# Jaiveer Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 1051
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-27
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 2959 of 2020
- **Bench:** Manoj Misra, Dinesh Pathak
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jaiveer-singh-ors-v-union-of-india-ors-47355
- **Pages:** 22

## Headnote

A. Railways Act, 1989 - Section 20A, D, E -
Land Acquisition - Opportunity of Hearing
-

In the present case, the issue before the Court
was whether the land once acquired in the
district of Gautam Budh Nagar for special
railway project i.e., Eastern Dedicated Freight
Corridor, can be acquired again by way of
notification dated 11.02.2019 under Section 20A
for execution of the special railway project. To
which the Court held that notwithstanding the
earlier acquisition made vide declaration dated
30.07.2010, the Central Government had the
power to issue fresh notification under Section
20A (1) of the 1989 Act by virtue of Section 14
of the General Clauses Act, 1897. It is clear that
the acquisition in question was to align the track
of the freight corridor in a manner that it gets
straightened, shortened and, in turn, also save
land of Greater Noida Industrial Development
1052 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Authority from getting landlocked or wasted.
(Para 21 & 22)

The Court opined that once the written
objection to the proposed acquisition has
been filed within 30 days of the publication of
the
notification
before
the
competent
authority, it under an obligation to offer
opportunity of hearing to the objector, either
in person or through a legal practitioner.
(Para 30)

The Court has taken into consideration that
inspite of filing the objection to the proposed
acquisition before the competent authority
within time, their objections were neither
entertained nor decided and they were nt
heard on their objections. But the project being
near completion, it would be result in huge
wastage of public money as the entire
alignment of the freight corridor would have to
be redone. Therefore, the Court denied o
quash the notification and directed to award
compensation in accordance with the law,
subject to the proof of their right. (Para 37)

Writ Petition No. 2959 of 2020; 42537 of
2019; 42577 of 2019 Partly Allowed.

Writ petition No. 43014 of 2019 Rejected.
(E-10)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,933 of 74,089. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39933 for what follows._

9 All Jaiveer Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1051

17. It is next contended that the
Appellate Authority i.e. Commissioner,
Banda, Division Chitrakoot Dham since
remitted the matter, a revision under Rule 78
of 1963 Rule was not tenable. Rule 78 of the
Rules, 1963 mandates:

"78. The State Government may,
either suo moto at any time or on an
application made within ninety days from
the date of communication of the order, call
for the examine the record relating to any
order passed or proceeding taken by the
District Officer, committee, Director or the
Divisional Commissioner under these rules
and pass such orders as it may think fit."

18. Thus Revision lies even against an
order remitting the matter. The second
contention accordingly fails.

19. The next contention that the
Revisional Order suffers from the vice of
perversity. It is observed that the Appellate
Authority glossed over the vital facts, viz that
in Writ-C No.36068/2018 the claim of
petitioner for waiver was negatived on the
anvil of Clause 19 and 22 (1) of the
Advertisement and secondly, the petitioner
who was under an obligation to deposit the
credentials within 3 days from date of closing
the bid proceeding; having failed to comply
the same, it was not within the right of the
petitioner to have questioned the tendering of
the sand mine. In view whereof, in our
considered opinion, the Revisional Authority
was well justified in interfering with the
Appellate Order and restore the order passed
by District Magistrate.

20. Considering this we do not perceive
any merit in the petition.

21. Consequently, petition fails and is
dismissed. No costs.
----------
(2021)09ILR A1051
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Writ C No. 2959 of 2020
And
Writ C No. 42537 of 2019
And
Writ C No. 42577 of 2019
And
Writ C No. 43014 of 2019

Jaiveer Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Kaushal Kumar Singh, Sri Abhinav Gaur,
Sri N.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Abinav Gaur, Sri Rajnish Kumar
Rai

A. Railways Act, 1989 - Section 20A, D, E -
Land Acquisition - Opportunity of Hearing
-

In the present case, the issue before the Court
was whether the land once acquired in the
district of Gautam Budh Nagar for special
railway project i.e., Eastern Dedicated Freight
Corridor, can be acquired again by way of
notification dated 11.02.2019 under Section 20A
for execution of the special railway project. To
which the Court held that notwithstanding the
earlier acquisition made vide declaration dated
30.07.2010, the Central Government had the
power to issue fresh notification under Section
20A (1) of the 1989 Act by virtue of Section 14
of the General Clauses Act, 1897. It is clear that
the acquisition in question was to align the track
of the freight corridor in a manner that it gets
straightened, shortened and, in turn, also save
land of Greater Noida Industrial Development
1052 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Authority from getting landlocked or wasted.
(Para 21 & 22)

