S.B. Wad, J.

1. These Writ Petitions, seventy-three in number, challenge legal and Constitutional validity of acquisition of land in eleven villages in South Delhi, covering about 50,000 bighas of land. The operative order quashing the Land Acquisition Collector's order under Section 5-A and noti fication under Section 6 issued by the Lt. Governor in relation to the said villages pronounced by us on October 14, 1988. The concerned villages are Chhatarpur, Satbari, Maidan Garhi. Shayoorpur, Rajpur Khurd, Neb Sarai, Khirkee, Devli, Khanpur, Tughlakabad and Tigri.

2. Section 4 notifications in regard to these villages were issued in November, 1980. The object of the acquisition stated in the said notifica tions was planned development of Delhi. The validity of the said notifica tions was challenged by writ petitioners on various grounds. The writ peti tions were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 15.11.1983. The Judgment is reported as Munni Lal and Others v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Others, ILR (1984) I Delhi, 469. The Division Bench held that the planned development of Delhi does not mean development only in the manner as envisaged by the Master Plan of 1962. The Bench relied on P.S. Gill and Others v U.O I and Ors., ILR (1979) I Delhi, 601. The Bench further held that Master Plan can always be amended. Although the Master Plan of 1962 had come to an end by the time the petitions were heard, the Bench held that the scheme and proposals for the new master plan were being worked but and the blue print was being prepared. The Bench then held that the purpose stated in the notification was not vague or ambiguous and did not prevent the petitioners from filing effective objections under Section 5-A of the Act. About the petitioners complaint that the past experience showed that notices under Section 9 of the Act are inordinately delayed, the Bench held that the objection was premature and rejected the same. Section 6 notifications in regard to these villages were issued in May/June, 1985, and January/February, 1986. These notifications were again challenged by the petitioners on some additional grounds including the one that Section 6 notifications were issued beyond the statutory period as laid down by the Act. As there was some conflict in the opinion expressed by two Division Benches on the question of delay in the issuance of Section 6 notification, the writ petitions were referred to the Full Bench consisting of S. Ranganathan, N.N. Goswamy, H.C. Goel, JJ. The Full Bench, on looking into the stay orders passed in some of the writ petitions in general terms purporting to restrain the Delhi Administration from issuing Section 6 notification, held that if the period during which the stay orders were in operation was excluded then Section 6 notifications were within time. The Bench expressed no opinion on the other contentions and gave liberty to the petitioners to raise them before the Division Bench to whom the matters were referred back for decision on merits. The said judgment was pronounc ed by the Full Bench on May 27, 1987. Thus we are now on the third round of litigation for decision on contentions left open by the Full Bench.

3. At the time of arguments it was found that some lands mentioned in Section 4 notification were deleted at the stage of Section 6 notification and some lands were deleted at the stage of making of the award. The apparent reason was that the layout plans or building plans for these areas were sanctioned at the time when Section 4 notification was issued, that is, 1980. Large number of petitioners had contended that their building/layout plans were also sanctioned, some of them contended that only because they had no funds to make constructions before 1980, they should not be deprived of the benefit of deletion from land acquisition. Yet another sub mission was that the construction of farm houses did not require any sanction from the M.C.D. at the relevant time. The Government Advocate was directed to produce the Collector's order/report under Section 5-A and the notification by the Administrator/Lt. Governor under Section 6 of the Act, in respect of the said villages. After perusing them we found that they suffered from number of infirmities. The petitioners prayed for the inspec tion of the original record. We must note that the Government Counsel Shri R.K. Anand, Senior Advocate, was more than fair in not only giving the inspection of the record but also giving the petitioners copies of the 5A reports, and permission to copy the notifications under Section 6. Thereafter, the petitioners moved an application for amendment of the writ petitions, and also filed amended writ petitions. The respondents filed their replies did not object to the amendment being allowed. The arguments thereafter proceeded on the basis of the amended petitions.

