ARUN KUMR, J.

(1) BY this petition under Art. 226 of the constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the acquisition proceedings with respect to land comprised in khasra numbers 571, 577, 578, 580min, 581, 555, 591, 593, 592, 554 and 592min , totalling 32 bighas 1 biswas situated within the revenue estate of village Satbari within the territory of the State of Delhi, Briefly the facts are that notifications under section 4 of the Land Acquisition act were issued on 5/ 25/11/1980 covering large tracts of lands falling in several villages within the union territory of Delhi including village Satbari. The object for which the lands were sought to be acquired was stated in the notification as planned development of delhi'. There have been several rounds of litigation in this court with respect to these lands covered under notifications under section 4 of the. First, the validity of the said notification was challenged by way of writ petitions. These petitions were dismissed vide judgment dated 15/11/1983 in Munni Lalo v. Lt. Governor of Delhi. ILR (1984) 1 [LQ/KerHC/1983/229] Delhi 469. Section 6 notifications with regard to these villages were issued in may/june 1985 and January/february 1986. These notifications were again challenged. One of the main grounds for challenge was that section 6 notifications were issued beyond the statutory period of three years provided under the. There was some difference of opinion between two Benches of this court on the point in issue. Therefore, a Full Bench was constituted which decided the question of delay vide its judgment dated 27/5/1987 reported as Balak Ram Gupta V. Union of India, AIR 1987 delhi 239. It was held that the period during which stay orders were in operation had to be excluded while computing the period of three years which is the outside limit set by the statute for issuing a notification under section 6 of theafter the notification under section 4. The cases were remanded back for decision on merits to the Division bench. The judgment of the Division Bench is reported as balak Ram Gupta v. Union of India and Others. 37 (1989)DLT 150. In this case the Division Bench examined in detail the importance of the right of the land owners under section 5 A of the. The Bench also examined whether the provisions of section 5a of the have been duly complied with. For this purpose the relevant government records were called and examined in court and on the basis of the records it was found that no proper inquiry under section 5a of the had been conducted and the proceedings were totally vitiated. The court. also held that the sanction of the Lt. Governor based on the report of the Collector under section 5a of the was vitiated and was liable to be quashed. Accordingly the petitioners succeeded. In all there were 73 writ petitions challenging the acquisition of land in 11 villages falling in South Delhi These villages included village Satbari in which the lands subject matter of the present writ petition fall. The acquisition proceedings in regard to the 11 village were quashed. A controversy arose whether the benefit of the decision in balak Ram-Gupta's case was confined to the 73 petitioners whose petitions were disposed of by the said judgment or the benefit will flow to other land owners also. This controversy was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court in abhey Ram v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 421 [LQ/SC/1997/727] followed by delhi Administration v. Gurdip Sing Uban and Others, (2000) 7 SCC 296 [LQ/SC/2000/1246] . These decisions of the Supreme Court hold that the benefit of the judgment in Balak Ram Gupta's case is confined to the petitioners who had filed writ petitions which were being disposed of by the said judgment i. e. 73 writ petitions mentioned in the judgment. According to the Supreme Court the benefit does not flow to rest of the land owners who had not approached the court. It was further held in Uban's case (supra) that land owners who had filed objections under section 5a of the alone were entitled to independent hearing of their writ petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings.

(2) THEREFORE, those land owners who did not file section 5a objections at all had their fate sealed and they could not challenge the acquisition proceedings.

(3) IN the present case although the petitioner stated in the original writ petition that he had not filed objections under section 5 A of the. , the writ petition was amended to state that the petitioner had filed section 5 A objections and the petitioner challenged the acquisition proceedings with respect to his lands. The fact that the petitioner had filed section 5a objections was not disputed by the respondents. As a matter of fact the name of the petitioner occurs in the list of persons filing section 5a objections in the report of Collector regarding section 5a objections. Thus there is no dispute that petitioner had filed objections under section 5a of the.