The Court opined that once the written
objection to the proposed acquisition has
been filed within 30 days of the publication of
the
notification
before
the
competent
authority, it under an obligation to offer
opportunity of hearing to the objector, either
in person or through a legal practitioner.
(Para 30)

The Court has taken into consideration that
inspite of filing the objection to the proposed
acquisition before the competent authority
within time, their objections were neither
entertained nor decided and they were nt
heard on their objections. But the project being
near completion, it would be result in huge
wastage of public money as the entire
alignment of the freight corridor would have to
be redone. Therefore, the Court denied o
quash the notification and directed to award
compensation in accordance with the law,
subject to the proof of their right. (Para 37)

Writ Petition No. 2959 of 2020; 42537 of
2019; 42577 of 2019 Partly Allowed.

Writ petition No. 43014 of 2019 Rejected.
(E-10)

List of Cases cited:

1. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. Vs Darius
Shapur Chennai & ors. (2005) 7 SCC 627

2. U.O.I. Vs Shiv Raj (2014) 6 SCC 564

3. Surinder Brar Vs U.O.I . (2013) 1 SCC 403

4. Usha Stud & Agricultural Farms (P) Ltd. Vs St.
of Har. (2013) 4 SCC 210

5. Gojer Bros. (P) Ltd. Vs St. of W.B. (2013) 16
SCC 660

6. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Vs U.O.I. (1981) 1 SCC
664

7. Kesar Enterprises Ltd. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(2011) 13 SCC 733

8. St. of W.B. Vs Debasish Mukherjee & ors.
(2011) 14 SCC 187

9. B.P. Singhal Vs U.O.I. (2010) 6 SCC 331

10. K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. Vs St. of Karn.
(2011) 9 SCC 1

11. Manohar Joshi Vs St. of Mah.a (2012) 3 SCC
619

12. Kalinga Mining Corporation Vs U.O.I .(2013)

13. Kalpana Mehta Vs U.O.I. & ors. (2018) 7
SCC 1

14. Railway Corridor Virodh Kishan Sangh Vs
U.O.I. (2013) SCC Online Guj 6083

15. Nand Kishore Gupta Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(2010) 10 SCC 282

16. St. of T.N. Vs Vasanth Veerasekaran (2019)
7 SCC 342

17. Nareshbhai Bhagubhai & ors. Vs U.O.I.
(2019) 15 SCC 1 (followed)

18. Savitri Devi Vs St. of U.P. (2015) 7 SCC 21

19. Project Director, Project Implementation
Unit Vs P.V. Krishnamoorthy (2021) 3 SCC 572

20. Dedicated Freight Corridor Corp. of India Vs
Subodh Singh & ors. (2011) 11 SCC 100
(distinguished)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J.)

1. As these four petitions question the
acquisition of land under a common
notification, they have been clubbed
together. Writ petition (Group C) numbers
2959 of 2020; 42537 of 2019; and 42577 of
2019 seek quashing of notifications dated
11.02.2019 and 06.11.2019 issued under
Sections 20-A and 20-E, respectively, of
the Railways Act, 1989 (for short the 1989,
Act) to acquire land for a Special Railway
Project i.e. Eastern Dedicated Freight
9 All Jaiveer Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1053
Corridor (for short Freight Corridor) in
district Gautam Budh Nagar. Whereas,
Writ C No. 43014 of 2019 has been filed
by persons who claim themselves to be
aggrieved with the impugned notifications
though their land is not included in the
impugned notification. The petitioners of
Writ C No. 2959 of 2020 have their land at
village Chamrawali - Boraki, Tehsil Dadri,
District Gautam Budh Nagar whereas the
petitioners in the remaining three petitions
have their land at village Rithauri in the
same district.

2. As in Writ C No. 2959 of 2020
pleadings are elaborate and parties have
exchanged their affidavits, the same is
taken as the leading petition. However, we
shall refer to the facts of the other three
petitions also, wherever necessary.

