Patna High Court
Sunil Kumar Amar vs The State Of Bihar on 21 December, 2023
Author: Anil Kumar Sinha
Bench: Anil Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4562 of 2022
======================================================
1. Lalita Devi, Wife of Madhusudan Rai, Resident of Chota Nuan, P.S.-
Pandeypatti (Muffasil), District- Buxar.
2. Ram Sajjan Kumar, Son of Late Sampat Sah, Resident of Savlak Sarai, P.S.-
Kurtha, District- Arwal.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar at
Patna.
2. Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna through
the Principal Secretary, District- Patna.
3. Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
4. Commissioner, Patna Division, District- Patna.
5. District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Patna.
6. District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, District- Patna.
7. Circle Officer, Sadar, District- Patna.
8. Patna Municipal Corporation through the Commissioner, District- Patna.
9. Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, District- Patna.
10. Chief Managing Director, Patna Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Indira Bhawan
7th Floor, Bailey Road, Patna- 800001.
11. Director (Work) Project Patna Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Indira Bhawan,
7th Floor, Bailey Road, Patna- 800001.
12. Ministry of Jal Shakti, Department of Water Resources, River Development
and Ganga Rejuvenation, through the Project Director, Bihar at Patna.
13. National Mission for Clean Ganga, Ministry of Jal Shakti, Department of
Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation through
Project Director, Vikash Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar- 800001.
14. Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Patna, Bihar through its Principal
Secretary, Bihar at Patna.
15. Principal Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Bihar at Patna.
16. Archaeological Survey of India through Regional Director, Patna Circle,
Puratattwa Bhawan, J.C. Road, Anta Ghat, Patna- 800001.
17. Regional Director, Patna Circle, Archaelogical Survey of India, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7579 of 2022
======================================================
1. Ranjeet Kumar, son of Kedar Prasad, Resident of Nerut, P.S.- Saare,
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
2/125
District- Nalanda.
2. Anita Devi, wife of Mahadev Sao, Resident of H.B.G 708, Rajendra Nagar,
Kankarbagh, near Rajendra Nagar Bridge, District- Patna.
3. Kanti Devi, wife of Ram Chandra Saw, Resident of Village Nawada, P.O.-
Tilkai, P.S.- Makhdumpur Tilkai, District- Jehanabad.
4. Archana Kumari, wife of Anant Kumar, Resident of behind archeology,
975/B/2, Chankay Nagar Kumhrar, P.S.- Kumhrar District- Patna.
5. Sangita Kumari Sinha, wife of Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Resident of Karara,
Ghoswari, P.S.- Karara, District- Patna.
6. Urmila Devi, daughter of Karu Mahto, Resident of Village Meyar, P.O.-
Kaidi Meyar, Jamnapur, Sohsarai, P.S.- Noorsarai, District- Nalanda.
7. Anupriya Roy, wife of Pravin Kumar Prabhakar, Resident of SRT- 25
Rajendra Nagar P.S.- Bazar Samiti, District- Patna.
8. Preeti Kumari, wife of Yashlok Kumar, Resident of Village and P.O.-
Chaturbhuj, Piprahai, P.S.- Laukaha, District- Madhubani.
9. Rubi Kumari, wife of Raj Verma, Resident of Village- Lalbigha,
Warisaliganj, P.S.- Sahpur, District- Nawada.
10. Umesh Prasad, son of Vasudeo Mahto, Resident of RZ-A- 117, Jeewan Park,
Pankha Road, DK Mohan Garden, West Delhi, Delhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, at
Patna
2. Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna through
the Principal Secretary, District- Patna.
3. Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
4. Commissioner, Patna Division, District- Patna.
5. District Magistrate-cum- Collector, Patna.
6. District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, District- Patna.
7. Circle Officer, Sadar, District- Patna.
8. Patna Municipal Corporation through the Commissioner, District- Patna.
9. Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, District- Patna.
10. Chief Managing Director, Patna Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, Indira Bhawan,
7th Floor, Bailey Road, Patna- 800001.
11. Director (Work) Project Patna Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, Indira Bhawan,
7th Floor, Bailey Road, Patna- 800001.
