 30. ) SHRI Piyush Mathur, learned counsel, who has appeared in WP No. 2180 of 2009 (which also appears to be connected with WP No. 2221 of 2009 since it has been claimed by both the petitioners that they have collaborated for execution of the project of a multiplex), has adopted the aforesaid arguments raised by Shri Chaphekar and Shri sethi. Additionally, Shri Mathur has vehemently stressed that the petitioner-Rekha Mehta had purchased the land in question in the year 2006 from one Ram Chandra Kulmi and thereafter the mutation of the said land had been entered in the name of the purchaser-Rekha Mehta. Shri Mathur points out that the erstwhile owner Ram Chandra Kulmi had been granted the requisite permission by the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Indore, through an order dated October 28, 2005, appended as Annexure P-25 with the writ petition No. 2180 of 2009. The learned counsel also points out that the said permission had been granted to the erstwhile owner, on an application filed by him on October 21, 2005. It was after the said permission had been obtained by the seller, that the land in question was purchased by the present petitioner-Rekha Mehta. Learned counsel further points out that earlier sanction having lapsed, a fresh sanction was issued on February 3, 2007, and even the building permission to construct the multiplex had been granted to the present owners on January 8, 2008. Learned counsel has also referred to an objection raised by the said writ petitioners, that on the date when the notification in question had been issued, they had already commenced the construction of the multiplex. According to the learned counsel, all the aforesaid facts had been completely ignored by the Collector, while submitting the report. ( 31. Learned counsel has also referred to an objection raised by the said writ petitioners, that on the date when the notification in question had been issued, they had already commenced the construction of the multiplex. According to the learned counsel, all the aforesaid facts had been completely ignored by the Collector, while submitting the report. ( 31. ) SHRI Mathur, specifically elaborates that while rejecting the objection No. 2, the Collector had observed that all the approvals/sanctions had been obtained by the land owners after December 27, 2005, and although even the said date was totally irrelevant for rejecting the said objection of the land owners, but in the case of the present petitioners Rekha Mehta and her collaborator, the requisite sanction for construction of the multiplex had, infact, been granted on October 28, 2005 i. e. even prior to the said date december 27, 2005. Shri Mathur has thus argued that the said distinguishing fact in the case of present objectors had not been even adverted to by the Authorities, while submitting the report and passing the order thereupon. ( 32. ) SHRI A. K. Chitale, learned senior counsel who was appeared in WP No. 2292 of 2009, has addressed similar arguments, as have been addressed by the other learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Additionally, it has been maintained by him that the acquisition of the land in question is violative of the Master Plan of Indore, 2021, and the notification in question is vague. It has also been argued that the project in question is not even viable. ( 33. ) SHRI B. L. Pavecha, learned senior counsel appearing in three writ petitions, being WP No. 2320 of 2009, WP no. 2321 of 2009 and WP No. 2322 of 2009, has also addressed identical arguments before the Court, as have been addressed by the learned senior counsel for other petitioners. However, he has laid a lot of stress on the fact that in absence of the duly sanctioned scheme, the entire process of acquisition could not survive, and the notification in question is liable to be set aside on this short ground alone. ( 34. However, he has laid a lot of stress on the fact that in absence of the duly sanctioned scheme, the entire process of acquisition could not survive, and the notification in question is liable to be set aside on this short ground alone. ( 34. ) SHRI Pavecha has also pointed out that the petitioners had obtained the sanction for construction of a multiplex on March 7, 2006, i. e. much prior to the issuance of the notification on April 4, 2008, and therefore, the said fact could not have been ignored, while proposing the acquisition of the land of the petitioners. ( 35. ) SHRI Pavecha has also referred to the documents, annexures P-13, P-14 and P-15 appended with the said writ petitions, and has maintained that some survey numbers, which were originally proposed for acquisition had been later on, excluded, and new numbers belonging to the said writ petitioners were included. Learned senior counsel maintains that although the said fact had been taken note of by the Collector, but while dealing with the said objection raised by the writ petitioners, the said objection has been overruled, without any justifiable ground and by merely observing that for the aforesaid error, the official who had committed the mistake, would be suitably dealt with departmentally. The learned senior counsel argues that, as a matter of fact, the change of the survey numbers in the original proposal was a serious matter, which clearly reflected discrimination and arbitrariness of the proposal. ( 36. ) ALL the aforesaid contentions have been refuted by shri R. N. Singh, learned senior counsel for the Housing board. Shri Singh, during the course of arguments,has reiterated the pleas raised by the Housing Board, in its reply. ( 37. ) IT has been maintained by the learned senior counsel that there was no requirement of the pre-existence of a sanctioned scheme of