Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that acquisition of the petitioner's land under Chapter IV-A of the Act of 1989 commencing with the second notification dated 18-5-2012 under Section 20A(1) of the Act of 1989 is wholly without jurisdiction, ultra vires the Act of 1989, discriminatory in nature, malafide and in breach of principles of natural justice. Therefore it is liable to be quashed and set aside. He submitted that the objections of petitioner company against acquisition of his land in khasra No.327 village Thara pursuant to notification under Section 20A(1) of the Act of 1989 first issued on 23-1-2011 having been allowed by the competent authority on 26-9-2011, finality attached thereto under Section 20D(3) of the Act of 1989. It was submitted that this finality could not be circumvented by the respondents by issue of a fresh notification under Section 20A(1) of the Act of 1989 on 18-5-2012 qua the very same parcel of land. The said subsequent notification therefore is a colourable exercise of powers and hence ultra vires the Act of 1989. It was further submitted that the alleged final alignment for the DFC between Delhi-Mumbai by the Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited (DFCCIL) including the petitioners land in khasra No.327 village Thara was wholly arbitrary and discriminatory and determined with the sole intent of benefiting one AMCO Limited and another, Balaji Tirupati Buildcom Limited, whose land were to be acquired for the DFC as per the earlier alignment determined. It was submitted that petitioners land is duly converted to residential use and construction plans therefor released by the UIT Bhiwari on its evaluation on 6-9-2010 in consultation with the State Government, that the petitioner companys land in khasra No.327 village Thara did not fall within the approved alignment of the DFC. It was finally submitted that even otherwise the notification dated 12-8-2014 under Section 20E of the Act of 1989 as published on 15-8-2014 as also the subsequent award dated 15-9-2014 determining compensation to petitioner company for acquisition of its land in khasra No.327 village Thara is liable to be quashed and set aside on the ground of denial of the statutorily prescribed hearing as mandated under Section 20D(2) of the Act of 1989.

Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Senior Advocate appearing for respondents submitted that vide order dated 26-9-2011 objections of the petitioner company to acquisition of land in khasra No.327 village Thara pursuant to notification dated 23-1-2011 under Section 20A(1) of the Act of 1989 were indeed allowed. But the order dated 26-9-2011 was malafide, illegal and a result of presentation of fabricated documents by the petitioner company with regard to alignment of the DFC before the competent authority, wrongly alleging change of alignment to its detriment. It was submitted that the only alignment finalized by DFCCIL, a special purpose vehicle constituted by the Railways and Government of India for the DFC was the one on the basis of which the notification dated 23-1-2011 was issued under Section 20A(1) of the Act of 1989. It was never changed to the petitioner company's detriment. Reliance of the petitioner company on Annexure-4 to the writ petition relates to an in-process drawing (before the finalization by DFCCIL) on which the competent authority had not appended its signatures. The said drawing/ blue print was never communicated by DFCCIL either to the State Government, the UIT Bhiwadi or the competent authority under the Act of 1989. It was submitted that the power under Section 20A(1) of the Act of 1989 is a reservoir of power which can be drawn upon from time to time for reasons of public purpose obtaining. It was submitted that lands on both sides of petitioners land, which was released from acquisition vide order dated 26-9-2011, having been acquired after alignment of the DFC finalized by experts, the Central Government could not conceivably visualize a situation where land in the petitioner company's ownership in Khasra No.327, village Thara would remain unacquired and the whole DFC's project delayed, or costs unaffordably enhanced prejudicial to public revenues and interest. Acquisition of petitioners land therefore was an absolute imperative and was warranted by the public purpose of completion of a special railway project i.e. DFC. In these circumstance the notification dated 18-5-2012 under Section 20A(1) of the Act of 1989 qua petitioners land in khasra No.327 village Thara came to be re-issued. It was also submitted that the alignment based on which the notification under Section 20A(1) of the Act of 1989 was issued in January, 2011 and then in May,2012 is the one as also reflected in Master-plan of Bhiwari-Tapokhara-Khushkhera Complexes 2031. This indicates that the only alignment conveyed by DFCCIL to the State Government is one going through the petitioner's land in Khasra No.327, village Thara. Thus evidently, the land in khasra No.327 in village Thara having been accidentally excluded by the competent authority on 26-9-2011, it was well within the power of the Central Government to issue the second notification under Section 20A(1) of the Act of 1989, as it did on 18-5-2012 qua the said land. Thereafter the petitioner having filed objections under Section 20D(2) of the Act of 1989 on 20-7-2012, they were in terms of the liberty granted by this court on 23-7-2014, considered and dismissed on 1-8-2014. Declaration vide notification under Section 20E(1) of the Act of 1989 was then issued by the central Government qua the land in issue and with the passing of the award on 15-9-2014 the said land vests in the Central Government, with compensation payable as per law. It has been submitted that this court should therefore direct that the respondents should be put in possession of the land acquired.

Heard. Considered.

