Absence during Section 5A enquiry constitutes waiver of personal hearing and substantial compliance by Land Acquisition Officer.

The Appellants (landowners) challenged the acquisition of 27 hectares of land in Village Sheopura, Jaipur, for Phase II of the Jaipur Metro Rail Project.

Following a Section 4(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("LA Act") on May 26, 2011, the Appellants filed objections under Section 5A.

After several hearings, the Appellants failed to appear on April 9, 2012, to file a rejoinder.

Subsequently, the Land Acquisition Officer ("LAO") reported that the land was needed for public purpose, stating "objections are not being considered," and recommended acquisition.

A Section 6 declaration was issued on July 5, 2012.

A Single Judge of the High Court quashed the acquisition for lack of effective hearing, but a Division Bench reversed this decision, holding that the Appellants abandoned their right to hearing by their absence.

The Court applied Section 5A and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 5A provides a mandatory right to object and an opportunity to be heard, acting as a safeguard against arbitrary expropriation.

The Court relied on Farid Ahmed v. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad, affirming that Sections 5A is mandatory and personal hearing is a duty of the Collector.

Women Education Trust v. State of Haryana, which establishes that the Collector must objectively consider objections with brief reasons.

Surinder Singh Brar v. Union of India that hearing must be effective, not a sham.

Regarding the choice of land, the Court applied the "responsible discretion" of the executive from State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh.

For ecological claims, it applied Naveen Solanki v. Rail Land Development Authority, holding that existence of trees does not automatically equate to "deemed forest" status.

The Court analyzed the procedural history and found that the LAO afforded multiple opportunities for hearing over nearly a year.

It held that the Appellants' absence on April 9, 2012, and their failure to seek an adjournment or inquire about the next date constituted an abandonment of their right to a hearing.

The Court clarified that the LAO’s remark that "objections are not being considered" meant they did not merit acceptance in light of the overarching public purpose, rather than a total failure to look at them.

Regarding the substance of the objections, the Court reasoned that the State is the best judge of "public purpose" and land suitability; thus, a landowner cannot dictate alternative sites like RIICO or IOCL land.

Finally, the Court noted that the land was not recorded as "forest" in any Master Plan, and the Division Bench's direction for transplantation of trees sufficiently addressed ecological concerns.

The Court held that the mandate of Section 5A was substantially complied with and that the Appellants, through their own lack of diligence, waived their right to a personal hearing.

It further held that the objections regarding alternative land and ecological impact were unmeritorious and could not override the expert planning of the Metro project.

The interim stay was vacated, but the Appellants were granted liberty to pursue remedies for enhanced compensation regarding the award passed on May 7, 2026.