the Housing Board, and therefore, the said objection raised by the land owners was without any basis. Shri Singh, during the course of arguments,has reiterated the pleas raised by the Housing Board, in its reply. ( 37. ) IT has been maintained by the learned senior counsel that there was no requirement of the pre-existence of a sanctioned scheme of the Housing Board, and therefore, the said objection raised by the land owners was without any basis. According to Shri Singh, even if the land had been ordered to be diverted through various diversion orders; layout plans sanctioned thereupon; and even the permission of construction of multiplexes and I. T. park had been given, the said facts were of no relevance, in as much as, while assessing the market value payable for the acquired land, a land owner would be entitled to raise the pleas in this regard for claiming more compensation. It has been maintained that even when the constructed areas could be acquired, the question of excluding land having merely sanctioned projects, would not even arise. In this regard, the learned senior counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the cases State of UP Vs. Pista Devi (1986) 4 SCC 251 , Anand Buttons Vs. State of haryana (2005) 9 SCC 164 and Meerut Development authority Vs. State of UP (1996) 11 SCC 462 . ( 38. ) LEARNED senior counsel for the respondent-Board has further vehemently argued that the Board has specifically clarified before the Collector that if after acquisition of the land, the requisite permission etc. for jnnurm project was not forthcoming, then the Housing board would proceed with its own Housing Scheme. ( 39. ) THE report submitted by the Collector, as well as the order passed by the Commissioner, have been defended by shri Singh, and it has been contended that the report had been submitted after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties, and the said recommendation submitted by the Collector had been duly taken into consideration by the Commissioner, who did not find any material to disagree with the same, and therefore, an approval was granted. The learned senior counsel has maintained that the aforesaid approval granted by the commissioner was in complete conformity with the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act. ( 40. The learned senior counsel has maintained that the aforesaid approval granted by the commissioner was in complete conformity with the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act. ( 40. ) SHRI A. S. Kutumbale, learned Additional Advocate general, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 has also adopted the arguments addressed by Shri R. N. Singh, learned senior counsel for the Housing Board. It has been contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that since the various land owners had filed objections under ( 41. ) SECTION 5-A, therefore, the omission to indicate the survey numbers of the lands in the notification under Section 4 (1)was of no consequence, in as much as, no prejudice, whatsoever, had ever been caused to any of the land-owners. The learned Additional Advocate General has also supported the acquisition proceedings, initiated by the respondents, for the project in question and defended the report submitted by the Collector and the order passed thereupon by the commissioner. ( 42. ) SHRI Shekhar Bhargav, learned senior counsel has appeared on behalf of the intervenor-Omi Khandelwal in Writ petitions No. 2146 of 2009 and 2147 of 2009. As noticed above, the challenge in the present writ petitions is by the land owners/persons interested, to the acquisition of their lands in question by the official respondents. The aforesaid controversy is essentially between the writ petitioners and the official respondents. The intervenor has not pleaded any personal right or interest in the lands in question. Consequently, I find that the intervention applications filed by the aforesaid intervenor are absolutely without any justification, and need to be rejected. However, with a view to obtain assistance, the learned senior counsel for the intervenor has also been heard in the matter. ( 43. ) LEARNED senior counsel for the intervenor, has argued that a proposal had been mooted by the Housing board in December 2005 itself, when it was proposed that the land be acquired for a Housing Scheme. Shri Bhargav maintains that the aforesaid proposal was well within the knowledge of the residents of the area, including the present petitioners, and therefore, the land in question had been purchased by them with an ulterior purpose i. e. to make undue profits. Shri Bhargav maintains that the aforesaid proposal was well within the knowledge of the residents of the area, including the present petitioners, and therefore, the land in question had been purchased by them with an ulterior purpose i. e. to make undue profits. According to Shri Bhargav, the projects in question are infact in larger public interest and therefore, the personal and individual interests of the writ petitioners must yield to the aforesaid larger public interest. ( 44. ) HAVING given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid pleas, being raised on behalf of the intervenor, I do not find any justification to take the said facts into consideration. Whether or not a person is owner of the land in question or has any interest therein, is the only issue, which is to be considered on the relevant date, i. e. the date of issuance of Section 4 notification. How and why the said land was purchased by a person, prior to Section 4 (1) of notification, is a matter, which is totally extraneous for adjudication of the present controversy. The extent of title/interest of a person, when some land had been acquired, would be determinable at the time when an award is passed, for assessing the market value of the acquired land. At this stage, it would be not appropriate for this Court to offer any comments on the rights/title of the writ petitioners qua the land in question. ( 45. ) I have duly considered the rival contentions raised by learned senior counsel for the contesting parties. I have also gone through the record of the case. ( 46. ) TO adjudicate the controversy in question, at the outset, it would be relevant to extract the provisions of section 5-A of the Act. "5a. Hearing of objections.