A writ court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of title or grant eviction relief against private parties for infrastructure projects where there is no clear documentary evidence of lawful acquisition, as such matters fall within the competence of civil courts to ensure the protection of constitutional property rights.

JUDGMENT :

Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.

1. Heard Mr. Manish Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Keyur Gandhi with Mr. Nisarg Desai, Mr. Harshit Thanki and Mr. Yash Modi, learned advocates for Gandhi Law Associates appearing for the petitioner, Mr. G.H. Virk, learned Government Pleader appearing with Ms. Dharitri Pancholi and Mr. Jay Barot, learned AGPs appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for the private respondent Nos.6, 7.1-7.3, 9 and 10.

2. The petitioner herein is an administrative unit of the Indian Railways, which itself is a statutory body under the Government of India.

2.1 By way of present petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein seeks directions qua the respondent No.1 – District Collector to forthwith restrain the respondent Nos.6 to 10 not to interfere and obstruct so as to complete and operationalise the 16.5 kilometer long railway line between Khambhaliya and Salaya, which forms part of the Prime Minister’s Gati Shakti Multi-Modal Cargo Terminal and Port-Rail Connectivity Project and to further grant necessary directions for completion of the said project. The alignment of railway track in question exists since 1922 and thereafter, vested with the Indian Railways, as consistently demonstrated through Gazette publication, certified DILR measurement sheets, railway maps and revenue records.

2.2 It is the case of the petitioner herein that taking undue advantage of outdated entries in the revenue records of village : Harshadpur, the respondent Nos.6 to 10, private respondents herein, who have no semblance of right, title or interest, have instituted vexatious suits along with injunction applications, which were kept pending over a year despite protracted hearing and thereafter, withdrawn without notice to the petitioner solely to obstruct and delay the project. Such conduct besides being an abuse of process of law, frustrates Sections 20(A) and 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which expressly bar impediments to notified infrastructure projects. In light of the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner herein invoked the writ jurisdiction to ensure that the respondent No.1 – District Collector discharges his statutory duty and the railway line – critical for port connectivity, freight movement and public interest, is completed and operationalised without further obstruction.

2.3 It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 has powers under Section 202 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, to evict persons who are wrongfully in possession of the premises. The present petition seeks necessary directions qua the respondent No.1 to lawfully discharge its duties under the provisions of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (for short ‘the Code’) and the Rules. In the aforesaid set of facts, the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs:

(A) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondent No. 1 to forthwith issue necessary order and directions enabling the Petitioner to continue, complete and operationalise the laying of the 16.5 kilometre-long railway line between Khambhalia and Salaya, forming an integral part of the Prime Minister's Gati Shakti Multi-Modal Cargo Terminal and Port-Rail Connectivity Project;

(B) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to forthwith provide adequate support to the Petitioner to continue, complete and operationalise the laying of the 16.5 kilometre-long railway line between Khambhalia and Salaya, forming an integral part of the Prime Minister's Gati Shakti Multi-Modal Cargo Terminal and Port-Rail Connectivity Project;

(C) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondent No.1 to 5 to forthwith further restrain the Respondent Nos.6 to 10 and their agents or repres