12. Ministry of Jal Shakti, Department of Water Resources, River Development
and Ganga Rejuvenation, through the Project Director, Bihar, at Patna
13. National Mission for Clean Ganga, Ministry of Jal Shakti, Department of
Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, through
Project Director, Vikash Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar- 800001.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
3/125
14. Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Patna, Bihar through its Principal
Secretary, Bihar at Patna.
15. Principal Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Bihar at Patna.
16. Archaeological Survey of India through Regional Director, Patna Circle,
Puratattwa Bhawan, J.C. Road, Anta Ghat, Patna- 800001.
17. Regional Director, Patna Circle, Archaeological Survey of India, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7641 of 2022
======================================================
1. Usha Devi, Wife of Motilal Sahani, Resident of Village- Jitwarpur, P.O.-
Indar Wara, P.S.- Tajpur, District- Samastipur.
2. Deepak Kumar, Son of Jaichand Lal, Resident of Village- Govindpur, P.O.
and P.S.- Govindpur, District- Nawada.
3. Sarita Prasad, Wife of Pawan Prakash, Resident of Village- Sakri Gali,
Sampat Chak, P.S.- Aalamganj, District- Patna.
4. Raj Kumar, Son of Madan Mohan Shaw, Current Resident of Qtr. No.-
100/2, Air Force Station, Dadri, P.S.- Gautam Bugh Nagar, District- Uttar
Pradesh.
5. Shyam Deo Prasad, Son of Seryug Prasad, Resident of Village- Tetarhaat,
P.S.- Tetarhaat, District- Lakhisarai.
6. Vidya Sagar, Son of Jagdish Prasad, Resident of Village- Aijhi, P.O. and
P.S.- Sheikhpura, District- Sheikhpura.
7. Rameshwar Prasad, Son of Late Nanhu Saw, Resident of Village- Sampat
Chak, P.S.- Gopalpur, District- Patna.
8. Ravi Kumar, son of Manoj Kumar Resident of 41 Jai Prakash Nagar, Vidhan
Parishad Colony, Sampatchak, P.S.- Agamkuan, District- Patna.
9. Pravila Kumari, Wife of Ayodhya Prasad Azad, Resident of Village- Saiyad
Salem B. Factory, Rusulpur, P.O.- Bhikhanpur, P.S.- Rasulpur, District-
Muzaffarpur.
10. Nirupa Kumari, Wife of Anil Singh, Resident of Balipur, P.O.- Bhagwanpur,
P.S.- Hulsaganj, District- Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, at
Patna.
2. Urban Development and Housing Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna through
the Principal Secretary, District- Patna.
3. Principal Secretary Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
4. Commissioner Patna Division, District- Patna.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
4/125
5. District Magistrate-cum- Collector Patna.
6. District Land Acquisition Officer Patna, District- Patna.
7. Circle Officer Sadar, District- Patna.
8. Patna Municipal Corporation through the Commissioner District- Patna.
9. Commissioner Patna Municipal Corporation, District- Patna.
10. Chief Managing Director Patna Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Indira Bhawan
7th Floor, Bailey Road, Patna- 800001.
11. Director (Work) Project Patna Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Indira Bhawan
7th Floor, Bailey Road, Patna- 800001.
12. Ministry of Jal Shakti Department of Water Resources, River Development
and Ganga Rejuvenation, through the Project Director, Bihar, at Patna.
13. National Mission for Clean Ganga Ministry of Jal Shakti, Department of
Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, through the
Project Director, Vikash Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar - 800001.
14. Bihar State Pollution Control Board Patna, Bihar through its Principal
Secretary, Bihar at Patna.
15. Principal Secretary Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Bihar at Patna.
16. Archaeological Survey of India through Regional Director Patna Circle,
Puratattwa Bhawan, J.C. Road, Anta Ghat, Patna- 800001.
17. Regional Director Patna Circle, Archaeological Survey of India, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7650 of 2022
======================================================
1. Rajnish Kumar, S/o Sri Baleshwar Prasad, resident of Mohalla-Ward No. 56
of Patna Municipal, P.S.-Agamkuan, Distt.-Patna.
