Back
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, CJ, J.B.PARDIWALA, J
RAILWAY CORRIDOR VIRODH KISHAN SANGH - THROUGH PRESIDENT – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 173 of 2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR VIKRAM J THAKOR
For the Respondents: GOVERNMENT PLEADER, MR PS CHAMPANERI, MR RAVI KARNAVAT
Important Points
Subject
Land Acquisition - Public Interest Litigation
Act Referred
Headnote
(D) - Public Interest Litigation regarding land acquisition for Dedicated Freight Corridor project - Petitioners, a farmers' organization and affected individuals, challenged the legality of the acquisition process and alleged that their objections were not adequately considered. - The competent authority allegedly abdicated its responsibility to decide objections and relied solely on recommendations from the acquiring body, violating principles of natural justice. (Paras 32, 36, 46)
(B) Public Interest Litigation - Maintainability - Court found that the petition is maintainable as the petitioners sought to protect the rights of farmers against improper land acquisition for a public project. (Paras 13, 17)
(C) Procedural Fairness - The court highlighted the need for due process under Section 20
(D) of the Railways Act, noting that the exercise of power by the competent authority must include a meaningful hearing of objections without undue influence from external bodies. (Paras 21, 34)
Findings of Court:
The order passed by the competent authority was set aside, and a remand was ordered for a fresh consideration of the objections raised by farmers, ensuring an independent assessment.
Result: Order dated 15.02.2012 set aside; authorities to consider objections afresh.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. acquisition process for land under railways act (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. public interest litigation and its maintainability (Para 11 , 12 , 20) |
| 3. requirement for independent hearing on objections (Para 18 , 27 , 28) |
| 4. importance of considering objections raised in land acquisition (Para 32 , 40) |
| 5. judicial directive for reconsideration of objections (Para 45 , 46) |
BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 22/02/2013
CAV JUDGEMNT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
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 Dedicated freight Corridors
Corporation of India Limited (For Short “DFCCIl”).
Page 2 of 51
C/WPPIL/173/2012 CAV JUDGEMNT
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 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.
Page 3 of 51
C/WPPIL/173/2012 CAV JUDGEMNT
2.5
According to the petitioners, lands, which are
proposed to be now 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 l
