'Private Interest Subservient To Larger Public Interest Even If There Are Some Discrepancies': Allahabad HC In Land Acquisition Matter

The Allahabad High Court has recently held in a case challenging land acquisition proceedings that private interest has to give way to the larger public interest.

Upholding the proceedings for construction of a railway over-bridge, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Piyush Agarwal observed,

"Private interest has to give way to the larger public interest. Even if there are some small discrepancies in the process of acquisition, in our opinion in the facts of the present case, the acquisition does not deserve to be set aside as otherwise the project will be delayed which will cause loss to the State besides suffering to the residents of the area, who may be deprived of using the railway over-bridge on account of delayed completion of the project. In any case, the petitioner will be duly compensated for the land owned by her."

Background

The petition sought to quash two notifications under Section 11 and Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Filed through Advocate Udayan Nandan, the petition argued that the land in question is for agricultural purposes, intending to construct a house for residential purposes. However, under a notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act, the land was sought to be acquired for the construction of a railway over-bridge. The petitioner filed an objection to the said acquisition. However, without affording an opportunity of hearing and in violation of Section 19(2) of the 2013 Act, another notification was issued stating that the landowner need not be rehabilitated. It was argued that the right of hearing under pari materia provision of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been held to be a fundamental right.

It is their case that several families will be displaced, and thus a rehabilitation scheme is a must. Moreover, without the notification of the scheme's rehabilitation, the land's acquisition cannot be issued.

Moreover, it is argued that the Collector is not the final authority to dispose of the objection. As per the statute, his role is limited to sending his report to the appropriate Government, which shall then decide. In the present case, the Collector himself has taken the final decision, with no application of the mind by the appropriate Government.

On the other hand, the Additional Chief Standing Counsel Suresh Singh argued that minimum possible land was acquired to construct railway over-bridge, which is required to take care of the traffic problem on the spot, facilitating larger public interest. It was further argued that developmental attitudes are usually not objected against when appropriately compensated. On the question of non-application of mind by the appropriate Government, it was argued that the petitioner's concerns were taken into consideration, and the entire record was sent to the Government, which then issued the subsequent notification.

On the question of rehabilitation, it was argued that on the date of acquisition, no house existed on the land, although intended to be used for residential purposes. The petitioner and her family already have a residence, and thus no claim for rehabilitation arises.

The State argued against quashing the acquisition proceeding as the same has not been opposed by 90% of the landowners, and it is being executed in the large public interest. It informed the Court that 45% of the project had been executed. Any interference at this stage will hold off the entire project; the amount spent will waste, causing unnecessary delay.

Findings

The High Court relied on the opinion of the Supreme Court in Ramniklal N. Bhutta and another v. State of Maharashtra and Ors and other cases to reiterate that, 

"..projects of public importance should not be halted as the same would be against the larger public interest and the constitutional courts should weigh public interest vis-à-vis private interest, while exercising its discretion."

While dismissing the petition, the Court considered that 45% of the project work had been completed and that there is no house constructed on the petitioner's land till now. It observed,

"Once a project of public importance, which is good in the larger public interest, is being executed and has been completed about 45%, setting aside of acquisition in a petition filed by one of the landowners owning a small portion of the land, will not be in the larger public interest.

Suresh Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appeared for respondents no. 1, 3 and 5, and Mr. Pranjal Mehrotra, Advocate appeared for respondents no. 2 and 4

Case Title: Smt. Prabha Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 4

Click Here To Download The Order

Read Order