Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

 
TABLE
 
Special Railway Project
 
Sl.No.		Name of Project	      State/UT
 
(1)              	 	(2)                          	       	(3)
 
1.	      Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor       Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, 						    Haryana,  Punjab
 
2.	      Western Dedicated Freight Corridor     Maharastra, Gujarat , 					                   Rajasthan, Haryana, 		     			                   Delhi, Uttar Pradesh
 
[F. No. 2008/LML/13/5]
 
MATHEW JOHN, Secy."
It was urged that from the above notification it is clear that the Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor runs through four States, namely, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab. The project is not limited to any particular district or an area therefore, even if the land in the district of Gautam Budh Nagar was notified in the year 2009 for the Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor (for short the Freight Corridor), the power to acquire further land for the Freight Corridor in the same district would not come to an end as that power can be exercised under Section 20A, read with Section 2 (37A) of the 1989 Act, from time to time, depending upon the need for the land for creating appropriate infrastructure for the Freight Corridor. It was urged, by inviting our attention on the site plan of the Freight Corridor project in the district of Gautam Budh Nagar, that earlier contemplated Freight Corridor line had a detour from the existing Indian Railway Track which was causing problem as a large chunk of land of Greater Noida was getting landlocked, therefore to straighten the Freight Corridor by aligning it and making it run parallel to the existing Indian Railway Track, after being informed that, except a few, a large number of tenure holders were ready to offer their land for transfer, the acquisition proceeding was initiated therefore, the acquisition proceeding cannot be said to be beyond the scope of Section 20A of the 1989 Act.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

19. Issue No.1: In respect of the validity of notification dated 11.02.2019, under Section 20A of Railways Act, 1989, the thrust of the submissions of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners is that once land was acquired in the district of Gautam Budh Nagar for the special railway project i.e. Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor, there existed no public purpose for acquisition of land for execution of the special railway project and therefore, the notification, under Section 20A, dated 11.02.2019, is liable to be quashed. To buttress the above submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the provisions of sub-section (37A) of Section 2 of the 1989 Act which defines a special railway project as a project notified as such by the Central Government from time to time, for providing national infrastructure for public purpose in a specified time-frame, covering one or more States or the Union Territories. It was urged that the notification dated 19 February 2008, under sub-section (37A) of Section 2, notified Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor as a special railway project covering the State of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Punjab. The notification under section 20-A of the 1989 Act of the year 2009 was specific for the Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor in the district of Gautam Budh Nagar and it was followed by declaration and award with transfer of possession therefore, it would be deemed that the need for land for the Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor in the district of Gautam Budh Nagar stood satisfied. Under the circumstances, the impugned notification dated 11 February 2019 does not serve the public purpose contemplated by the Act but some collateral purpose, such as releasing landlocked land of GNIDA, which is not permissible under the 1989 Act.

20. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents, the stand taken in their counter-affidavits is that a large chunk of land of GNIDA was to get landlocked on account of the circuitous route of the earlier proposed freight corridor and therefore, a decision was taken to properly align the freight corridor so as to run it parallel to the existing Indian Railway track. This was in larger public and national interest. Hence, the process of acquisition started. More than 75% of the land required for that end was acquired through sale-deeds and when resistance was offered by a handful of persons, notification was issued to acquire the land. It was urged on behalf of the respondents that for a special railway project, land can be acquired from to time dependent on the need that may arise. Aligning the freight corridor with the existing Indian Railway Track is a genuine need, relatable to public purpose, based on expert decision and the same is not amenable to judicial review.

22. From the averments made in the counter-affidavit including the own case of the writ petitioners, the earlier proposed freight corridor took a detour from the existing Indian Railway Track which resulted in large chunk of GNIDA land getting landlocked. GNIDA therefore, requested review of the route by offering land to align the freight corridor with existing Indian Railway track. It appears that 75% of the land could be garnered through sale deeds and the remaining was proposed to be acquired. This way, the route not only gets shortened but gets aligned with the existing railway tracks. Such a decision, in our view, would fall in the realm of an expert decision which, in our opinion, is not amenable to judicial review, particularly, in the light of the decision of the apex court in the case of Project Director, Project Implementation Unit v. P.V. Krishnamoorthy (supra) wherein, after examining the material brought on record, the Court had not interfered with the acquisition to cater to the altered plan upon finding that the alteration in the plan for the project necessitating acquisition was taken consciously on the basis of material available on record to ensure a shorter and a direct route. The apex court had also observed that such decision being based on expert opinion is beyond the purview of judicial review. Here also, from the counter-affidavit, it appears, on 01.03.2013, the Chief Executive Officer, GNIDA, wrote a letter to the Managing Director, Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd. explaining the difficulty that would arise if the Freight Corridor takes a detour as proposed. This letter has been brought on record as Annexure 6 to the counter-affidavit dated 12.02.2021 filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 in Writ C No. 2959 of 2020. The said letter apprises the Managing Director of the Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd. that if the alignment is not changed, then 200-250 acres of land of Greater Noida would get wasted and would have adverse impact on the proposed Boraki railway station. The letter thus proposes alignment of the freight corridor with existing railway track and it also assures cooperation in providing land for the purpose. It is stated in paragraph ''P' of the counter-affidavit, dated 12.02.2021, which is reply to paragraphs 37 and 38 of the writ petition, as follows:-