I find no force in the contention of Mr. A.K. Sharma with regard to lack of jurisdiction in the Central Government to re-issue the notification dated 18-5-2012 under Section 20A(1) of the Act of 1989, in respect of khasra No.327 village Thara Tehsil Tijara District Alwar. Section 20A of the Act of 1989 is a reservoir of power on which the Central Government can draw whenever warranted for the public purpose of the execution of a Special Railway Project. The said power is not exhausted when once exercised qua a parcel of land. A notification under Section 20A of the Act of 1989 may lapse or not be followed by one under Section 20E of the Act of 1989 for multiple reasons including for the reason of the Competent Authority while exercising powers under Section 20D(2) of the Act of 1989 allowing an objection. The finality under Section 20D(3) of the Act of 1989 is for the purpose of declaration under the following Section 20E notification under the Act of 1989 and land excluded in a given acquisition process cannot be included within the same process. But if public purpose for the special Railway project warrants, for re-issue of Section 20A notification qua such land earlier excluded from the acquisition process, no prohibition can be found or even be impliedly read into. No doubt a subsequent notification under Section 20A(1) of the Act of 1989 qua the earlier excluded land, if challenged, the scrutiny by the court would be close and the issue of colourable exercise of power would be addressed. The reason for this conclusion lies in the fact that it is not difficult to conceive a situation where the Competent Authority hearing objections under Section 20D of the Act of 1989 could be mislead for one or the other reason including fraud or manipulation or corruption or even commit a shocking error or be motivated by extraneous consideration. The Act of 1989 does not otherwise provide for any validation of the decision of the Competent Authority under Section 20D of the Act of 1989 to exclude land from acquisition. The possibilities illustratively detailed above are buttressed from the facts of the instant case where the Competent Authority hearing objections under Section 20D(2) of the Act of 1989 proceeded to accept the petitioner company's objections to the notification under Section 20A of the Act of 1989 issued on 23-1-2011 qua petitioners land on the basis of a purported alignment which was neither final nor based whereon the notification under Section 20A(1) of the Act of 1989 dated 23-1-2011 was issuedwith the result that the petitioners land has been excluded from acquisition while that of others similarly placed in the line of alignment of the DFC acquired. The alignment of the DFC was a matter for the experts to determine. It was so determined and based thereon notification dated 23-1-2011 issued. The competent authoritynot an expertcould not have interfered with and second guessed the appropriate alignment for the DFC as it did while accepting the petitioner companys objections on 26-9-2011. All that the competent authority had to determine was whether the land sought to be acquired was falling in the final alignment of the railway track proposed. However, he oddly digressed and perversely held that the petitioner companys land was not in the original alignment approved by the DFCCIL but only in the purported re-alignment. The specific averments of the DFCCIL to the contrary were overlooked without as much as any plausible reason. The file notings of UIT Bhiwadi and correspondence with the UDH department Government of Rajasthan were adverted to, overlooking the fact that the public purpose of the special railway project was to be determined in law by the Central Government not the State Government or local authority. Or that neither the local authorities nor the State Government were competent to determine the alignment of a railway project. All this despite the fact that the competent authority was the signatory to the final alignment of the DFC based on which the notification dated 23-1-2011 was issued including land in khasra No.327 village Thara.

I also find no force in the allegation of discrimination against the petitioner company vis-a-vis AMCO Limited and Balaji Tirupati Buildcom Limited. For one, the said two companies have not been impleaded as parties to the writ petition as they ought to have been, on the allegations made. Besides, there is no material on record to support the contention. From the facts on record it appears that only one alignment for the DFC project was finalisedbased whereon notification dated 23-1-2011 under Section 20A of the Act of 1989 was issued and which also is the basis of the subsequent notification under Section 20A on 18-5-2012. Any other alignment not conveyed by DFCCIL to the competent authority and which way have been prepared in the process of finalisation was of no avail and any person acting thereon did so only at his peril. Annexure-4 of the petition, the bedrock of the petitioner companys case was never communicated by DFCCIL. The final alignment approved by DFCCIL also finds incorporation in UIT Bhiwari's master plan-2031. Besides, the question of alignment even otherwise is a matter in the domain of experts. This court is not at all in a position to address the technical aspects and feasibility with regard to alignment of a Railway project 1483 kms. long from JNPT (Mumbai to Dadri (Delhi) via Surat-Badodara-Ahmedabad-Palanpur-Ajmer-Ringas-Rewari-Dadri. The design of alignment of a Railway track is quite obviously a complex matter involving multiple parameters to be evaluated before its finalization, and for this reason the work is entrusted to experts in the field of design of Railway alignment. Considering the complexities involved in design of Railway alignment and the Court's limitations on challenges in respect thereof, the hon'ble High court of Gujarat in civil Application No.12438/2012 has held that the question of alignment cannot be considered by the court as it involves highly technical assessment of the requirements of the Railways. The contentions based on the grounds of arbitrariness in the finalization of alignment and discrimination vis-a-vis AMCO Limited and Balaji Tirupati Buildcom Limited are therefore liable to be rejected.