4. Perusal of Section 5-A report and Section 6 notification convinced us that the mandatory requirement of Section 5-A and Section 6 were not complied with in these reports. Also there was material on record to show the non-application of mind and mechanical attitude in passing the said orders. The original/record further demonstrated that the reports under Section 5-A and orders preceding Section 6 notification issued by the Administrator were non-speaking reports/orders. Our efforts in wading through the records was simplified by a chart submitted by Shri R.K. Anand, Senior Advocate for the respondents, giving information under the following heads, namely, the name of village, the LAC. who heard the objections, name of the L.A.C. who submitted the report under Section 5A, the date of the report of the L.A.C., date of submission of the report to the L.G. for approval and date of approval by L.G. We are reproducing the said chart furnished on behalf of the respondents. A similar chart was furnished by the petitioners giving many more details of infirmities in regard to the said reports/orders. The chart is also reproduced.

TABLE

5. As regards villages Chattarpur, Khanpur, Devli and Satbari, the Section 5-A objections were apparently heard by Shri Shivraj Tyagi L.A.C. but the report under Section 5-A is made by different person Shri G.C. Pillai, LAC. In regard to village Khirki, the objections under Section 5A were apparently heard by Shri P.P. Singh, LAC, and the report under Section 5A was written by Shri B.S. Rana, LAC. D.B. Kubba. LAC, apparently heard the objections under Section 5A in relation to villages Tughlakabad and Tigri while the report under Section 5A was made by S.A. Gehani, LAC. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that Shri Shivraj Tyagi, the LAC, was transferred in January, 1984. The reports, by the LAC under Section 5A were made in May and June, 1985. There was thus ample time for the new LAC G.C. Pillai to hear the matters personally and make the report. He has obviously not done so.

6. The submission of the petitioners is that the requirements of Section 5A and Section 6 are mandatory and non-compliance of them would vitiate the entire land acquisition proceedings. We may reproduce at this stage Section 5A and Section 6:

"5A, (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified 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 after the issue of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land or 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 either in person or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such 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 objec tions, together, with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government.)

(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.

"6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose:

(1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, (when the appropriate Government) is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under Section 5A, Sub-section (2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders, [and different declara tions may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under Section 4, Sub-section (1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under Section 5A. sub-Section (2)] .

Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under Section 4, Sub-section (1) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967) shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of such publication:

Provided further that no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a Company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority.

(2) (Every declaration) shall be published in the official Gazette, and shall state the district or other territorial division in which the land is situatech, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area, and, where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected.

(3) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a company, as the case may be and, after making such declaration, the (appropriate Government) may acquire the land in manner hereinafter appearing.

"7. Section 5-A(2) requires that the Collector shall give the objectors an opportunity of being heard in person. There is nothing on record to show that all the petitioners were given such opportunity of personal hearing or that they were actually heard. There is no record maintained of the consi deration, of large number of objections filed by the petitioners. In absence of fresh hearings, therefore, it was untenable for any new L.A.C. to make a valuable report under Section 5A of the Act. In respect of four villages where Shri Shivraj Tyagi had allegedly heard the petitioners, the record shows that he issued the notices in January, 1984 and was also transferred in January, 1964 itself. Shri R.K. Anand was very fair in conceding that he could not support Section 6 notification in regard to the seven villages where the Section 5A objections were heard by one LAC and the reports were made by another LAC without fresh hearings. We must note here that the Section of the Government Advocate in producing the whole record and frankly conceding the shortcomings in Section 5A report and Section 6 notification is in contrast with the approach taken by the respondents in Munni Lal's case. In that case the Court observed,"

Time and again the Court wanted to see different files containing documents which had been referred to in the pleadings and in the affidavits which bad been filed in the Court, but were are sorry to note that for reasons best known to the respondents all the material which was relevant for the decision of the case was not readily forthcoming. The statement of the Government Advocate that he could not support the reports under Section 5A and notification under Section 6 is sufficient to allow the writ petitions in regard to the said seven villages and to quash the land acquisition proceedings.

