#Section 5A

The Supreme Court ruled that compliance with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 requires more than a ritualistic hearing-landowners must be afforded a genuine and effective opportunity to present objections. The judgment quashes acquisition proceedings where objections were mechanically processed, reinforcing the principles of natural justice in administrative actions affecting property rights.

The Supreme Court ruled that landowners cannot bypass Section 5A proceedings and later challenge acquisition on grounds of denied hearing. The opportunity of hearing must be substantive, not just ritualistic, and procedural compliance suffices only if objections lack merit. This reinforces natural justice principles in eminent domain cases, impacting landowners, government agencies, and administrative law practitioners.

Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act without demonstrable proof of real urgency violates natural justice and Section 5A. The court invalidated the acquisition proceedings due to dual awards and non-payment of compensation, reinforcing that procedural fairness must precede planned development.