3. The case of the petitioners in the
leading Writ C No. 2959 of 2020 is that, to
acquire land for the Special Railway
Project - Freight Corridor in district
Gautam Budh Nagar in the State of Uttar
Pradesh, a notification under Section 20-A
of the 1989 Act was issued on 24 August
2009, which was followed by declaration,
dated 30 July, 2010, under Section 20-E of
the 1989 Act. Pursuant thereto, an award
was passed on 30 August 2011, under subsection (2) of Section 20-F of the 1989 Act,
and physical possession of 5.0844 hectare
of land falling in village Chamrawali -
Boraki was taken. Despite having taken
possession of that land, the land was not
utilised. Later, in a mala fide manner, on
request of Greater Noida Authority (for
short GNIDA), the impugned notifications
were issued even though, for the purpose of
the Special Railway Project, need for land
stood satisfied by the earlier acquisition
proceeding. Accordingly, by exercising
statutory right available under sub-section
(1) of section 20-D of the 1989 Act, an
objection to the notification was taken. But,
without addressing the objection as per
sub-section (2) of Section 20-D of the 1989
Act,
straight
away
the
impugned
declaration under sub-section (1) of Section
20-E of the 1989 Act was made by making
an incorrect declaration that no objection
was taken under sub-section (1) of Section
20-D of the 1989 Act. Similar, is the case
of the petitioners in Writ C Nos. 42537 of
2019 and 42577 of 2019 though their
pleadings are not as elaborate as is in the
lead petition i.e. Writ C No. 2959 of 2020.

4. In the leading petition i.e. Writ C
No. 2959 of 2020, several counteraffidavits have been filed. It would be
useful to refer, in brief, to the contents of
those counter-affidavits. These counter
affidavits are as follows:

(A) Two counter affidavits dated
18.11.2020 and 12.02.2021 have been filed
on behalf of Eastern Dedicated Freight
Corridor Corporation of India Ltd. (for
short the Corporation) by Sri Ram Manohar
Agarwal. It is stated therein that the
Corporation
was
incorporated
as
a
government company under the provisions
of the Companies Act, 1956 on 30.10.2006
as a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) in the
form of Public Sector Undertaking (PSU)
of the Ministry of Railways. It is stated that
for completion of the Freight Corridor, land
though was acquired earlier but more land
was required for its completion and
therefore, efforts to acquire the same began
through agreement/consent of affected
persons. But as the exercise could not be
completely successful, as few persons, like
the petitioners, refused to give consent,
GNIDA, vide letter dated 06.12.2018,
requested acquisition of 1.966 Ha land in
24 Khasras of village Chamrawali Boraki
1054 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and, vide letter dated 25.09.2018, requested
acquisition of 0.7279 Ha land of Khasra
Nos. 45 and 112 at village Hazratpur. It is
stated that the Freight Corridor is a project
of national importance and would be the
lifeline of the economy. Moreover, it would
reduce carbon emission as well as burden
on
the
existing
infrastructure
for
transportation of goods. It is stated that the
competent authority had submitted a report
that no objections were received in his
office to the notification under Section 20A; acting on the said report, the declaration
under Section 20-E (1) of the 1989 Act was
made, consequent to which, the land vested
in the Central Government. In the counteraffidavit, dated 12.02.2021, it has been
demonstrated that the project has been
completed substantially. In that context,
paragraph 35 thereof, is extracted below:

" In furtherance to the above, a
perusal of another annexed table clearly
reveals that as against an estimated cost of
Civil Engineering Works of Rs. 824 Crores,
the latest figures (upto 29th January 2021)
show expenditure to the tune of Rs. 614 crores
(approximately 74% of financial progress).
Only 1.36 kms of linear length of land remains
to be acquired out of total requirement of
54.38 kms. The various physical assets created
upto date include completion of formation
(earth foundation for laying of tracks and
associated fittings) for 51.24 kms (76%) out of
54.38 Kms., completion of all 5 major bridges
(above 12.2 meters), completion of 47 (92%)
minor bridges out of a total of 51,32 (84%) out
of 38 Railway under bridges and a whole
range of associated works are in full swing as
is evident from the bare perusal of the table
which is marked and annexed as Annexure 3."

By annexing tables and map, an
effort has been made to demonstrate that
the work of the Freight Corridor has
reached an advanced stage and that a
minuscule part of the project remains, due
to unavailability of land on account of
resistance
offered
by
some
persons
including the petitioners. Along with
counter-affidavit, dated 12.02.2021, vide
annexure 4, a table has been placed on
record to indicate that the hindrance in the
acquisition of land is limited to an area of
2.0783 Ha in a stretch of only 1.150 Kms.
of the corridor. Out of which, 0.300 Km
falls in village Rithori, which relates to
Writ C No. 42537 of 2019 and Writ C No.
42577 of 2019 whereas 0.300 Km falls in
village Hazaratpur and 0.550 Km falls in
village Chamrawali Boraki, which relates
to Writ C No. 2959 of 2020.

