NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has upheld the acquisition of 27 hectares of land in Jaipur for a metro rail depot, ruling that landowners who fail to appear before a land acquisition officer (LAO) and then stay silent cannot later claim they were denied a hearing under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as per the order dated July 13.A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed the appeals filed by the landowners and held that the authorities had largely followed the required process under Section 5A of the act, which guarantees a person the right to object to acquisition of their land.What was the issueThe respondent landowners’ land in Sheopura village, Jaipur, was sought to be acquired for the construction of a car depot under Phase II of the Jaipur Metro Rail Project. After a Section 4 notification was issued in 2011, the landowners filed objections and appeared before the LAO on several dates over nearly a year.However, on April 9, 2012 — the date fixed for them to file their rejoinder to the Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation’s reply — they neither appeared nor filed any submission, and made no further effort to follow up. The LAO went ahead and, on May 18, 2012, submitted his report recommending acquisition, following which the State issued its final declaration under Section 6.The landowners challenged the acquisition before the Rajasthan high court, arguing they had been denied an effective hearing under Section 5A. A single judge agreed and quashed the acquisition in 2023, but a division bench reversed this in April 2026 and restored it, prompting the landowners to approach the Supreme Court.What did the court sayOn the question of hearing, the bench held that the landowners’ own conduct was responsible for the outcome. It said the LAO could not be blamed for proceeding without a personal hearing when the landowners themselves had stopped pursuing their objections.“A party might choose not to prosecute its own objection; but the LAO cannot be expected to compel such party to prosecute its objection,” the court said.The landowners had also argued that the LAO’s report simply said their “objections are not being considered,” and that this showed the officer hadn’t really thought about their case. The court disagreed, saying this line only meant the objections had been looked at and turned down — not that they were ignored.The landowners raised a few other objections too, that other land, such as plots belonging to RIICO and IOCL, should have been taken instead of theirs; that more land was being acquired than actually needed; and that cutting down trees on the site would harm the environment.The bench rejected all of these, holding that it wasn’t the court’s place to second-guess such planning decisions.“The court is handcuffed in this jurisdiction and cannot raise its hand against what it thinks is a foolish choice.” It added that “in deciding whether acquisition is for ‘public purpose’ or not, prima facie, the government is the best judge.”In the end, the court said the landowners had, “by their own conduct,” given up their right to a hearing — so they couldn’t blame the authorities for something they themselves had caused. With this, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and lifted the hold on the land, allowing the Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation to take possession. The landowners can still separately ask for higher compensation for their land.What does Section 4, 5A and 6 talk about?Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the process of taking over private land for a public project happens in stages. It starts with a Section 4 notification, where the government formally announces that it may need a particular piece of land for a public purpose.This is followed by Section 5A, which gives the landowner a window to file objections — for instance, arguing that the land isn’t actually needed, or that another parcel would serve the purpose better — and requires the land acquisition officer to hear them out before sending a report and recommendation to the government.Once the government considers this report and objections, it issues a Section 6 declaration, which is the final confirmation that the land will indeed be acquired.
