Back
2013 Supreme(Guj) 72
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
RAILWAY CORRIDOR VIRODH KISHAN SANGH - THROUGH PRESIDENT & 4 - Applicant(s)
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & 5 - Respondent(s)
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 173 of 2012
Decided On : 22/02/2013
MR VIKRAM J THAKOR, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 5
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Opponent(s) No. 6
MR PS CHAMPANERI, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1
MR RAVI KARNAVAT, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 - 5
Headnote:
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Railways Act, 1989 – Section 20(D) – Proceedings of acquisition – Serious grievances – Whether the present petition in the form of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is maintainable or not – Whether the competent Authority vested with the powers to hear the objections of the affected persons under Section 20(D) of the Railways Act, 1989, could be said to have considered and decided the objections objectively – Having regard to the materials on record could it be said that the competent Authority under Section 20(D) abdicated its power while considering the objections and thereby, rendered the hearing given to the farmers a mere empty formality – Held, Court cannot countenance such a situation where the observations of the law is left at the sweet will of the Authority without any redress, if the law is contraband – Whenever a public wrong or a public injury is caused by an act or omission of the State or Public Authority which is contrary to the constitution or law, any member of the public acting bonafide and having sufficient interest can maintain an action for redressal of such public wrong or public injury – Court hold that the objection raised on behalf of the respondents as regards the maintainability of this petition deserves to be over ruled – Order Accordingly (Para 19)
Judgment
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
1. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner No.1, a voluntary organization constituted by farmers affected by acquisition of land for the purpose of Dedicated freight Corridor Railway has redressed serious grievances as regards the manner, the mode and the method adopted by the Authorities in so far as the proceedings of acquisition under the Railways Act, 1989, is concerned.
2. The case made out by the petitioners in this petition may be summarized as under:-
2.1 The ministry of railway pursuant to the announcement to establish eastern and western Dedicated freight Corridors linking the four metropolitan cities of Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Howra commonly known as Golden Quadrilateral in two diagonals initiated action to establish the Dedicated freight Corridors (for short "DFC") and for the purpose of construction, operation and maintenance of DFC established the 25 Dedicated freight Corridors Corporation of India Limited (For Short "DFCCII").
2.2 The Central Government with a view to acquire the land for this special project introduced an amendment in the Railway Act, 1989, by enacting the Railways (Amendment) Act, 2008, by which the special procedure came to be incorporated for the acquisition of the 35 land by inserting Section 20(A) to 20(P) in the Railways Act. The amendment Act has come into force with effect from 31.01.2008.
2.3 Initially by issuing different notifications under Section 20(A) of the Railways Act, the intention to acquire various parcels of agriculture land was declared and accordingly, the objections were invited against the acquisition. According to the original proposal, the DFC railway track was proposed to be laid down on an independent route and far away from the existing Ahmedabad-Delhi Railway Line as a result of which various parcels of agriculture lands were required to be acquired.
2.4 It is the case of the petitioners that notifications dated 10.02.2009, 13.02.2009 and 05.03.2009 were issued for acquisition of various parcels of land at Kalol, Kadi, Mesana and few other places situated in the Sanand Taluka. Not only notifications under Sections 20(A) of the Railways Act were issued but, thereafter, final notifications under Section 20(A) of the Railways Act dated 05.02.2010, 06.02.2010, 26.02.2010 and 05.03.2010 were also issued.
2.5 According to the petitioners, lands, which are proposed to be now o acquired for which the present petition has been filed were not covered in the earlier notifications referred to above.
2.6 Pursuant to the notifications, which were issued way back in the Year-2010, referred to above, objections were raised by number of farmers and the whole issue had become political in nature, as a result of which a policy decision was taken by the Ministry of Railway to construct DFC line parallel to the existing Ahmedabad-Delhi Railway Line.
2.7 According to the petitioners, based on their information, it was proposed and decided to lay-down DFC line parallel to existing line from New Dehli-Ahmedabad Sabarmati Railway Station. It is their case that according to the policy decision if the DFC line is laid parallel to the existing line up to Sabarmati Railway Station then in that case the acquisition of various agriculture lands would not be required.
2.8 However, the respondent Authorities instead of continuing to lay the DFC line parallel to the existing line upto Sabarmati Railway Station have changed the alignment from Village: Pansar and have diverted the alignment which has led to the necessity of acquiring fertile agriculture lands of 26 villages.
2.9 The petitioners, having learnt about the change of the alignment, objected to the diversion of DFC line from Village: Pansar. The petitioners and other farmers had personally approached the respondent Nos. 4