- (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a company may, within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. (2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (1), or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government. The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final. (3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under this Act. " ( 47. ) THE provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are in recognition of the power of eminent domain of the Sovereign (the State), and as such the appropriate Government is the authority to acquire lands, thereunder, for a public purpose and for the purposes of a company. The Act provides for acquisition of the land of persons, without their consent, though compensation is paid for such acquisition. The fact, however, remains that the land is acquired, without the consent of the owner, and that is a circumstance, which must be born in mind, while construing the provisions of the act. In such a situation, the provisions of the Act are required to be strictly construed (refer to State of M. P. and others Vs. Vishnu Prasad Sharma and others AIR 1966 SC 1593 and Khub Chand and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1967 SC 1074 ). ( 48. ) EVEN in the case of Collector of Central Excise ahmedabad Vs. Orient Fabrics (P) Ltd. AIR 2004 SC 956 , it was held by the Apex Court that the provisions of an expropriatory legislation should be strictly construed. ( 49. ) IN the backdrop of the aforesaid principle, it is clear that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, including the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act, have to be strictly construed. ( 49. ) IN the backdrop of the aforesaid principle, it is clear that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, including the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act, have to be strictly construed. Provisions of Section 5-A have infact to be treated as mandatory, and any deficiency in following the procedure laid therein, has to enure for the benefit of the land owners. ( 50. ) IT has been held in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Mukesh Hans, Etc. (2004) 8 SCC 14 . "35. At this stage, it is relevant to notice that the limited right given to an owner/person interested under Section 5-A of the Act to object to the acquisition proceedings is not an empty formality and is a substantive right, which can be taken away for good and valid reason and within the limitations prescribed under Section 17 (4) of the Act. The object and importance of Section 5-A inquiry was noticed by this court in the case of Munshi Singh Vs. Union of India (1973) 2 SCC 337 wherein this Court held thus: "section 5-A embodies a very just and wholesome principle that a person whose property is being or is intended to be acquired should have a proper and reasonable opportunity of persuading the authorities concerned that acquisition of the property belonging to that person should not be made. The legislature has made complete provisions for the persons interested to file objections against the proposed acquisition and for the disposal of their objections. It is only in cases of urgency that special powers have been conferred on the appropriate government to dispense with the provisions of section 5-A". 36. It is clear from the above observation of this Court that right of representation and hearing contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act is a very valuable right of a person whose property is sought to be acquired and he should have appropriate and reasonable opportunity of persuading the authorities concerned that the acquisition of the property belonging to that person should not be made. Therefore, in our opinion, if the appropriate government decides to take away this minimal right then its decision to do so must be based on materials on record to support the same and bearing in mind the object of Section 5a. Therefore, in our opinion, if the appropriate government decides to take away this minimal right then its decision to do so must be based on materials on record to support the same and bearing in mind the object of Section 5a. " (underlining supplied)Certain observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Darius shapur Chenai and others (2005) 7 SCC 627 , may also be extracted with advantage. "6. It is not in dispute that Section 5-A of the act confers a valuable right in favour of a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300-A of the constitution, the State in exercise of its power of "eminent domain" may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be paid. 7. Indisputably, the definition of public purpose is of wide amplitude and takes within its sweep the acquisition of land for a corporation owned or controlled by the State, as envisaged under sub-clause (iv) of clause (f) of Section 3 of the Act. But the same would not mean that the State is the sole judge therefor and no judicial review shall lie. " (underlining supplied)It was further observed. "9. It is trite that hearing given to a person