Land taken without hearing during lockdown: Supreme Court sets aside award

The government took his land. Then they sent a notice during lockdown. He asked for more time to hire a lawyer. They passed the award anyway.

In March 2020, as India ground to a halt under one of the world's strictest COVID-19 lockdowns, a developer in Silvassa received a notice from the local Collector. The government wanted to acquire part of his land—about 1,479 square metres of a 4,970 square metre plot in Village Amli—and needed him to submit his objections on compensation. The developer wrote back immediately, a typed letter on company letterhead that sat on the Collector's desk: he could not reach his lawyer. The pandemic had shut everything down. Could he have more time?

The Collector said no. On 4 May 2020, in the middle of a national health emergency, the compensation award was passed without hearing a single word from the landowner. The file was stamped and sealed in an office that echoed with silence—no lawyers, no petitioners, just the scratch of a pen on paper.

Two years later, the Supreme Court of India would call that award what it was: unfair.

The 2019 High Court Order That Started the Clock

The story of this land began five years before the pandemic. In 2015, government authorities in Dadra and Nagar Haveli had used part of Tirupati Developers' plot for a public purpose—but they had skipped the legal process for taking it over. No acquisition, no compensation, no paperwork. The land was simply used, leaving no paper trail, just the raw fact of possession.

The developer went to the Bombay High Court. On 1 March 2019, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a clear direction: the government must complete the acquisition within one year and pay compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—a law designed to ensure landowners are not short-changed when the state takes their property.

The government complied—sort of. It issued a declaration under Section 19 of the 2013 Act (a formal announcement that the land was being acquired) on 14 January 2020. Then, on 4 March 2020, it sent a notice under Section 21 (a written call for the landowner to appear and state objections on compensation). The developer was given a deadline to respond.

That deadline fell into the abyss of a pandemic.

The Letter the Collector Ignored

By late March 2020, India was in lockdown. Courts had shut. Lawyers had fled cities. The Bombay High Court itself had passed an order on 26 March 2020 specifically telling government bodies not to take coercive steps against anyone during the pandemic.

The order was crisp, unambiguous—a judicial shield for citizens during an unprecedented crisis. The developer wrote to the Collector. The letter was simple, typed on letterhead that bore the company's name and address: we cannot contact our lawyer. The pandemic has made it impossible. Please adjourn the hearing. The developer's representative likely stared at the closed doors of the Collector's office, the building empty except for essential staff, the silence broken only by the distant hum of a generator.

The Collector did not wait. On 4 May 2020, he passed the compensation award—fixing the amount the developer would receive for the land—without ever hearing the developer's side. The award was a thin sheaf of papers, signed and dated, the ink barely dry, as the country remained under lockdown.

The developer challenged the award in the Bombay High Court. The High Court dismissed the challenge on 14 June 2022. Its reasoning: the developer could always seek a higher compensation later through a reference under Section 64 of the 2013 Act (a mechanism where a separate authority reviews the compensation amount after the award has already been passed). In other words, the High Court said: the procedure was flawed, but you have another remedy later, so we won't interfere now.

The developer appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Bench's Grave Expression as Arguments Unfolded

The question before the Supreme Court bench—Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta—was deceptively simple: can a compensation award survive when the landowner was never heard, even if there is a later review mechanism? The bench noted the Collector's disregard for the High Court's own order restraining coercive action during the pandemic.

The developer argued that the entire process under Sections 21 to 23 of the 2013 Act had been violated. Section 21 requires the Collector to give notice to every person whose land is being acquired. Section 22 allows those persons to file written statements about their claims. Section 23 requires the Collector to hold an inquiry—a hearing—before deciding the compensation. None of this had happened. The Collector had skipped the inquiry, the hearing, the opportunity for the developer to present evidence on the land's value.

The government argued that the developer could still get a fair hearing through the Section 64 reference process. The award itself, they said, was not the end of the road.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The court held that the right to a hearing under Sections 21-23 is not a mere formality that can be skipped and fixed later. It is the foundation of a fair compensation determination. The Section 64 reference, the court said, is a subsequent stage that arises only after the Collector has followed the prescribed procedure and passed the award. It cannot substitute for the initial hearing requirement.

"For a fair and just determination of compensation under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013," the bench observed, "it is imperative that a fair opportunity of hearing is given to persons whose rights are affected. The interested person must be given an effective opportunity to put forth his or her claim. Any deviation from the prescribed procedure under Sections 21-23, especially when it has seemingly affected the interested person, would militate against the very object of the legislative mandate."

The court also noted that the developer had specifically asked for an adjournment because of the COVID-19 lockdown—and that the Bombay High Court's own March 2020 order had restrained coercive state action during the pandemic. The Collector had ignored both the request and the court order. The bench's voice carried a note of disapproval as it recounted the sequence: a request for time, a court order, both brushed aside in the silence of a lockdown.

The court's ratio decidendi was clear: for a fair and just determination of compensation under the 2013 Act, a fair opportunity of hearing is imperative. The interested person must be given an effective opportunity to put forth their claim. Any deviation from the prescribed procedure under Sections 21-23, especially when it has seemingly affected the interested person, militates against the very object of the legislative mandate. The right to seek reference under Section 64 is a subsequent stage that arises only after the Collector has followed the procedure prescribed under Chapter IV—including Sections 21-23—and passed the award. It cannot substitute for the initial hearing requirement.

The Award Is Set Aside. The Process Starts Again.

On 7 August 2023, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part. The compensation award dated 4 May 2020 was set aside. The High Court's judgment dismissing the challenge was also set aside. The Collector was directed to issue a fresh notice under Section 21 within two weeks, hear the developer's representative, and pass a new award after conducting a proper inquiry—all within three months from the date of receipt of the court's order.

The developer got what it had asked for in March 2020: a chance to be heard. The Collector's office would once again receive a letter, but this time the hearing would happen. The silence of the lockdown would be replaced by the sound of arguments, the rustle of documents, the voice of a landowner finally speaking.

THE PLAY: A landowner's right to be heard before compensation is fixed under Sections 21-23 of the 2013 Act cannot be replaced by a later reference under Section 64—the hearing is the foundation, not the formality.

The Collector had three months to start over. The developer had waited three years to speak. The Supreme Court had ensured that this time, the silence would be broken.