8. But apart from this concession we had independently examined the legal requirements under Section 5A and Section 6 of the Land Acquisi tion Act and the facts disclosed on the original record that there was no effective and real opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and, therefore, the land acquisition proceedings cannot be sustained in law. Reading of Section 5A makes it clear that it confers a right of being heard on the objector and imposes a duty on the Collector to give on opportunity of being heard in person or through a pleader. He is also required to consider all the objections and make further inquiry, if any, before he submits his report. Section 5A in terms recognises the principles of natural justice implicit in a fair trial, namely that no prejudicial order should be passed against a person unless he has been given an effective opportunity of being heard. Implicit in the provisions of Section 5A is the requirement that a person hearing the objections and the person making the report must be one and the same. Effective hearing to the objector is a mandatory requirement of Section 5A. The obvious reason for making the provisions mandatory is that valuable property of the objector is taken by Government without his consent and right of eminent domain conceded to the Government should not be arbitrarily exercised by Government. Mr. R.K. Anand admitted that on perusal of original files he did not find any notes main tained by the L.A.C. who heard the objectors which could have been looked into by the other L.A.C. who actually made the report. It is an admitted position that the LACs, who actually made the report for these seven villages did not themselves give any hearing to the objectors. We have, therefore, no alternative but to hold that the entire land acquisition proceedings in relation to the said seven villages are vitiated and the notifica tions under Section 6 deserve to be quashed.

9. As regards three villages, Rajpur Khurd, Shayoorpur and Maidan Garhi, 325 persons, 60 persons and 13 persons respectively had filed the objections. From the record it is not clear as to whether all the objectors were served with the notices and whether the personal hearing was given to each one of them. Although large number of objections were filed, the report of the Collector under Section 5A mentions only seven points. There is no explanation as to why the other objections were not considered. Even in regard to the said seven objections the Land Acquisition Collector B.S Rana had not decided any objection but merely stated that they were all answered by this Court in Munni Lal's case, C.W.P. 426/81.

10. Munni Lal's case was decided by this Court at the stage of Section 4 notification only. There is material difference between Section 4 notification and Section 6 notification. Under Section 4 notification, if it appears that land in any particular locality is needed or likely to be needed for any public purpose, notification can be issued. But under Section 6 the general intention is not sufficient. The appropriate Government must be satisfied and that too after hearing and considering the report under Section 5A that the authorities can proceed. Out of the total land in the locality the authorities must state which particular land is actually needed and for what public purpose. The Land Acquisition Collector had not kept in mind the different requirements of the said two Sections. It was incumbent on him to consider each objection separately and whether it was considered in Munni Lal's case nor/not. This can be illustrated with reference to the agricultural lands as green belts in the area. The first master plan came into force on 1.9.1962 and lapsed in 1981 after twenty years. The second/revised master plan for Delhi upto the year 2001 was approved by Delhi Develop ment Authority in its meeting dated 30.6.1984. When Munni Lal's case, which was decided on 15.11.1983, although the life of first Master Plan had come to an end, the proposals for new Master Plan were being worked out and the blue print was being prepared. The Bench further held that the Master Plan can always be amended. The Land Acquisition Collector failed to notice and consider that the second revised Master Plan was already approved by the D.D.A. and a Gazette Notification S.O. 289 (E) was already published on 6.4.1985. In the revised Master Plan also the lands belonging to the petitioners were shown as agricultural land and in the green belt and in the rural areas. The revised plan provided that farm houses in the minimum of one hectare land could be located in the rural used zone. These could be developed for flowers, fruits, vegetables, poultry farmings, etc. In other words the land used that was vague and not yet finalised when Munni Lal's case was decided by this Court, was crystallised in second Master Plan extending upto 2001. When the Bench stated in Munni Lal's case that the Master Plan can be amended at any time, it has to be understood in its context that the scheme and proposals for new Master Plan were being prepared. The Gazette Notification dated 6.4.1985 in fact asserted

"the following extensive modifications which the Central Government proposes to make in the Master Plan for Delhi, keeping in view the perspective for Delhi 2001 and new dimensions in the urban development are hereby published for public information."

