Lockdown used as excuse to skip hearing, Supreme Court says no

The Collector sent a notice in March 2020. The developer asked for time because of lockdown. The award was passed in May—without hearing them.

A simple request. A developer in Silvassa owned land. The Collector wanted objections on compensation. The date on the notice was 4 March 2020. The country was slamming shut. The developer's lawyer was unreachable—the office phones rang into an empty silence. They asked for time. The Collector said no. The award—dated 4 May 2020—was passed anyway.

The question the Supreme Court would answer: can a government authority use a national lockdown as a reason to skip a hearing—or must the hearing happen first, even if it means waiting?

When the notice arrived

Tirupati Developers owned about 4970 square metres of land in Silvassa, Dadra and Nagar Haveli. In 2015, the administration had taken possession of roughly 1479 square metres for a public purpose—but without completing the legal acquisition process. The developer went to the Bombay High Court, which on 1 March 2019 directed the authorities to complete the acquisition and pay compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act).

The authorities complied. On 14 January 2020, they issued a declaration under Section 19 of the Act (a formal announcement that the land was needed for a public purpose). Then, on 4 March 2020, they sent a notice under Section 21 (a notice to persons interested in the land, asking them to submit objections about compensation).

The timing was catastrophic. By early March 2020, COVID-19 was spreading across India. On 24 March, the Prime Minister announced a nationwide lockdown. The developer could not contact its lawyer. The lawyer could not reach the developer. The office of the developer sat empty, files untouched, the March notice lying unread.

The request for time

The developer wrote to the Collector asking for an adjournment. The reason was straightforward: the lockdown had made it impossible to consult counsel and prepare objections. It was not a delaying tactic. It was a reality shared by millions.

Meanwhile, the Bombay High Court had passed an order directing all government authorities not to take coercive steps during the pandemic. The developer assumed that order protected them. It did not.

On 4 May 2020—barely six weeks after the lockdown began—the Collector passed the compensation award. The developer had not been heard. No objections had been considered. The award was a done deal, bearing the Collector's signature in an empty office.

Why the High Court said no

The developer challenged the award in the Bombay High Court. They argued that the Collector had violated the statutory procedure under Sections 21 to 23 of the 2013 Act (the provisions that require a fair hearing before compensation is determined). They also pointed to the High Court's own order against coercive steps.

The High Court dismissed the petition on 14 June 2022. The reasoning, as the developer saw it, was that the award had already been passed, and the developer could always seek a reference under Section 64 of the Act (a post-award remedy where a higher authority reviews the compensation). In other words: the hearing had been missed, but you can still complain about the amount later.

The developer appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's reading of the statute

The bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta looked at the scheme of the 2013 Act. Sections 21, 22, and 23 together create a specific process: the Collector issues a notice, the interested person submits objections, the Collector holds an inquiry, and only then passes an award determining compensation. The word "inquiry" in Section 23 is not decorative. It means a real, effective opportunity to be heard.

The court held that the Collector's award, passed without hearing the developer, violated this statutory mandate. The procedure had been short-circuited. The developer's right to a fair hearing—a right embedded in the very structure of the Act—had been denied.

More importantly, the court rejected the argument that a post-award reference under Section 64 could fix the problem. "The right to seek reference under Section 64 of the 2013 Act is a post-award remedy and cannot substitute for the mandatory pre-award inquiry and hearing procedure prescribed under Chapter IV (Sections 21-23)," the court held. You cannot skip the hearing and then tell the person: go complain later. The hearing is the point.

What the lockdown changed

The Collector's defence was practical: the lockdown was on, the process had to move, the developer had been given a chance. The Supreme Court did not accept this. The lockdown, the court implied, was precisely the reason the hearing should have been postponed—not the reason it could be skipped.

The Bombay High Court's own order against coercive steps during the pandemic added weight. Passing a compensation award without hearing the affected party, when that party had explicitly asked for time because of a national emergency, was itself a coercive step.

The court's reasoning went deeper. It examined the entire statutory scheme under Sections 21 through 23, which together mandate that the Collector must issue a notice, receive objections, hold an inquiry, and only then determine compensation. Sections 26 through 29 further specify how market value and compensation are to be determined—but all of these provisions presuppose that the interested person has been heard. The court noted that the scheme of the 2013 Act is designed to ensure transparency and fairness in the acquisition process, and that the pre-award hearing is the cornerstone of that design. To bypass it, even during a national emergency, was to undermine the legislative intent.

The court also distinguished the post-award remedy under Section 64, which allows an interested person to seek a reference to the Authority for determination of compensation. That remedy, the court clarified, exists for disputes about the quantum of compensation after a proper inquiry—not to cure a complete failure of the pre-award hearing. Using Section 64 to fix a skipped hearing would be like using an appeal to fix a trial that never happened.

The order: start over

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part. It set aside the award dated 4 May 2020 and the High Court's judgment that had upheld it. The Collector was directed to issue a fresh notice under Section 21 within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The developer would submit objections within the stipulated period. The Collector would hear the developer's representative and pass a fresh award after conducting an inquiry in accordance with the Act. The entire process was to be completed within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

The court did not stop the acquisition itself. It did not question the public purpose. It simply said: you must follow the procedure. The hearing is not optional.

THE PLAY: If a statute says "inquiry" before "award", no emergency—not even a national lockdown—can replace the hearing with a post-award remedy.

The award was set aside. The process restarted. The developer would finally be heard.

Deeper context: the procedural journey and its implications

The case, M/s. Tirupati Developers v. The Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli & Ors., followed a long procedural arc. The developer's first writ petition in the Bombay High Court was disposed of on 1 March 2019 with directions to complete the acquisition. The Collector's award was passed on 4 May 2020. A second writ petition challenging that award was dismissed on 14 June 2022. The Supreme Court's decision on 7 August 2023 finally set things right.

The court's ratio decidendi—the principle that a fair hearing before the Collector is mandatory and cannot be replaced by a post-award reference under Section 64—has implications beyond this case. It reinforces that the procedural safeguards in the 2013 Act are not mere formalities. They are the bedrock of the entire compensation determination process. Any Collector who bypasses the hearing, even under the pressure of a national emergency, risks having the award set aside entirely.

The court also made clear that the reference mechanism under Section 64 is a remedy for disputes about the quantum of compensation after a proper inquiry—not a cure for a complete failure of the pre-award hearing. This distinction is critical. It means that an affected landowner cannot be forced to accept a compensation award determined without their input and then told to litigate the amount later. The hearing must happen first.

For the developer, the outcome was a reset. The land acquisition would proceed, but this time with the developer's voice in the room. The Collector would issue a fresh notice, the developer would submit objections, and a proper inquiry would follow. The entire process was to be completed within three months. The Supreme Court had not stopped the acquisition—it had restored the rule of law to the process.

The case stands as a reminder that even in times of crisis, the procedures designed to protect citizens from arbitrary state action cannot be discarded. The lockdown was a genuine emergency, but it could not become an excuse to silence the very people whose property was being taken.