In the counter affidavit dated
12.2.2021, while giving para-wise reply to
the averments made in Writ C No. 2959 of
2020, in paragraph (''l') it is stated:
".......that
the
instant
acquisition
proceedings are for a project of great
national importance and over 95% of the
project has already been developed and
compensation
to
about
22
persons
concerned has already been paid. It is only
300 meters running patch length of corridor
and 550 meters running patch length of
corridor
in
Hazratpur
village
and
Chamrawali Boraki village, respectively,
that
have
been
unnecessarily
and
illegitimately
hindered
on
account
vexatious petitions based on false and
frivolous grounds and for which the entire
public purpose has come to a halt for so
long........".

In
counter-affidavit
dated
18.11.2020 more or less same narration of
facts, as noticed above, is there. However,
in addition thereto, the respondents have
enclosed
copy of
the
award, dated
27.07.2020, passed under Section 20-F(2)
9 All Jaiveer Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1055
of the 1989 Act. The award reflects that the
objection of the petitioner no.1 (Jaiveer
Singh) was dealt with at serial no. 5
whereas the objection of petitioner no.2
(Tejpal) was dealt with at serial no. 7 and
objection of petitioner no.3 (Shyam Singh)
was dealt with at serial no. 17. A perusal of
the award would reveal that they had
participated in proceedings relating to
determination of compensation. Jaiveer
Singh had claimed resettlement in a
developed area and if the Railways held no
land,
compensation
at
the
rate
of
Rs.28,000/- per square meter was claimed.
Tejpal's and Shyam Singh's objections are
similar except that they have demanded
compensation at the rate of Rs.28,500/- per
square meter.

(B).
Counter-affidavit,
dated
11.12.2020, sworn by Akhilesh Kumar,
Tehsildar (J), Jewar, Gautam Budh Nagar.
He states that he has been authorized to file
counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent
no.4 i.e. the Competent Authority. In
paragraph 16 of the counter-affidavit,
which is a reply to the averments made by
the petitioners in respect of filing of written
objections under Section 20-D (1), it is
stated as follows:-

".......it is submitted that the
petitioners did not file objection within time
before the answering respondent and as
such notification u/s 20E of the Act was
issued in accordance with law there is no
illegality at all. However, land in dispute is
in the linear way to complete Dedicated
Freight Corridor and is required for the
completion of project of national level
therefore fresh notification was issued in
accordance with law."

In paragraph 18 of the counteraffidavit, which is a reply to the averments
made by the petitioners that their objections
were not considered and no hearing was
afforded to them on their objections, it is
stated as follows:-

"....... In reply, it is submitted that
no any objection of petitioners was
received in the office of answering
respondent after notification of Section 20A
of the Act, therefore answering respondent
proceeded in accordance with law there is
no illegality at all. "

In paragraph 20 of the counteraffidavit, which is a reply to the averments
made in the writ petition that the
notification fraudulently stated that no
objection was filed in the office of the
competent authority within the stipulated
period, it is stated as follows:-

"...... In reply, it is submitted that
no objection was received by (should be
read as from) any of the land holders
within the time after publication of
notification U/S 20A of the Act therefore
report was forwarded in accordance with
law and in furtherance thereof notification
U/S 20E was published on 28.11.2019
there is no illegality at all. "

In paragraph 22 of the counteraffidavit, which is a reply to the averments
made in the petition that written objections
were
filed
before
the
competent
authority/fourth respondent within 30 days
from the date of publication of the
notification under sub-section (1) of
Section 20A but no opportunity of hearing
was provided to the petitioners by the
competent authority, it is stated as follows:-

"....The contents of paragraph no.
29 of the writ petition are totally false as
stated hence strongly denied. In reply, it is
1056 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submitted
that
competent
authority/KALA/DFCC
was
City
Magistrate Greater Noida and not at all
S.D.M. Sadar Gautam Budh Nagar in the
year 2019 therefore application which was
annexed in the writ petition is not at all
given
in
the
office
of
competent
authority/D.F.C.C./KALA and same is
given in the office of S.D.M. Sadar
Collectorate Gautam Budh Nagar and also
application is not at all in accordance with
provisions of Railway Act 1989 and as such
no objection is filed by the any of the
petitioners before competent authority
which itself proved the report forwarded by
the answering respondent. Therefore report
forwarded by the answering respondent is
in accordance with law there is no
illegality at all. "

In paragraph 24 of the counteraffidavit, which is a reply to the averments
made in the writ petition that the petitioners
were deprived of the opportunity of hearing
on their objections to the notification under
Section 20A (1), it is stated as follows:-

".....The contents of paragraph
no.31 of the writ petition are totally false as
stated hence strongly denied. In reply, it is
submitted that objection was not at all filed
in the office of competent authority/KALA
notified for this purpose and so called
application which was not at all in the form
of objection as per the procedure laid down
in the Railway Act 1989 in the office of Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, which was
not at all competent authority therefore on
the ground writ petition deserved to be
dismissed."

