Land acquisition under Article 300A is valid even if initiated by a politician, provided due procedure is followed.

ORDER

Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for laying a challenge to acquisition proceedings in respect of their land comprised in Preliminary Notification dated 08.10.2021 followed by the Final Notification dated 22.07.2022, copies whereof are respectively at Annexures- A1 & A.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners vehemently argues that his clients had filed objections in terms of Section 50 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and that the same have not been duly considered, due consideration being a requirement consistent with constitutional guarantee to the property rights u/a 300A. He also submits that the acquisition in question is being resorted at the instance of a 'politician' which aspect has been considered by this Court in earlier rounds of litigation. So arguing he seeks voiding of the the acquisition proceedings.

3. Learned AGA on request appearing for the Respondents opposes the Petition contending that the property of the citizen is not immune from acquisition under our constitutional scheme, more particularly when the fundamental right to property as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) having been removed the efficacy of the guarantee is diluted by relegating the said right to the protection of Article 300A; that the acquisition is done in public interest and for public purpose, in exercise of power of eminent domain and therefore the Writ Courts should not readily interfere; no particulars of the so called politician have been furnished in the objections filed by the Petitioners to the acquisition proposal and that the Petition has been framed even without producing a copy of the Enquiry Report.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is in complete agreement with the submission made on behalf of the Respondents and therefore, declines indulgence. Firstly, the private property although sacrosanct in a constitutional set up like ours, is not immune from acquisition at the hands of the State, in accordance with law as is prescribed under Article 300A itself. To this effect, the decisions of Apex Court galore.

5. The second contention that the objections of the Petitioners have not been considered by the competent Authority under Section 50 of the 2013 Act is difficult to entertain in the absence of production of a copy of the Enquiry Report; which aspect of the objection has remained unconsidered and to which other objections, the mind has not been duly applied cannot be scrutinized without having a copy of the Report as rightly contended by learned AGA. A citizen invoking constitutional remedy has to accomplish all the ground work for securing the necessary information & records on the basis of which compliant of the kind should be structured. A Writ Court cannot be used to for doing that.

6. The last contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the acquisition is nothing but a fraud on power inasmuch as, it has been done earlier on multiple occasions at the instance of 'local politician', is again bit difficult to countenance since no material particulars of the said politician have been furnished nor he has been arrayed as one of the parties to the Petition. On ground of fraud on power, ordinarily, the Apex Court insisted on the personal arraignment of the person who has purportedly occasioned or influenced the acquisition process in a fraudulent manner. No explanation is offered for not arraying him either. Sir Ivor Jennings, an expert on constitutional democracy argues that it is always open to the elected representatives of the people to prompt the government to undertake certain activities like acquisition of land, of course, in accordance with law. Me