must be an effective one and not a mere formality. Formation of opinion as regards the public purpose as also suitability thereof must be preceded by application of mind as regards consideration of relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones. The State in its decision-making process must not commit any misdirection in law. It is also not in dispute that Section 5-A of the Act confers a valuable important right and having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300-A of the Constitution it has been held to be akin to a fundamental right. " (Emphasis Supplied) ( 51. ) WITH regard to the procedure to be followed under section 5-A of the Act, the Apex Court held. "15. Section 5-A of the Act is in two parts. " (Emphasis Supplied) ( 51. ) WITH regard to the procedure to be followed under section 5-A of the Act, the Apex Court held. "15. Section 5-A of the Act is in two parts. Upon receipt of objections, the Collector is required to make such further enquiry as he may think necessary whereupon he must submit a report to the appropriate government in respect of the land which is the subject-matter of notification under section 4 (1) of the Act. The said report would also contain recommendations on the objections filed by the owner of the land. He is required to forward the records of the proceedings held by him together with the report. On receipt of such a report together with the records of the case, the Government is to render a decision thereupon. It is now settled in view of a catena of decisions that the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act need not contain any reason (See Kalumiya Karimmiya Vs. State of Gujarat and delhi Admn. Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban (2000) 7 SCC 296 . 16. However, considerations of the objections by the owner of the land and the acceptance of the recommendations by the Government, it is trite, must precede a proper application of mind on the part of the government. As and when a person aggrieved questions the decision-making process, the court in order to satisfy itself as to whether one or more grounds for judicial review exist, may call for the records whereupon such records must be produced. The writ petition was filed in the year 1989. As noticed herein before, the said writ petition was allowed. This court, however, interfered with the said order of the high Court and remitted the matter back to it upon giving an opportunity to the parties to raise additional pleadings. 17. Contention of Mr Chaudhari to the effect that for long the additional ground relating to non-application of mind on the part of the State had not been raised and , thus, it might not be necessary for the state to file a counter-affidavit, does not appeal to us. When rule nisi was issued, the State was required to produce the records and file a counter-affidavit. If it did not file any counter-affidavit, it may, subject to just exceptions, be held to have admitted the allegations made in the writ petition. 18. When rule nisi was issued, the State was required to produce the records and file a counter-affidavit. If it did not file any counter-affidavit, it may, subject to just exceptions, be held to have admitted the allegations made in the writ petition. 18. In view of the fact that the action required to be taken by the State Government is distinct and different from the action required to be taken by the collector; when the ultimate order is in question it was for the State to satisfy the court about the validity thereof and for the said purpose the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of a Collector cannot be held to be sufficient compliance with the requirements of law. The job of the Collector in terms of Section 5-A would be over once he submits his report. The Land Acquisition collector would not know the contents of the proceedings before the State and, therefore, he would be incompetent to affirm an affidavit on its behalf. 19. Furthermore, the State is required to apply its mind not only on the objections filed by the owner of the land but also on the report which is submitted by the Collector upon making other and further enquiries therefor as also the recommendations made by him in that behalf. The State Government may further inquire into the matter, if any case is made out therefor, for arriving at its own satisfaction that it is necessary to deprive a citizen of his right to property. It is in that situation that production of records by the state is necessary. " (Emphasis Supplied) ( 52. ) IN the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, as noticed above, it would be now an appropriate stage to examine the impugned report dated March 19, 2009, submitted by the Collector to the appropriate Government. A perusal of the aforesaid report indicates that various objections filed by the land owners have been clubbed and have been categorized as ten objections, which were treated as the issues arising in the objections. ( 53. ) OBJECTIONS No. 1 and 7, pertain to non-sanctioning of the requisite project by the Central Government and the other Competent Authorities and non-existence of a sanctioned scheme of the Housing Board. The aforesaid objections have been rejected by the Collector. ( 53. ) OBJECTIONS No. 1 and 7, pertain to non-sanctioning of the requisite project by the Central Government and the other Competent Authorities and non-existence of a sanctioned scheme of the Housing Board. The aforesaid objections have been rejected by the Collector. It has been observed that an approval in principle had been granted on may 15, 2006 to the scheme of the Housing Board. While dealing with objection No. 7, with regard to the non grant of the requisite