Likewise, in paragraphs 26 and
27, which contains reply of paragraphs 33,
34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 of the writ petition
wherein it is averred that in a mala fide
manner it was reported that no objections
under Section 20D(1) of the 1989 Act were
filed, it is stated as follows:-

"26......the contents of paragraph
nos. 33 and 34 of the writ petition are
totally false as stated hence strongly
denied. In reply, it is submitted that from
bare perusal of so called objection filed by
the petitioners Annexure -8 to the writ
petition it is crystal clear that objection is
not at all in accordance with prescribed
proforma as per the Railway Act 1989 and
none of the objection by the petitioners in
the
office
of
competent
authority/KALA/DFCC same is filed in the
office of S.D.M., Sadar who has no any
concern with the acquiring in the land in
dispute therefore it is crystal clear from the
Annexure 8 of the writ petition that no any
objection filed by the petitioner after
notification of 20A of the Act before the
competent authority/KALA/DFCC hence
writ petition is misconceived and is liable
to be dismissed on the ground alone.

27.
That
the
contents
of
paragraphs 35, 36, 37 and 38 of the
petition are totally false as stated hence
strongly denied. In reply, it is submitted
that
competent
authority/KALA/DFCC
forwarded the report in accordance with
law after considering all facts and
circumstances and evidence on record and
after adopting due procedure and there is
no any illegality as there was no any
objection of any of the petitioners before
competent authority/KALA/DFCC which
itself is clear from the Annexure 8 of the
writ petition as same is filed in the office of
S.D.M. Sadar not at all in the office of
competent authority/KALA/DFCC Gautam
Budh
Nagar,
therefore
answering
respondent has taken action in accordance
with law after following the due procedure
9 All Jaiveer Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1057
as prescribed in the Railway Act and it is
totally wrong to say that no work on the
earlier acquired land is going on, work on
the earlier acquired land is in progress and
only for completion of the project land in
dispute along with other land is required as
consent with the land holders is not at all
settled with the acquiring body therefore
the acquisition proceeding in accordance
with law there is no illegality at all."

5. In Writ C No. 42537 of 2019, a
counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri Ram
Manohar Agarwal on behalf of Union of
India as well as the Corporation raising
similar pleas as were taken in the counteraffidavit filed in Writ C No. 2959 of 2020.
In addition to above, it was pleaded that the
petitioners had not enclosed record of
rights to disclose that they held any right
over the land proposed to be acquired. It
was pleaded that the extract of record of
rights annexed by them did not disclose
entry of their name. It was specifically
pleaded that the right to file an objection
under Section 20D of 1989 Act is limited to
the purpose of acquisition mentioned in
sub-section (1) of section 20A of the 1989
Act. It was stated that the objection raised
by the petitioners of Writ C No. 42537 of
2019 was not in respect of the purpose of
acquisition mentioned in sub-section (1) of
Section 20A but was in respect of
compensation and rehabilitation. The stand
therefore is that the objection taken by the
petitioners of Writ C No 42537 of 2019 is
not an objection contemplated by subsection (1) of Section 20D of the 1989 Act,
hence, it is no objection in the eyes of law.
In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioners of
this petition submitted that against Abadi
land name of the tenure holder is not
entered but their long standing possession
and existing structures establish their
ownership.

6. Likewise, in Writ C No. 42577 of
2019 on behalf of Union of India as well as
Corporation, counter-affidavit was filed by
Sri Ram Manohar Agarwal in which
similar case as in Writ C No.42537 of 2019
was set up. The petitioners also, in rebuttal,
took similar pleas. Thus, the stand of the
respondents in Writ C No. 42577 of 2019
and Writ C No. 42537 of 2019 is that the
alleged objections were no objection as
contemplated by sub-section (1) of Section
20D of 1989 Act; and that the petitioners
name was not recorded in revenue records.
In rejoinder, the stand of the petitioners
was that it was Abadi land where they held
possession
and
had
their
structures
therefore, mere absence of their name in
the revenue records is not sufficient to
defeat their claim.

7. In Writ C No. 43014 of 2019, the
stand of the respondents is that the land of
the petitioners is not notified for acquisition
and
therefore,
their
petition
is
misconceived.