This illustration would demonstrate the total non-application of mind and mechanical manner in which reports under Section 5A were made. The Land Acquisition Collector was yet free to reject the petitioners contentions that their land being agricultural farms in the rural area consisting mainly of agricultural land are not to be acquired, after noting the extensive modification made by the revised Master Plan, and by adducing proper reasons. The report of the Land Acquisition Collector is a non-speaking report. The report under Section 5A is thus vitiated for non-application of mind, mechanical approach and being a non-speaking report. Such report is of no use for the Administrator for his satisfaction that a particular land is required for the public purpose. The petitioner whose land is being taken by the Govern ment without his consent has a right to know the reasons as to why his claim for exemption was being rejected.

11. The legal infirmity in the Section 5A report stated above applies to the reports in relation to seven villages mentioned above, where the alleged hearing is given by one L.A.C. and the report is submitted by another L.A.C.

12. In regard to village Neb Sarai, 129 objections were filed but the Land Acquisition Collector had disposed of these objections with one line saying "All the objections have got no force". No reasons whatsoever are stated for rejecting the objections, not even the reason that they are already considered in Munni Lal's case. Section 5A report in regard to village Neb Sarai is also vitiated for non-application of mind, mechanical approach and for being non-speaking report.

13. As regards villages Neb. Sarai, Tuglakabad and Tigri the L.A C. has not stated that as to how much of the land is actually required to be acquired in his report under Section 5-A. As regards villages Satbari and Devli Abadi Deh (58 bighas and 7 biswas and 47 bighas and 1 bigwas) respectively are included in the land to be acquired in report under Section 5-A. While in regard to village Chhatarpur and Maidan Garhi Abadi Deh (71 bighas and 9 biswas and 125 bighas and 13 biswas) are not included in the total land that was mentioned for acquisition in the report under Section 5-A. These facts further show the mindless exercise of power under Section 5A by different L.A.Cs. and that they have not followed one criterion.

14. As regards Lt. Governor's order on the basis of which Section 6 notifications were finally issued by Delhi Administration the said orders are also passed in breach of the mandatory requirements of Section 6 and principle of natural justice. The order passed by the Lt. Governor in regard to village Chhattapur may be noted at this stage:

"I have carefully gone through the Report of the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of village Chhattarpur. I have also considered the objections received against the proposed acquisition.

2. The lands were notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for a public purpose, namely 'Planned Develop ment of Delhi'.

3. I do not find substance in any of the objections. I, therefore, direct that notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for a public purpose, namely, Planned Development of Delhi be issued in respect of 7142 bighas 18 biswas of land of village Chhattarpur as per draft furnished by the Land Acquisition Collector,

Sd/-

Lt- Governor, Delhi.

5.6.85"

Similar orders are passed in relation to all the eleven villages as if there was a prescribed proforma. Section 6(1) requires that the appropriate Government, in this case Administrator/Lt. Governor of Delhi should consider the report under Section 5A After consideration he has to satisfy himself that particular land is needed for the public purpose. The considera tion of the report including the objections of the objectors must be based on facts disclosed in the order. A mere statement, as is made in the present case, that the Lt. Governor has carefully gone through the Report and also considered the objections is not sufficient compliance of Section 6 of the Act. His satisfaction that particular land is required to be acquired is also to be arrived at on cogent and intelligent appreciation of the objections and the Section 5-A report. Mere statement that he is satisfied about the acquisition of particular land without stating any reasons will be mindless exercise of the powers under Section 6 of the Act. The order of the Lt. Governor must disclose as to what were the objections and why he has rejected them.

