Point of law : In cases where facts can be said to be admitted or undisputable, and only one conclusion is possible, the court does not pass futile orders of setting aside or remand when there is, in fact, no prejudice caused. This conclusion must be drawn by the court on an appraisal of the facts of the case, and not by the authority who denies natural justice to a person.

ORDER :

The petitioners are owners of various extents of land of Pandluru, Vengamambapuram and Ayyappareddy palem Villages, Naidupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. A connecting road was initially planned to connect National Highway No.16 with the Industrial Cluster called ‘Menakur SEZ’. This connecting road was to go through lands in L.A Sagaram Village. It is the case of the petitioners that this proposal was dropped and an entirely new alignment with Flyover on NH-16 was planned. This new alignment would take the road through the land of the above three villages.

2. A preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein after referred as ‘the Act’), was published in the daily newspapers on 25.02.2021 and 10.03.2021. Thereupon, the petitioners submitted their objection on 12.04.2021 to the 4th respondent, who submitted a report to the 3rd respondent. However, it is the case of the petitioners that this report was given without conducting any enquiry and without giving any opportunity to the petitioners. Thereafter, the 4th respondent had issued a declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act, which was published in the daily newspapers on 26.06.2021 and 30.06.2021.

3. The petitioners being aggrieved by these notifications, have approached this Court, seeking a writ declaring the notification issued by the 3rd respondent under Section 11(1) of the Act and the declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners situated in the above three villages o be illegal and violative of the provisions of the Act and to set-aside the said notification and declaration.

4. The contentions raised by the petitioners in this regard are;

(1) Chapter-II consisting of Sections 4 to 9 of the Act requires the preparation of a social impact assessment study before undertaking any acquisition of land under the Act. This requirement can be waived by way of an exemption granted under Section 9 of the Act by the appropriate Government or by the State Government under Section 10A of the Act. In the present case, no social impact assessment study was carried out and an exemption granted by the District Collector is being relied upon by the respondents to claim that exemption from social impact assessment study has been granted under Section 10A of the Act. The said exemption given by the District Collector is not in accordance with the requirements of Section 10A of the Act as the Collector cannot be deemed to be the State Government.

(2) Rule 4 (ii) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Compensation, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Development Plan) Rules 2015, (herein after referred as “Rules”), stipulates that the requisitioning body has to deposit the estimated cost of acquisition with the District Collector without which the process under the Act shall not commence. The petitioners contend, in the reply affidavit, that such a deposit has not been made and as such further process could not have been initiated. Section 11 (e) of the Act requires the notification issued under Section 11 of the Act should be done, in the affected area, in such a manner as may be prescribed. Rule 19(e) of the Rules prescribes that the notification has to be published by way of affixture in the lands, which are being acquired and no such affixtures had been carried out. The petitioners relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Mysore vs. Abdul Razak Sahib, AIR 1973 SC 2361, R.Prakash Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors., AIR 2012 SC 2718 and J&K Housing Board Vs. Kunwar Sanjay Krishnan Kaul., (2011) Vol.10 SCC 714 to contend that violation of this requirement would result in the entire process being set aside.

(3) Section 15 of the Act states that every objection filed in relation to the notification issued under Section 11(1) s