sanction to the JNNURM project by the Central government and other Competent Authorities, the Collector has held that in case of the aforesaid project, being not approved, the Housing Scheme of the Housing Board would be executed in the acquired land. However, a perusal of the notification dated April 4, 2008 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act indicates that the public purpose mentioned therein is "to provide and to execute a housing scheme under jawarharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission". ( 54. ) IN view of the fact that a specific public purpose had been mentioned in the notification issued under Section 4 (1), the Collector was required to determine as to whether the execution of a Housing Scheme of the Housing Boar would be a purpose, included in that public purpose. As a matter of fact, the public purpose as given in the notification under section 4 of the Act, is the starting point of the acquisition proceedings, and cannot be deviated from, by the Acquiring authorities, at any stage, nor while dealing with the objections under Section 5-A of the Act, the Collector has any power to accept and treat any alternative purpose as the public purpose, for which the land is sought to be acquired. The aforesaid legal aspect of the matter, appears to have escaped the notice of the Collector, while dealing with objections No. 1 and 7. ( 55. ) ALL the writ petitioners, who had filed objections under Section 5-A before the Collector, had asserted independent facts, to maintain that they had, much prior to the issuance of the notification on April 4, 2008, had obtained diversion orders qua the user of the land, which after the said diversion orders, could no longer be treated to be agricultural; obtained approvals/sanctions from various competent Authorities for the projects of multiplexes, IT parks and such other projects. However, on a mere plea raised by the Housing Board, that all the aforesaid sanctions etc had been obtained by the land owners after December 27, 2005, the date on which some proposal was mooted by the Housing Board for a Housing Scheme, objections raised by the land owners have been rejected, by accepting the said stand of the Housing Board. ( 56. ) AS noticed earlier, the process of acquisition of the land of a person gets initiated for the first time through a notification under Section 4 of the Act. Rights of the owners/occupants etc. , existing in the said land, are to be treated as crystallized, on the date of issuance of the said notification. Anything happening prior thereto would be wholly extraneous and irrelevant for the purpose of process of acquisition. In these circumstances, when the objectors had specifically placed the requisite material before the collector that all the Competent Authorities, under the various enactments, had granted approvals/sanctions and passed diversion orders, much prior to the year 2008, infact in the year 2006 etc. , then the said facts were bound to be considered by the Land Acquisition Collector. Simply because a person was entitled to seek compensation for the acquired land, would be no ground to rule out an objection raised by him pleading relevant facts. Recommendation made by the Collector on objection No. 2, thus, also cannot be sustained. ( 57. ) AT this stage, it would not be out of place to notice the specific instance of landowners in the case of WP no. 2180 of 2009 (Rekha Mehta) and WP No. 2221 of 2009 (M/s Shanti Infrastructure), it has been pleaded by them that the land in question had been purchased by Rekha Mehta in the year 2006 from the erstwhile owner Ram Chand Kulmi, who had already obtained a sanction on October 28, 2005 for construction of a multiplex. The said sanction was renewed on February 3, 2007. The building permission was also granted even to the present land owners (purchasers)on January 8, 2008. In these circumstances, even if the reasoning adopted by the Collector were to be countenanced, still it is apparent that the requisite sanction for the multiplex had been granted to the erstwhile owner, much prior to December 27, 2005. The building permission was also granted even to the present land owners (purchasers)on January 8, 2008. In these circumstances, even if the reasoning adopted by the Collector were to be countenanced, still it is apparent that the requisite sanction for the multiplex had been granted to the erstwhile owner, much prior to December 27, 2005. The said fact has also been completely ignored and lost sight of by the Collector, while rejecting the objections filed by the said land owners. On that ground alone, the rejection of the objections, qua the said land owners, cannot be legally sustained. ( 58. ) ANOTHER objection, which had been raised by various land owners was with regard to the existing MOUs between the land owners and the State Government, entered into prior to issuance of the notification. Concededly, the land owners had claimed MOUs with the State Government. On the basis of the MOUs they had also obtained various other sanctions/approvals. The MOUs with the State Government cannot be treated to be on the same footing, as a private transaction between two individuals. The transaction between the land owner and another private person could be ignored under some circumstances, but definitely, more weightage was required to be given to the MOUs between the State Government and the land owners. Obviously, the aforesaid distinction has also been lost sight of by the authorities, while rejecting the objections filed by the land owners. ( 59. ) A very serious grievance has been raised by the writ petitioners to the order dated March 24, 2009, rendered by the Commissioner, in exercise of the powers