1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in this batch of writ petitions, the writ petitioners in respective petitions have called in question the preliminary notification issued by the appropriate Government under Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the Act of 2013') along with land acquisition proceedings initiated therein impugning the same as unsustainable and bad in law.

2. Essential facts requisite to judge legality, validity and correctness of the impugned notification are as under: -

(Facts in W.P.(C)No.1945/2015, which is the lead case, are taken)

3. Arpa Bhaisajhar Barrage Project at Village Hirri, Tahsil Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur is one of the ambitious projects of the State Government for providing irrigation facilities to 102 villages of Bilaspur District which is being constructed by investing 606.43 crores and proposed to irrigate 25,000 hectares of land. In order to implement the said project, number of preliminary notifications under Section 11 of the Act of 2013 have been issued and in this batch of writ petitions, the notification issued under Section 11 of the Act of 2013 and consequent compliance proceeding has been called in question on various grounds that the provisions of Chapter-II and Chapter-III of the Act of 2013 have not been complied with by the appropriate Government and there is vital difference in the notification published in the official gazette and the two daily newspapers regarding exemption of application of the provisions contained in Chapter-II and Chapter-III of the Act of 2013 to the public purpose for which the petitioners' land is to be acquired and there is non-compliance of the provisions contained in Chapter-II and Chapter-III before issuance of the impugned notification. No Environmental Impact Assessment Study has been undertaken for construction of canal at Village Hirri and no specific notification has been issued exempting the Arpa Bhaisajhar Barrage Canal as contemplated under Section 10-A from application of the provisions of Chapter-II and Chapter-III of the Act of 2013. No satisfaction has been arrived at by the Government before exempting the application of Chapter-II and Chapter-III as contemplated in Section 10-A of the Act of 2013, therefore, the impugned notification deserves to be quashed being unsustainable in law.

4. Return has been filed opposing the writ petitions stating inter alia that the provisions of Chapter-II and Chapter-III of the Act of 2013 would not be applicable by virtue of the provisions contained in the Act of 2013, there is substantial compliance of the Act and the project in question falls under the forest land and proposal for diversion of forest land was undertaken under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 as such, for irrigation canals proviso to Section 10 of the Act of 2013 would be applicable and Chapter-III is not required to be followed while notifying the notification under Section 11 of the Act of 2013. Therefore, there is substantial compliance of the provisions of the Act of 2013 and the Rules made thereunder and as such, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

5. Mr. Somnath Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit the provisions contained in Section 4(1), 4(5), 6, 7 and 8 of the Act of 2013 have not been complied with, they are mandatory in nature. Section 11 of the Act of 2013 is also mandatory in nature, as neither Section 11 nor Section 15 has been complied. He would further submit that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Social Impact Assessment and Consent) Rules, 2014 as well as the Chhattisgarh Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Reset