15. We might start with the contentions of the petitioner in this regard. The first contention is that it was impossible for the Lt. Governor to effectively and properly consider large number of objections filed in one day and also to notice the infirmities in the report under Section 5-A. We may illustrate this point by reference to village Chhattarpur where large number of objections, namely, 380 objections were filed. The report of the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 5-A was received in Raj Niwas on 5.6.1985 and the order under Section 6 was passed by the Lt. Governor on the very day, namely, 5.6.1985. Similarly, in case of Maidan Garhi, as many as 325 objections were filed. The report under Section 5-A was received in Raj Niwas on 14.6.1985 and the order is passed on the same date, namely, 14.6.1985. There appears to be some substance in the con tention that it was humanly impossible to consider such large number of objections together with the report under Section 5A in one day. The Lt.Governor also failed to notice the infirmities in the reports under Section 5A filed by the L.A.Cs. For example the L.A.Cs. had mechanically stated that the objections were already disposed of by this Court in Munni Lals case against the objectors. We have earlier demonstrated as to how this assertion was incorrect. It was expected of the Lt. Governor to make a positive statement after going through Munni Lal's judgment as to whether the assertion of the L.A.C. Or that of the objectors was correct. If the Lt. Governor had (really) carefully gone through the report under Section 5A (as is asserted in his order) he should have noticed that in relation to some villages the LAG has not recommended in so many words as to how much of the land should actually be acquired. He should have also noticed that some L.A.Cs. had included Abadi Deh land in the land meant for acquisition while some other L.A.Cs. had not done so. There were deletion of certain acres of land in most of the villages after Section 4 notification was issued and the process was continuing. The Lt. Governor ought to have noticed this fact. In relation to some villages it was stated in the report that the sanctioned layout/building plans were not forthcoming, as the same were yet not sent by the M.C.D. In spite of this, the L.A.Cs. had included such lands in the report under Section 5-A. If the Lt. Governor had carefully considered the report under Section 5-A he could have noted all these infirmities in regard to actual acreage of the land that was required to be notified under Section 6. The satisfaction expressed by the Lt. Governor in his order under Section 6 is not the real satisfaction but a mere mechanical exercise. The orders passed by the Lt. Governor in regard to the said eleven villages are, therefore, not sustainable in law and are quashed.

16. We may note that there are number of other contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition apart from the ones that are mentioned and considered above. We need not go into all of them and give any finding, since we have already come to the conclusion that reports under Section 5-A and orders under Section 6 cannot be sustained in law on the basis of the contentions already noted by us.

17. We are far from being happy in passing the order quashing land acquisition of about 50,000 bighas of land which was meant for planned development of Delhi, Planning, with emphasis on socialism means equitable distribution of land based on need for a roof over the head of a common man living and in Delhi. The land is limited and the residential requirements are unlimited. There are about 950 agglomerates which can be described as illegal colonies in Delhi. More than 25 lacs of people, that is, one-third of Delhi population stay in the said colonies. The condition of civic amenities available to such vast population glaringly came in light recently with large number of deaths due to unsanitary conditions. The Delhi Development Authority does not have sufficient land for allotment of plots and, therefore the allotment is only of flats in group housing. On the other hand, there are huge farm lands garnered by vested interests, in this petition the petitioners are holders of such farm lands. They are complaining that they are discriminated against the alleged VVIPs holding farm lands in the said area which are exempted from land acquisition. We need not find it necessary to go into that aspect of the matter but we are reminded of the saying that a man should not complain about his boots when most of the people are walking bare-footed. In early 1950s the then Prime Minister Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru had issued directives for freezing of lands sale in Delhi so as to stop the speculation of lands resulting into spiralling of land prices beyond the reach of the common man. What was feared in early 1950s is a reality today. The common man suffers either at the hands of the builders/property dealers or the DDA which fixes prices by public auction which has raised the prices of land between Rs. 5000 to Rs. 10,000 per sq. yard in South Delhi. It is unfortunate that the high public purpose of providing residential accommodation to common men implicit in the planned development of Delhi has not been appreciated in the administrative implementation of the policy. A careless and mindless exercise of powers by L.A.Cs. and the Administrator in these cases had left us with no option but to quash all land acquisition proceedings in regard to eleven villages. There is a lesson to the policy-makers and Administrators which, if not heeded to, would be unbearable for this poor country.

18. The rule is made absolute. The Writ Petitions are allowed.