Landowners who skipped Section 5A hearing cannot void Jaipur Metro depot acquisition

A Division Bench held that appellants who abandoned their Section 5A hearing and raised unmeritorious objections could not derail acquisition of 27 hectares for a metro car depot.

The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals by landowners challenging the acquisition of 27 hectares in Village Sheopura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, for a metro car depot under Phase II of the Jaipur Metro Rail Project. In Alok Kotahwala & Ors. v. Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Limited & Ors., decided on 13 July 2026, a Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that the mandate of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was substantially complied with by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Court found that the appellants, having failed to appear before the LAO and file their rejoinder, had by their own conduct abandoned the right of hearing. It further held that their objections lacked substance. The judgment affirms a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court that had reversed a Single Judge and directed possession to be taken.

How the acquisition reached the Court

A notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act was issued on 26 May 2011 by the Urban Development Department to acquire the subject land. The appellants filed objections under Section 5A(1) before the LAO in late June 2011. The JMRCL filed replies on 18 August 2011 and 9 March 2012. The LAO posted the matter to 9 April 2012 for the appellants to file a rejoinder.

The appellants neither appeared nor filed a rejoinder on 9 April 2012. On 18 May 2012, the LAO recorded that the land was needed for public purpose and forwarded a report under Section 5A(2). The UDD issued a Section 6(1) declaration on 5 July 2012, followed by a Section 9(3) notice on 11 July 2012.

The appellants challenged these under writ jurisdiction, alleging denial of an opportunity of hearing. A Single Judge granted interim stay in September 2012, which a Division Bench vacated in November 2012. After a round before the Supreme Court in 2014 directing expeditious hearing, the writ petition remained pending until 2022.

On 9 May 2023, the Single Judge quashed the acquisition, holding the appellants had not been given an effective hearing and that the LAO had failed to consider their objections or forward the full record. On intra-court appeals by JMRCL and the State, the Division Bench reversed this on 30 April 2026, directing JMRCL to take possession.

What the Court held on the hearing

The Court framed the central question as whether there was colourable compliance or substantial non-compliance with Section 5A, or substantial compliance. It reproduced Section 5A and held that once objections are filed, it is the Collector's duty to fix a hearing date and intimate the landowner — the landowner need not ask for it. On this point the Bench respectfully disagreed with Sam Hiring Co., relying instead on the three-Judge Bench in Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad.

Even so, the Court found no infirmity in the LAO's conduct here. It accepted that 9 April 2012 was the date fixed for filing rejoinder, not the designated hearing date, and that no separate notice of a further hearing was served. But it held that “nothing much turns on it.” The appellants had received both JMRCL replies, defaulted in filing the rejoinder, and made no effort to learn the outcome until the report of 18 May 2012.

The Court reasoned that the LAO is an administrative authority, not a court. While a court would ordinarily grant one more opportunity to avoid an ex parte order, failure to do so here was “at best an indiscretion.” The Bench held the appellants had by their own conduct abandoned their right of hearing and could not complain of its denial. It concluded there was substantial compliance with Section 5A.

Consideration of the objections on merits

The Court proceeded to test whether the objections had substance, noting rules of natural justice serve substantial justice and not a mere ritual of hearing. It read the LAO's phrase “objections are not being considered” to mean the objections were considered but did not merit acceptance, not that they were ignored. Brevity of reasons, it held, is not the same as absence of reasons.

On the merits, the Court rejected each objection. It found no statutory requirement for prior newspaper publication before a Section 4 notification, noting publication had occurred in Dainik Bhaskar and Rajasthan Patrika. It held a metro depot is an indispensable operational component serving a genuine public purpose. On the alleged absence of a prior survey, it held the word “Thereupon” in Section 4(2) shows survey powers arise only after publication.

On alternative lands suggested by the appellants, including RIICO and IOCL parcels, the Court applied State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh and Sooraram Pratap Reddy, holding selection of land falls within the discretion of planning authorities. It noted the record showed RIICO and IOCL lands were being used for other purposes, a stand pleaded even before the High Court. On the enhanced requirement from 19.79 to 27 hectares, it declined to substitute its view absent arbitrariness or mala fides.

On the ecological objection, the Court relied on Naveen Solanki v. Rail Land Development Authority, holding that whether land is “forest” or “deemed forest” depends on its original character and the applicable Master Plan. Since no revenue record or Master Plan identified the subject land as forest, subsequent vegetation could not defeat the planning framework. Any tree removal would remain subject to compensatory plantation directed by the competent authority.

Order

The Court held the Single Judge had erred in interdicting the acquisition on the sole ground of non-compliance with Section 5A, and that the Division Bench had rightly interfered. It found no reason to disturb the Division Bench's judgment.

The appeals were dismissed and the interim order vacated forthwith. During the proceedings the Court was informed the LAO had passed an award on 7 May 2026, with compensation deposited before the competent court under Section 11 following the appellants' refusal to accept it. The Court left the appellants at liberty to pursue their remedy in accordance with law to have the award set aside and enhanced compensation awarded.