(4) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that facts In the present case are similar to those in the case of Balak Ram Gupta V. Union of India and this Court, should follow the said judgment. The case turns on the manner in which objections under section 5a or the are said to have been dealt with by the Collector. According to the petitioner there has been total non-compliance of section 5a of the in the present case and the report of the collector under section 5a is liable to be struck down with the result that sanction of the Lt. Governor for issuance of section 6 declaration will also fall. The sanction under section 6 has to be on the basis of the Collector's report under section 5a. At this stage it may be worthwhile to reproduce section 5 A:

"5a. Hearing of objections. (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notifled 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 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. "

(5) AN application was moved on behalf of the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents to produce the relevant records regarding section 5a hearings. Inspite of several opportunities having been granted to the respondents for purposes of producing the record relating to section 5a hearings, the counsel for respondents was able to produce only the record containing objuctions under section 5a and the report of the Collector under section 5a to the Admininstrator i. e. the Lt. Governor of Delhi. No record regarding the proceedings held by the Collector under section 5a or the hearings which the Collector was required to give to the land owners like the petitioner was produced. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to certain relevant facts in this behalf which are noted in the Division Bench decision of this court in Balak Ram Gupta's case. It appears that the relevant record had been produced before the Bench at that time. The Bench observed that the originarl record produced before it demonstrated that. the reports under section 5a and sanction for issuance of the declaration under section 6 issued by the Administrator were an eye wash. There had been no hearings before the Collector. Since the record was bulky the Government counsel appearing before the division Bench tabulated the relevant information based on the records and submitted the same, to the Court. The tabulation coming from the government counsel himself is reproduced in the said judgment. It shows that so far as village Satbari is concerned to which the present petition relates) Shri Shiv Raj Tyagi was the Land Acquisition collector who had issued the notices regarding hearing of section 5a objections to the land ownersin January 1984. It is further noted in the said judgment that as per the counter affidavit of the Government filed in the said case shri Tyagi, the Land Acquisition Collector was transferred in January 1984 itself- There is nothing on record to show that Shri Tyagi conducted any hearings before him under section 5a of the. Shri G. C. Pillai succeeded Shri tyagi as the Land Acquisition Collector of the area. He joined as the Land Acquisition Collector much later. The report under section 5a with respect to village Satbari was made by Shri G. C. Pillai the Land Acquisition Collector on 23/05/1985. He had ample time to give hearing to the land owners under section 5a. There is nothing on record to show that Shri Pillai ever gave any hearing to the objectors who had filed objections under section 5a. In fact it is noted in, the judgment in Balak Ram Gupta's case that Shri R. K. Anand, the counsel appearing for the government in those cases conceded that he could not support section notification in regard to the seven villages, which included village Satbari, where section 5a objections were heard by one Land Acquisition Collector and the report was made by another Land Acquisition Collector without fresh hearings. Thus there is nothing on record to show that there was any compliance of section 5a of the act. Section 5a sub-section (2) casts a duty on the collector to give the objectors an opportunity of being heard either in person or by pleader and it is after hearing of such objections and after making further inquiry, if any, that he has to make a report,with respect to the land notified under section 4 of theto the appropriate government containing his recommendations on the objections together with report of proceedings held by him. Thus the requirement of section is that the report of the Collector has to accompany the record of proceedings held by the Collector under section 5a. The words used are "together with". The recrod submitted with the report of the Collector in the present case contains only the objections under section 5a and the report of the collector. There is no record of any hearing conducted either before the previous Collector or before Shri Pillai who made the report under section 5a to the appropriate government. Thus in the facts of the present case there has been a complete negation of the right conferred on the land owners under section 5a of the. The importance of the right is the only safeguard for a land owner who is deoruved if his land compulsory by the government in exercise of its power of eminent domain.

