Law: Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Section: 11,4,30,9,23

REMARKS

Regular First Appeal Held: The functions of the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act1894, though administrative, but also quasi-judicial in nature. The Collector is a statutory authority empowered under the Land Acquisition Act 1894, to determine fair compensation whose decision is likely to prejudicially affect the landowners despite the fact that there is no lis or two contending parties and the contest is between the authority and the landowners, and he is required to act judicially under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. In simple terms, there are two contesting parties before the Collector: the landowners or interested persons, and the acquiring department or company. Therefore, the role of the Collector must be neutral, impartial, and fair-firstly, in the selection of suitable land, and secondly, in the assessment of fair compensation, without showing favour to either party. Moreover, while determining compensation, the Collector issues notices to landowners, invites objections, summons witnesses, compels the production of documents, hears objections, and resolves disputes arising during the acquisition process. The Collector is required to make decisions based on evidence and legal principles, exercising powers under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 in a reasonable, fair, and just manner. Such decisions are subject to judicial review by the courts and must adhere to the principles of natural justice, including fair hearing, impartiality, and clear and cogent reasoning.

ORDER
1. . Litigation triggered over determination of fair compensation of land acquired for public purposes is drawn out as long as decades. Originating in the colonial era, the primary aim of our land acquisition law -  the Act of 1894  is to safeguard· public funds.2 In spite of that, one can confidently say that our higher courts have strived to develop robust jurisprudence to interpret the law to meet the snowballing challenges of the times. Arguably, the rather unfortunate aspect of the matter is that neither the acquiring departments, nor do the landowners express satisfaction with the principles the courts are tirelessly laying down. And, the litigation snail paces from one court to another.
2. In the above perspective, the present Regular First Appeal (RFA_No. 234) filed by the appellant, along with the connected cross-appeals - Nos..
336 and 337 -  filed by the respondent-authority, are no exceptions.