The construction of a new Railway Over Bridge serves a legitimate public purpose, and individual grievances cannot outweigh the broader public interest in infrastructure development.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners are residents of Kuruppanthara in the Kottayam District. According to them, a Railway Over Bridge (ROB) was constructed in Kuruppanthara in 2017 on the Muttuchira-Kuruppanthara Road by demolishing the old bridge and incurring a significant expense. Now, steps are being taken to construct a new ROB just 200 meters away from the one built in 2017 causing severe hardships to several people including the petitioners, such as the loss of residence, property, and business. It is stated that there is one more over bridge on the other side within a distance of 1 kilometer and that, by the construction of the new ROB, the first petitioner and his family would be deprived of a property having an extent of 0.0228 Ares in Sy. No. 199/11 and 12 with a portion of their residential property and the second petitioner would be deprived of 0.0050 Ares of land in Sy. No.711/9 and his residence.

2. According to the petitioners, construction of a new ROB within a distance of 200 meters of the existing one is totally irrational and driven by ulterior motives. It is contended that the acquisition of land for the construction of the new ROB does not conform to the statutory prescriptions under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RFCTLARR Act').

3. The District Collector, Kottayam, the 2^nd Respondent, issued Ext. P1 notification dated 20.05.2019 under Section 4 of the RFCTLARR Act authorizing one Anitha C. Chacko to conduct Social Impact Assessment Study and to prepare a Social Impact Management Plan, as provided by the RFCTLARR Act. Accordingly, Ext. P2 Social Impact Assessment Report was submitted on 19.09.2019. The petitioners contend that Ext. P2 Report is severely flawed due to a lack of proper consultation with the affected people, insufficient notice, and limited participation. The survey was conducted haphazardly, interviewing only a few selected individuals. The Report failed to address crucial aspects outlined in the RFCTLARR Act, focusing instead on general observations about the locality and nearby religious institutions. There has been no study of the social impact caused by the acquisition nor the necessity of acquisition itself was examined.

4. The petitioners who are also the President and the Secretary of the Action Council formed for opposing the project submitted Ext. P3 objection against Ext. P2 Report to the District Collector. However, without considering the same, an Expert Committee was constituted which on evaluation approved Ext.P2 as per Ext.P4 report. It is contended that there were only 6 members in the Expert Committee as against the prescription of 7 members in the RFCTLARR Act.

5. The petitioners state that Section 7 of the RFCTLARR Act clearly outlines the matters to be examined by the Expert Committee and the approach they must adopt. However, Ext. P4 demonstrates that the proceedings have been rendered a mockery, with no evidence of application of mind. The fundamental question whether the project serves any public purpose has not been addressed by the experts. The necessity of an over bridge, when two already exist on either side, was not considered by the expert committee. It is also contended that the said report was not publicized in the affected areas or among the affected parties nor was the report forwarded to the Panchayat and the Grama Sabha.

6. The petitioners refer to Section 8 of the RFCTLARR Act which provides that the appropriate Government shall also ensure that there is a legitimate and bona fide public purpose, the potential benefits and the public purpose referred to shall outweigh the social costs and adverse social impact etc. It is contended that the appropriate Government failed to ensure these aspects.

7. Based on Exts. P2 and P4 reports, Ext. P5 preliminary notification dated 24.05.2020 was issued by the District Collector under Sub Section (1) of Sectio