to the State government, when the report submitted by the Collector has been approved. It has been maintained that the objections, at no stage, had ever been decided by the appropriate authority, and therefore, a mere approval granted to the report of the Collector by the Commissioner, could neither be treated to be a decision of the objections by the appropriate Government, nor the said order reflects due application of mind. ( 60. It has been maintained that the objections, at no stage, had ever been decided by the appropriate authority, and therefore, a mere approval granted to the report of the Collector by the Commissioner, could neither be treated to be a decision of the objections by the appropriate Government, nor the said order reflects due application of mind. ( 60. ) IT is well settled principle of law that when a statute requires an act to be done, an order to be passed or a duty to be performed by a statutory Authority, in a particular manner, then that act must be done, order passed and duty performed in strict compliance with the statutory provisions, and the manner envisaged thereunder. Certain observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police Bombay Vs. Gordhandas bhanji AIR 1952 SC 16 , may be noticed. "10. . . . . . . . . If the Commissioner of Police had the power to cancel the license already granted and was the proper authority to make the order, it was incumbent on him to say so in express and direct terms. Public authorities cannot play fast and loose with the powers vested in them, and persons to whose detriment orders are made are entitled to know with exactness and precision what they are expected to do or forbear from doing and exactly what authority is making the order. " It was further observed. "26. We have held that the Commissioner did not in fact exercise his discretion in this case and did not cancel the license he granted. He merely forwarded to the respondent an order of cancellation which another authority had purported to pass. It is evident from these facts that the Commissioner had before him objections which called for the exercise of the discretion regarding cancellation specifically vested in him by R. 250. He was therefore bound to exercise it and bring to bear on the matter his own independent and unfettered judgment and decide for himself whether to cancel the license or reject the objections. That duty he can now be ordered to perform under s. 45. " (Emphasis given) ( 61. ) AGAIN in the case of State of West Bengal and another Vs. Alpana Roy and others (2005) 8 SCC 296 , it was observed by the Apex Court. "6. . . . . . . That duty he can now be ordered to perform under s. 45. " (Emphasis given) ( 61. ) AGAIN in the case of State of West Bengal and another Vs. Alpana Roy and others (2005) 8 SCC 296 , it was observed by the Apex Court. "6. . . . . . . . . . . . It is the function of the body granting approval to examine whether in a particular case, approval is to be accorded. The approving authoritys function is not a formal one. It has a duty to decide whether approval is to be accorded, taking into account governing statutes. The High Court has proceeded as if approval is an empty formality. . . . . . . . . . . " (emphasis given) ( 62. ) IT was further observed. "8. Even in respect of administrative orders lord Denning, M. R. In Breen Vs. Amalgamated Engg. Union observed:"the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. " In Alexander machinery (Dudley) Ltd. Vs. Crabtree it was observed: "failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. " Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of the sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. " (emphasis supplied) ( 63. ) THE aforesaid observations made by the Apex Court in Gordhandas Bhanjis case (supra) and in Alpana Roys case (supra), apply on all fours to the facts and circumstances of the present cases. The "inscrutable face of the sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. " (emphasis supplied) ( 63. ) THE aforesaid observations made by the Apex Court in Gordhandas Bhanjis case (supra) and in Alpana Roys case (supra), apply on all fours to the facts and circumstances of the present cases. It is apparent that under the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act, the Commissioner, exercises the powers of the appropriate Government, and is the Competent Authority to decide the objections filed by a land owner. However, before the matter is to be decided by the Commissioner (appropriate Government), the objectors are to be heard by the Land Acquisition Officer, who is required to examine the material with regard to the said objections. The Land acquisition Officer is merely required to submit a report, recommending the acceptance of the objections or rejection thereof. Along with the report of the Collector, the entire record is required to be forwarded to the appropriate government. It is for the appropriate Government, to take into consideration the objections raised by the objectors, the recommendation made by the Collector, and the record forwarded by the Collector, containing the material placed on record by the objectors. In these circumstances, it is for the appropriate Government to deal with the various objections filed by a land owner, after due application of mind, to each one of them. Obviously, the order passed by the Commissioner on March 24, 2009, in the present cases cannot be treated to be a decision on the objections of the landowners by the Commissioner. A mere approval granted to the report submitted by the Collector, even if the said report were to be accepted as such, cannot be taken to be a substitute for a decision on objections by the appropriate government. The