Is Personal Hearing Under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act Mandatory? Supreme Court Clarifies
Case Name: Alok Kotahwala & Others v. Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Limited & Others
Date of Judgment: 13 July 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 682 | Civil Appeal No. 8269 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16742 of 2026) with Civil Appeal No. 8270 of 2026
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sanjiv Khanna
Held: The Supreme Court held that the right of a landowner to file objections and receive a personal hearing under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is a valuable and mandatory safeguard. However, the Court clarified that where adequate opportunities have been provided and the landowners themselves fail to pursue the proceedings, the acquisition cannot be invalidated solely on technical grounds. The Court emphasized that Section 5A requires substantial compliance and not a hyper-technical approach.
Summary: The appellants challenged the acquisition of approximately 27 hectares of land in Jaipur for the construction of a metro car depot under Phase II of the Jaipur Metro Rail Project. They contended that the Land Acquisition Officer failed to grant them an effective personal hearing under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act and did not properly consider their objections before recommending acquisition.
The Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court accepted the challenge and quashed the acquisition proceedings. However, the Division Bench reversed the decision, holding that the appellants had been afforded sufficient opportunities during the proceedings but failed to avail them.
Upholding the Division Bench’s judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated that Section 5A embodies an important statutory protection and ordinarily requires notice, hearing and fair consideration of objections. Nevertheless, the Court found that the appellants had actively participated in the proceedings for several months, were aware of the process, received replies to their objections, but failed to appear or file a rejoinder when required. In these circumstances, the Court held that there was substantial compliance with the statutory mandate and no prejudice had been caused to the landowners.
Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the land acquisition proceedings for the Jaipur Metro Rail Project. It held that there was substantial compliance with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that the acquisition could not be set aside merely because no further hearing date was fixed after the appellants failed to participate in the proceedings.