Minor procedural lapses do not invalidate land acquisition where statutory safeguards are substantially met.

The petitioner challenged land-acquisition proceedings for the Indore–Ujjain Greenfield Road, seeking to quash the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) report and appraisal, the preliminary notification under Section 11, the order rejecting his objections, the declaration under Section 19, and the public notice under Section 21 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”).

He alleged, among other things, that the SIA process and public hearing requirements were not followed and that his objections were decided by an authority lacking jurisdiction.

The respondents maintained that the SIA, appraisal, publication, public hearings, and consideration of objections complied with the applicable law.

An award was passed during the pendency of the petition.

The petitioner’s counsel said that an application to amend the petition to challenge the award had been filed; however, the Court ultimately treated the award as unchallenged and noted the availability of a remedy under Section 64.

Whether alleged procedural defects in the SIA and subsequent acquisition proceedings warranted quashing the acquisition

Whether the petitioner’s challenge should be declined in view of the award and the statutory remedy under Section 64 of the 2013 Act

The Court considered the 2013 Act, including Sections 4–8 concerning SIA and appraisal, Sections 11, 15, 19 and 21 concerning acquisition notifications, objections, declaration and notice, and Section 64 providing a reference remedy for objections to an award.

It also considered Section 109, which empowers the appropriate Government to make rules, Rule 3(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2015 concerning constitution of the SIA team, and the publication and hearing requirements under the applicable rules.

Relying on Girias Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 7 SCC 53, and Yudhvir Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 471, the Court applied the principle that substantial compliance with statutory safeguards, in the absence of grave illegality or real prejudice, may render minor procedural irregularities insufficient to invalidate an acquisition.

The Court found that the record showed the SIA report and appraisal had been published, Gram Sabha meetings and public hearings had been held, and the Collector had addressed the project’s purpose and relevant details; it therefore rejected the alleged non-compliance with the applicable statutory process.

It also considered the objections and the additional sanction for a service road and enhanced compensation, and found no basis to conclude that the decision-making process was arbitrary or that the petitioner had suffered demonstrated prejudice.

Applying the substantial-compliance approach, the Court held that any minor lapses did not justify setting aside the acquisition, particularly given the public interest in the project.

It further relied on the availability of a Section 64 remedy after the award, noting that the award had not been challenged before it.

The writ petition was dismissed.