The acquisition of land in Village Jamodi, Tehsil Pithampur, District Dhar, Madhya Pradesh, for the establishment of a Multi-Model Logistics Park under the Bharatmala Project of the Government of India. The appellants, landowners affected by the acquisition, submitted objections to the Collector but were not heard. Instead, the objections were considered by a subordinate officer, the SDO (Anuvibhagiya Adhikari), who rejected them. Subsequently, a declaration for acquisition was published, and notices were issued to the appellants.

The appellants filed writ petitions challenging the land acquisition proceedings, but the High Court dismissed them, citing the final award passed during the pendency of the petitions. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning the legality and validity of the proceedings.

In response to the appeal, the respondents argued that the Collector had the authority to designate another officer, in this case, the SDO, to handle objections and make recommendations. They contended that the objections were rightly heard by the SDO and that the High Court's dismissal of the writ petitions was justified.

The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 (Act of 2013) and previous judicial interpretations. It concluded that the Collector, acting as the appropriate Government, failed to comply with the mandatory procedures under Section 15(2) and 15(3) of the Act. The objections should have been decided by the appropriate Government, not delegated to the SDO. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings were deemed illegal, and the final award was quashed concerning the appellants' lands.

1. Background:

   • Description of the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State of Madhya Pradesh for the establishment of a Multi-Model Logistics Park.

2. Submission of Objections:

   • Appellants submitted objections to the Collector, but they were not considered, and the objections were instead heard by the SDO.

3. Publication of Declaration:

   • Declaration for acquisition was published, and notices were issued to the appellants.

4. Filing of Writ Petitions:

   • Appellants filed writ petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings, but the High Court dismissed them.

5. Question of Law:

   • Appellants posed a pertinent question regarding the High Court's failure to decide on objections to the authority of the SDO and the publication of the declaration.

6. Response of the Respondents:

   • Respondents argued that the Collector had the authority to designate the SDO to handle objections and that the objections were rightly heard by the SDO.

7. Legal Analysis:

   • The Supreme Court analyzed relevant provisions of the Act of 2013 and previous judicial interpretations regarding land acquisition procedures.

8. Decision of the Supreme Court:

   • The Supreme Court concluded that the Collector, acting as the appropriate Government, failed to comply with mandatory procedures, rendering the acquisition proceedings illegal.
   • The final award was quashed concerning the appellants' lands, and the respondents were directed to reconsider the objections filed by the appellants under Section 15 of the Act of 2013.

9. Conclusion:

   • The appeals were allowed, and no costs were imposed.
   • Pending applications were disposed of.