order dated March 29, 2009 passed by the commissioner is in complete violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 5-A of the Act, and as such cannot be legally sustained. ( 64. ) IT has already been noticed by this Court that the procedure indicated in Section 5-A is mandatory and the adjudication of the said objections can not be treated to be merely an empty formality. ( 64. ) IT has already been noticed by this Court that the procedure indicated in Section 5-A is mandatory and the adjudication of the said objections can not be treated to be merely an empty formality. Since this Court has found that the report submitted by the Collector cannot be treated to be a proper adjudication of the objections filed by the land owners, and it has been further held that the order of the Commissioner dated March 24, 2009, cannot be sustained, therefore, although the arguments have been addressed by the learned senior counsel for the contesting parties, for and against various other objections raised by the land owners before the Collector (which have already been noticed in the earlier portion of this order), and have also relied upon various judgments in support of their contentions, it would be wholly unnecessary to notice the aforesaid issues, or offer any opinion on the sustainability or otherwise of the said objections, since I deem it appropriate that the objections filed by the land owners, should be adjudicated afresh by the authorities, in accordance with law. ( 65. ) WHILE adjudicating the matter afresh, a note would be taken of the fact of the diversion orders, the sanctions/approvals obtained by the land owners, signing of the MOUs, and any other steps taken by them in furtherance to the said projects, for which the sanctions had been granted, prior to the issuance of the notification under section 4 of the Act, i. e. April 4, 2008. As noticed by the court in earlier portion of the order, the case of the writ petitioners, WP No. 2180 of 2009 ( Smt. Rekha Mehta) and wp No. 2221 of 2009 (M/s Shanti Infrastructure), with regard to there being a requisite sanction, even prior to the date of proposal mooted by the Housing Board, shall also be kept in view. ( 66. ) SINCE at an earlier stage, the Land Acquisition collector had directed a spot inspection by the Tehsildar and submission of the report by him, it would be appropriate for the Collector, to now require the aforesaid spot inspection and thereafter to consider the report submitted by the tehsildar, before proceeding any further in the matter. ( 67. ) AT this stage, it would be pertinent to note a statement made by Shri R. N. Singh, learned senior counsel for the Housing Board. ( 67. ) AT this stage, it would be pertinent to note a statement made by Shri R. N. Singh, learned senior counsel for the Housing Board. It has been informed by Shri Singh that after the order dated March 24, 2009 had been passed by the Commissioner, a notification under Section 6 of the act had been signed by the State Government on March 31, 2009 and had been sent for publication thereof to the government press. However, in the meantime, on account of the interim directions issued by this Court, the said notification has not been published in the government gazette, as yet. Shri Singh further informs that in one of the newspapers, the said notification had been published on april 1, 2009, on which date, the interim orders itself were passed by this Court. Keeping in view the aforesaid statement made by learned senior counsel, it is apparent that the notification under Section 6 of the Act, cannot be legally treated to have come into existence, since it has not been published in the official gazette, as yet. Consequently, no directions are required to be issued qua the said notification. Needless to say that after the directions issued by this court, as above, are carried out, and the objections filed by the land owners under Section 5-A of the Act, are decided afresh by the Authorities, in accordance with law, further proceedings in accordance with other provisions of the Act, shall have to be followed from that stage i. e. from the stage of passing the said orders. ( 68. ) CONSEQUENTLY, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petitions are allowed. The report dated March 19, 2009, forwarded by the Collector, Indore, recommending the rejection of objections filed by the land owners under section 5-A of the Act, and the order dated March 24, 2009, passed by the Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore, are hereby set aside. The objections filed by the land owners under Section 5-A of the Act shall be deemed to be alive before the Collector. The said objections shall now be decided afresh by the Collector, in accordance with law. ( 69. The objections filed by the land owners under Section 5-A of the Act shall be deemed to be alive before the Collector. The said objections shall now be decided afresh by the Collector, in accordance with law. ( 69. ) NEEDLESS to say that while undertaking the aforesaid process, the law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court in various judgments, including the judgment in Hindustan petroleums case (supra) and also the observations made by this Court in present judgment, on the issues of law, shall be kept in view. ( 70. ) BEFORE parting with this order, it must be clarified that, however, any observations made by this Court in this order, which may have the effect of touching the merits of the objections, in any manner, shall not be treated to be an expression of opinion by this Court on the said objections. The objections filed by the land owners shall be adjudicated, in accordance with law, independently, by the appropriate Authorities.