8. Having noticed, in brief, the
pleadings of the parties in this bunch of
petitions, we, now, proceed to notice the
submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties.

9. We have heard Sri N.P. Singh for
the writ petitioners in the leading Writ C
No. 2959 of 2020 and Sri Mukesh Kumar
for the petitioners in connected Writ C Nos.
42577 of 2019, 42537 of 2019 and 43014
of 2019. In all the petitions we have heard
Sri Manish Goyal, Additional Advocate
General, assisted by Ms. Akansha Sharma,
and Sri Abhishek Kumar for the Union of
India as well as the Corporation; Sri A.K.
Goyal and the learned standing counsel for
the
competent
authority;
Sri
Anoop
Trivedi, learned senior counsel, assisted by
1058 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sri Abhinav Gaur, also appeared for the
Corporation; and Sri Alok Singh, holding
brief of Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh,
appeared for Greater Noida.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF
OF THE PETITIONERS

10. Sri N.P. Singh, who led the
arguments on behalf of the petitioners,
submitted as follows:-

(a) A notification under Section
20A of the 1989 Act could be issued
where
the
Central
Government
is
satisfied that for a public purpose any
land is required for execution of a Special
Railway Project. Section 2 (37A) of 1989
Act provides that a Special Railway
Project means a project, notified as such
by the Central Government from time to
time, for providing national infrastructure
for a public purpose in a specified time
frame, covering one or more States or the
Union Territories. Since, by notification
dated 24 August 2009, the Central
Government through the Ministry of
Railways notified its intention to acquire
land
for
execution
of
the
Freight
Corridor, a special railway project, within
the district of Gautam Budh Nagar in the
State of Uttar Pradesh, and, in pursuance
thereof, had issued notification on 30
July, 2010, under Section 20E of 1989
Act,
the
requirement
of
land
for
execution of that project stood satisfied
and, therefore, there could be no further
acquisition for that project. He submits
that
the
impugned
notification
is,
therefore, beyond the scope of the
provisions of the 1989 Act and is mala
fide.

(b) Under the earlier notification
of the year 2010, an award was passed and
physical possession of the land was taken
yet, that land was not utilised even though
it
was
agricultural
land
and,
now,
unnecessarily, a fresh notification has been
brought, at the request of GNIDA, not to
serve the purpose for which acquisition
could be made under the 1989 Act but to
benefit GNIDA. It was urged that the
acquisition therefore, is not to serve the
purpose contemplated under the 1989 Act
but to serve GNIDA, which vitiates the
notification.

(c) That even assuming that the
notification could have been issued under
the provisions of the 1989 Act, the
procedure provided by the 1989 Act for
making an acquisition under the Act was
not followed inasmuch as the objections
taken by the petitioners, under sub-section
(1) of section 20 D of the 1989 Act, to the
notification under sub-section (1) of
Section 20A were not addressed; no date
for personal hearing was fixed as is
contemplated by the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 20D of the 1989 Act;
and it was wrongly reported that no
objections were taken. The stand of the
respondents that no objection was taken is
in the teeth of the record because from the
affidavit of Tehsildar it is clear that the
objection was filed though, according to
him, it was not before the competent
authority because the competent authority
was the City Magistrate, Greater Noida and
not the S.D.M.(Sadar), Gautam Budh
Nagar which is incorrect inasmuch as in the
notification dated 11.2.2019, under Section
20A of 1989 Act, the competent authority
was specified as Up Zila Adhikari, Gautam
Budh Nagar, U.P. which is none other than
the S.D.M. (Sadar), Gautam Budh Nagar
and, otherwise also, the objection was titled
in a manner that it was addressed to both
S.D.M. (Sadar) as well as Up-Zila
Adhikari, Gautam Budh Nagar therefore,
9 All Jaiveer Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1059
by no stretch of imagination it could be
stated that there was no objection filed.
Hence, the notification under Section 20E
is liable to be quashed.

