Point of Law : Once a project of public importance, which is good in larger public interest, is being executed and has been completed about 45%, setting aside of acquisition in a petition filed by one of the land owners owning a small portion of the land, will not be in larger public interest.

ORDER :

RAJESH BINDAL, CJ.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for quashing of notification dated April 06, 2021 issued under Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “2013 Act”), as published in newspaper on April 24, 2021 and notification dated July 16, 2021 issued under Section 19 of the 2013 Act.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is owner and in possession of plot no. 293 measuring 0.0688 hectare. The same is being utilized for agricultural purposes. However, off late, she intended to construct a house for residential purposes, for which pillars have been raised as foundation. For the purpose of acquisition of aforesaid land, notification under Section 11 of 2013 Act was issued on April 06, 2021. The land was sought to be acquired for the purpose of construction of a Railway over-bridge. The total area sought to be acquired was 0.5344 hectare. The petitioner filed objections to the aforesaid acquisition on May 26, 2021. However, without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also violating the mandate of Section 19(2) of the 2013 Act, notification under Section 19 was issued. Section 15 of the 2013 Act clearly provides that in case any objection is filed to the proposed acquisition of land, the aggrieved parties have to be afforded opportunity of personal hearing. Section 19(2) of the 2013 Act provides that rehabilitation scheme has to be published for the persons, who may be displaced.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to notification issued under Section 19 of 2013 Act, which mentions that as per the survey carried out, none of the land owner is required to be rehabilitated, whereas the case set up by the petitioner was that number of families will be displaced, hence, rehabilitation scheme was required. The petitioner has family of five persons. Unless the rehabilitation scheme is published, final notification under Section 19 of the 2013 Act for acquisition of the land could not be issued.

4. Further argument raised is that the Collector is not final authority to dispose of the objection. He has to merely send his report to the appropriate Government to take a final decision thereon. However, in the present case, the objections have been decided by Collector himself with no application of mind by appropriate Government. Right of hearing under pari materia provision, i.e., Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “1894 Act”) has been held to be fundamental right, hence, for violation thereof, the acquisition proceedings deserves to be quashed. In support of his argument, reliance is placed on Kamal Trading Private Limited Vs. State of West Bengal and others (2012) 2 SCC 25, Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms Private Limited and others Vs. State of Haryana and others (2013) 4 SCC 210 and Nareshbhai Bhagubhai and others Vs. Union of India and others (2019) 15 SCC 1.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the acquisition is for a total area of 0.5344 hectare of land. As per survey carried out, minimum possible land was acquired for construction of railway over-bridge, which is required to take care of traffic problem on the spot. It is to facilitate the people of the area and is in larger public interest. As should be the normal attitude, the development activities are not opposed by the inhabitants of the area when they are appropriately compensated. This happened in the present case also as none of the other owners objected to the acquisition. It is only the petitioner, who raised objection and the same was considered and with the opinion of the Collector, the entire record was sent to the Government, which finally issued the notification. It shows that there was proper application of mind by the appropriate Government before issuance of the notification