(6) APART from the fact that there is no record of hearing under section 5a of the by the Collector in he present case, the report of the Collector itself is totally vitiated. In the report the Collector notes that consequent to the notice for hearing under section 5a, 183 persons filed objetions. They were given opportunity to file evidence i. e. documentary evience or written arguments "for proper hearing". Thereafter the report gives the list of 183 persons who filed objections. The objections are thereafter tabulated into different heads.

(7) THE Collector notes that Munni Lal etc. filed writ petitions in the High Court of Delhi, being CWP No. 426 of 1981 challenging the validity of the notification under section 4 of the. Thereafter several other writ petitions were filed and stay orders were obtained from the high Court. He notes that all the writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court by the judgment dated 15/11/1983 in Munni Lal's case (supra). The Collector then proceeds to note that all the objections tabulated by the Collector in his report were dealt withby the High court in the writ petition filedby Munni Lal etc. CWP no. 426 of 1981. The Collector opined that there was not force in the objections. The objections are of. general nature and are not tenable Accordingly the Collector recommended acquisition of the land. It will be seen that this report proceeds only on the basis of the judgment of this court in Munni Lal's case. It does not show any independent consideration of the issues raised before the collector. The Division Bench in Balak Ram Gupta's case observed that it was incumbent in the Collector to consider each objection separately, Further it was observed that the report of the Collector was non-speaking and was vitiated on account of non-application of mind. It showed a mechanical approach on the part of the Collector in disposing of the objections on the basis of the judgment in munni Lal's case and at places the judgment in Munni Lal's case was wrongly interpreted and applied by the Collector.

(8) THE basic fallacy in compliance of the provisions of section 5a was also highlighted. The original file did not contain any notes of hearing maintained by the previous land Acquisition Collector Shiv Raj Tyagi who supposedly heard the objections. The Land Acquisition Collector Shri pillai who made the report under section A admittedly did not give any hearing. Thus he did not have any benefit or the alleged hearing before his predecessor. Arbitrariness, therefore, is writ large. It is gross violation of principles of natural justice that hearing is given by one authority and decision 1% given by another. The Division bench in Balak Ram Gupta's case also observed that it had independently examined the legal requirements under section 5a of the and the original record which showed that there was no effective and real opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Therefore, it had come to the conclusion that the land acquisition proceedings could not be sustained in law. A hearing under section 5a has to be an effective hearing As already stated section 5a has to be only protection for a land owner whose land is sought to be acquired without his consent in exercise of power of eminent domain by the government.

(9) THE learned counsel for the respondent tried to argue that conducting section 5a hearing is an administrative act. It is not a judicial or quasi judicial inquiry. The Collector only makes a report to the appropriate government and the final, decision is to be taken by the government. Therefore, hearing by one person and report by another person cannot be a ground of challenge. We do not agree. It is basic principle of natural Justice that when a hearing is required to he given under a mandatory provision in a statute, it cannot be allowed to be reduced to a farce in the sense that hearing is provided by one officer and decision is taken by another officer. The very argument is reprehensible.

(10) NEXT it was argued on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner did not ask for any personal hearing and, therefore, he is deemed to, have given up the right of earing. This argument is contrary to the very provision of the statute which requires the Collector to the opportunity of being heard to the person concerned. The act says "the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard to the person concerned. The nothing on record to show that the Collector complied with this mandatory requirement in the present case. The fact that similar objection were considered and rejected by this court in another case is no ground to suggest that section 5a need not have complied with in the present case.

(11) WE find no merit in any of the submissions made on behalf of the respondents.

(12) THE learned counsel for the respondents argued that Balak Ram Gupta's case has been overruled by the supreme Court In Gurdip Singh Uban's case (supra) on the point of sanction of the Lt. Governor under section 6 of the. In view of the fact that we are quashing the acquisition proceedings on account of non-compliance of the section 5a of the, We need not go into this aspect.

(13) THE result of the above discussion is that on account of non-compliance with the provisions of section 5a of the. in the facts and circumstances of the case, the acquisition proceedings are quashed. There will be no order as to costs.