11. On behalf of the petitioners in
Writ C Nos. 42577 of 2019 and 42537 of
2019, the learned counsel representing
those petitioners, apart from adopting the
above submissions made by Sri N.P. Singh,
urged that the stand of the respondents that
the objection taken by these writ petitioners
were no objection, as contemplated by subsection (1) of Section 20D of the 1989 Act,
and were justifiably ignored, cannot be
accepted inasmuch as sub-section (2) of
section 20 D of the 1989 Act casts a duty
on the competent authority to give the
objector an opportunity of being heard.
Therefore, once objections are taken,
whether
they
relate
to
the
purpose
mentioned in sub-section (1) of section
20A of the 1989 Act, the competent
authority has to invite the objector for
personal hearing. In absence whereof, the
declaration under sub-section (1) of Section
20E of the 1989 Act gets vitiated.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners
cited a number of decisions to demonstrate that
the right to file an objection to a preliminary
notification proposing to acquire land is a
valuable right akin to a fundamental right; and
that hearing on the objections must be effective
and not a mere formality and a violation of that
right vitiates the notification of declaration. The
citation of those decisions are:-

(a)
(2005)
7
SCC
627
:
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
v. Darius Shapur Chennai and others;

(b) (2014) 6 SCC 564 : Union of
India v. Shiv Raj;

(c) (2013) 1 SCC 403 : Surinder
Brar V. Union of India

(d) (2013) 4 SCC 210 : Usha
Stud & Agricultural Farms (P) Ltd. v.
State of Haryana.

13. To contend that the merit of the
objections is to be considered by the
competent authority and not the High
Court, apex court decision in the case of
Gojer Bros. (P) Ltd. v. State of W.B.,
(2013) 16 SCC 660, was cited.

14. To contend that failure to observe
audi alteram partem rule at pre-decisional
stage would vitiate the decision, apex court
decision in Swadeshi Cotton Mills v.
Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 664, was
cited. Apex court decision in Kesar
Enterprises Ltd. v. State of U.P and
others, (2011) 13 SCC 733, was cited to
contend that the underlying purpose of the
principles of natural justice is to check
arbitrary exercise of power by State and its
functionaries. Decisions of Apex Court in
State of West Bengal v. Debasish
Mukherjee and others, (2011) 14 SCC
187, and B.P. Singhal v. Union of India,
(2010) 6 SCC 331, were cited to contend
that in a democratic country, governed by
rule of law, no authority has absolute
discretion and even prerogative power is
subject to judicial review; and that even the
doctrine of pleasure cannot be a licence to
act arbitrarily, whimsically, or capriciously
with unfettered discretion/unaccountable
action. Thus, where reasons given for
exercise of such power are irrelevant or
where the exercise of power is vitiated by
self-denial on wrong appreciation of the
full amplitude of the power or where the
decision is arbitrary, discriminatory or mala
fide, judicial review would be warranted.
1060 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. Reliance on the judgment of the
apex court in K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v.
State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1, was
placed to urge that rule of law is one of the
most important aspects of the doctrine of
basic structure and any interference with
the peaceful enjoyment of possession
should be lawful - public purpose is a
condition precedent for applicability of
Article 300-A of the Constitution and its
violation is amenable to judicial review -
whether the purpose is primarily public or
private, has to be decided by the legislature
on the basis of object of the Statute and
policy of legislation. The decision of apex
court in the case of Manohar Joshi v.
State of Maharastra, (2012) 3 SCC 619
was cited to contend that town planning is
to be done after elaborate planning keeping
in mind the difficulties of public and that
there should not be arbitrary shifting of
plans - once a plan is formulated, the same
has to be implemented as it is only in the
rarest of rare case that a departure from it
could be had. Decision in the case of
Kalinga Mining Corporation v. Union of
India, (2013) 5 SCC 252, was cited to
contend that though the scope of judicial
review with regard to the actual decision
taken is limited but where the decision
making process is vitiated, the power of
judicial
review
could
be
exercised.
Decision in the case of Kalpana Mehta v.
Union of India and others, (2018) 7 SCC
1, was cited to urge that the constitutional
courts
cannot
sit
in
oblivion
when
fundamental rights of individuals are in
jeopardy - the Constitution is about
empowerment and that indian society must
move "from the culture of authority and
submission
to
the
law,
to
one
of
justification and rights under the law.
Decision of Gujarat High Court reported in
(2013) SCC Online Guj 6083 in the case
of Railway Corridor Virodh Kishan
Sangh V. Union of India was cited to urge
that where the declaration under Section
20E of the 1989 Act is made without
consideration of objections under section
20D not only the declaration is to be
quashed
but
also
the
preliminary
notification under section 20-A (1) if the
statutory period prescribed by sub section
(3) of Section 20E of the 1989 Act from the
date of notification under section 20A (1)
has expired.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF
OF THE RESPONDENTS

16. On behalf of respondents, Sri
Manish Goyal, who led the arguments, as
well as other counsels including Sri Anoop
Trivedi, appearing for the respondents,
submitted as follows:-

(a) The Special Railway Project
as contemplated by section 2 (37A) of the
1989 Act was notified on 19.02.2008 by the
Central Government as follows:-

"NOTIFICATION

New
Delhi,
the
19th
February, 2008

S.O. 360(E)---- In exercise of the
powers conferred by clause (37A) of
Section 2 of the Railways Act, 1989, the
Central Government hereby notifies the
following projects as special railway
project, as mentioned in column (2) of the
table below in the State mentioned in
column (3) of the said table, with effect
from the date of publication of this
notification in the Official Gazette.

