Petitioners are agriculturists of the Villages of Erattupetta, Thalappalam, Bharananganam, Kanjirappally, Kadanad and Kondoor within the Meenachll and Kanjirappally Taluks, Kottayam District. According to them, they are aggrieved by the action of the respondents 4 and 5 for acquisition of the land, for the proposed Angamall – Erumell Broad–Gauge Railway line. A Government of India Enterprise, by name RITES, had conducted Engineering-cum-Traffic survey for the proposed Broad-Gauge railway line between Angamall and Erumell, via Muvattupzha, and prepared a report and plan. The case of the petitioners is that respondents have taken a decision to accept Alternative I proposal as against Alternative I proposal is accepted, that will not serve any purpose and it will upset the ecology of the land. It is also averred that various Panchayats have also raised objection against the accepting of Alternative No.I proposal. The petitioners have produced Ext.P7 representation of the Sabarimala Pilgrims Welfare Committee and resolutions passed by the Kadanad, Bharananganam, Thalappalam, Erattupetta, Thidanad Grama Panchayats, as evidenced by Exts.P8 to P12, to show that the Samithi as well as the local authorities are opposing the present railway line, accepting Alternative No.I proposal. So the petitioners pray that this Court may issue a direction to the respondents to accept Alternative IV proposal for the proposed Angamaly-Erumell Broad-Gauge Railway line.

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Railways submitted that the proposal has been studied by the railways and a decision was taken and the petitioners can only challenge the notification that may be issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is argued that this Writ Petition is premature. It is argued that there is no provision of law which enables a person/an organization/a local authority to raise objections against the acquisition of land for a proposed railway line or road etc. It is also argued that the petitioners, whose lands are not yet notified for acquisition have no right to seek a direction to the second respondent to accept the Alternative No.IV in the place of Alternative No.I.

3. It is true that at present there is no provision in the Land Acquisition Act which enables a person whose land may be acquired and who is likely to be affected to raise any objection challenging the proposed acquisition prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. But the fact remains that whenever the Government starts a new project a section of people come forward with objections. The question arising for consideration is whether the State/Union is bound to consider their objections also before taking a decision.

4. In Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vs. C. Kenchappa and Others ((2006) 6 SCC 371) the Apex Court had directed that “In future, before acquisition of lands for development the consequences and adverse impact of development on environment must be properly comprehended …………..”.

.5. Central Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India had issued Environment Impact Assessment (‘EIA’ for short) notification. The same makes Environment Impact Assessment mandatory for 29 different identified activities. Some of the projects require clearance from the Central Government. List of Projects requiring environmental clearance includes Ports, Harbour, Airport, Transport Projects (Rail, Road and Highways). Before granting E.I.A. clearance there is provision for public hearing also and the same is mandatory. Whenever State or Union undertakes a developmental activity like Transport Project, Port or Airport it will affect the public at large. So it is

.only just and proper that the persons, organizations, or local authorities who are likely to be benefited or affected by that project shall also be given an opportunity to raise their objections or suggestions, if any, before issuing the notification under Section 4(1) of the