TABLE

Special Railway Project
9 All Jaiveer Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1061
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]

MATHEWJOHN, 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.

(b) It was contended that the plea
that the competent authority was City
Magistrate and, therefore, filing of the
objections before some other authority can
not be taken as filing of an objection, is not
to be understood as an admission that
objections to the notification under section
20-A (1) were filed. Because, in the first
part of the counter-affidavit filed in Writ C
No.2959 of 2020, it was clearly stated that
no objection was filed within the time
specified. Thus, the above plea should be
understood as plea in the alternative and
not as an admission regarding filing of the
objection. It was urged that even if the
objections, annexed by the petitioners in
Writ C No. 2959 of 2020, are taken to have
been filed, they do not specifically claim
that the purpose of the acquisition is not
what is contemplated by sub-section (1) of
Section 20A of the 1989 Act. Rather, they
only
question
the
need
for
further
acquisition. It was urged that in so far as
the objection of Jaiveer Singh is concerned
that does not even mention the notification
to which objection has been taken and
therefore the same cannot be treated as an
objection to the notification. In the
alternative, it was urged that the scope of
the objection under Section 20D is limited
to raising an objection with regard to the
purpose mentioned in sub-section (1) of
Section
20A
whereas,
none
of
the
objections purports to question that, hence,
the objection is no objection in the eyes of
law. Lastly, it was contended that 95% of
the project is complete, the petitioners have
1062 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
participated in making of the award and
have demanded compensation at the market
value therefore, at this stage, there would
be no justification to interfere with the
acquisition notification when the land
holders can be appropriately compensated
with money. With regard to writ petition
No. 42537 of 2019 and 42577 of 2019 it
was submitted that in those petitions,
firstly, the objectors are not recorded in the
record
of
rights
and,
secondly,
the
objection taken by them is not that the
acquisition did not subserve the purpose
contemplated under sub-section (1) of
Section 20A of the 1989 Act.

17. The learned counsel for the
respondents
placed
reliance
on
the
following authorities:-

(a) (2010) 10 SCC 282 : Nand
Kishore Gupta v. State of U.P. and
others

This authority was cited to
contend that where a large project is
undertaken and the majority of the farmers
receive compensation and only a handful of
them raise objection, the court can take into
account that aspect for not interfering with
the acquisition, particularly, when the
project is of immense public importance
like an express way and its alignment
cannot be changed.

(b) (2019) 7 SCC 342 : State of
Tamil Nadu vs. Vasanthi Veerasekaran

This authority was cited to
contend that where the acquisition is for a
project of MRTS (Railways) on behalf of
Ministry of Railway, Government of India
and, under the law of acquisition, there is
no provision for rehabilitation or for
providing alternative sites to the landlosers,
a direction by the High Court in providing
alternative land would not be appropriate
and compensation alone could be awarded.

(c)
(2019)
15
SCC
1
:
Nareshbhai Bhagubhai and others v.
Union of India

Reliance on this judgment was
placed to contend that under Section 20D
of the 1989 Act, the scope of the objection
is limited to the purpose for which
acquisition is made and it is not a general
right to file objections as is under Section
5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
short the 1894 Act). This judgment was
also relied upon to urge that even where
notification under Section 20E gets vitiated
in absence of an order passed on the
objection under Section 20D of the 1989
Act, if the court finds that the Special
Railway Project is on the verge of
completion and only a minuscule part
remains, in respect of which objections
have been taken by the land-owners, the
Court need not set aside the notification but
may direct payment of compensation at the
current market rate.

(d) (2015) 7 SCC 21 : Savitri
Devi vs. State of U.P.

Paragraph 46 of this judgment
was relied upon to contend that where
developments have taken place and third
party rights have been created even if the
court finds acquisition to have vitiated, a
workable solution could be arrived at by
the Court by adequately compensating the
landowners in the form of compensation
etc.

(e) (2021) 3 SCC 572 : Project
Director, Project Implementation Unit v.
P.V. Krishnamoorthy
9 All Jaiveer Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1063

This was cited to contend that in
matters relating to national highways and
economic corridor, the decision taken by
experts with regard to the route is not
amenable to judicial review.