2. Ranjana Sinha, W/o Sri Arun Prasad,
3. Mahendra Prasad, S/o Late Chamaru Prasad,
4. Manoj Kumar, S/o Sri Dinanath Prasad,
5. Archna Kumari, W/o Naveneet Kumar,
6. Gajendra Kumar Singh, S/o Late Bhuneshwar Singh,
7. Munni Devi, W/o Sri Anuj Kumar,
8. Lalita Kumari, W/o Sri Rakesh Kumar,
9. Shakeela Devi, W/o Sri Krishnadev Rai,
10. Sunita Devi, W/o Sri Shivji Sao,
11. Sarita Kumari, W/o Sri Ramesh Kumar,
12. Saroj Devi, W/o Sri Upendra Prasad,
13. Rekha Kumari, W/o Sri Abhimanyu Kr. Roy,
14. Sarla Sinha, W/o Sri Mukesh Singh,
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
5/125
15. Anil Kumar, S/o Sri Parmanand,
16. Manjula Kumari, W/o Sri Jagat Kishore Kumar,
17. Usha Mishra, W/o Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra,
18. Ramawati Devi, W/o Sri Subash Kumar Roy,
19. Shankar Mandal, s/o Sri Sukhdeo Mandal,
20. Ravi Shankar Sharma, s/o Late Yamuna Singh,
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Deptt of Revenue and Land Reform, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Deptt of Urban and Housing, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director, Directorate of Land Acquisition, Deptt of Revenue, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
5. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Patna.
6. The Additional Collector, Patna.
7. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna.
8. The Circle Officer, Circle Patna, Patna.
9. The Managing Director, Patna Metro Rail Corporation Limited, its Head
Office at Indira Bhawan, West Boring Canal Road, Srikrishnapuri, Patna,
Bihar-800001.
10. The Director, Patna Metro Rail Corporation Limited, its Head Office at
Indira Bhawan, West Boring Canal Road, Srikrishnapuri, Patna, Bihar-
800001.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7726 of 2022
======================================================
1. Meena Devi, wife of Kanhaiya Lal, resident of Quamruddinganj, District-
Nalanda. (803101)
2. Mamta Kumari, wife of Raj Kumar, resident of near Post Office, Tajnipur,
Barh, District Nalanda (803213)
3. Saurabh Sharan, son of Siyamohani Sharan, Daniyawan, Pandapur, District
Nalanda (801301)
4. Sunita Kumari, wife of Mithlesh Kumar, resident of A/493, A.G. Colony,
Phulwari, District- Patna (800025).
5. Renu Kumari, wife of Kamlesh Kumar, resident of Village- Mohanchak,
P.S.- Bikram, Akhtiyarpur, District- Patna
6. Kamlesh Kumar, son of Kameshwar Prasad, resident of Village-
Mohanchak, P.S.- Bikram, Akhtiyarpur, District- Patna
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
6/125
7. Namrata Kumari, wife of Raj Kumar, resident of Village- Mehmadpur, P.O.-
Ramghat, P.S.- Nagarnausa, District- Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, at
Patna
2. Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna through
the Principal Secretary, District- Patna.
3. Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
4. Commissioner, Patna Division, District- Patna.
5. District Magistrate-cum- Collector, Patna.
6. District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, District- Patna.
7. Circle Officer, Sadar, District- Patna.
8. Patna Municipal Corporation through the Commissioner, District- Patna.
9. Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, District- Patna.
10. Chief Managing Director, Patna Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, Indira Bhawan,
7th Floor, Bailey Road, Patna- 800001.
11. Director (Work) Project Patna Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, Indira Bhawan,
7th Floor, Bailey Road, Patna- 800001.
12. Ministry of Jal Shakti, Department of Water Resources, River Development
and Ganga Rejuvenation, through the Project Director, Bihar, at Patna
13. National Mission for Clean Ganga, Ministry of Jal Shakti, Department of
Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, through the
Project Director, Vikash Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar- 800001.
14. Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Patna, Bihar through its Principal
Secretary, Bihar at Patna.
15. Principal Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Bihar at Patna.
16. Archaeological Survey of India through Regional Director, Patna Circle,
Puratattwa Bhawan, J.C. Road, Anta Ghat, Patna- 800001.
17. Regional Director, Patna Circle, Archaeological Survey of India, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8427 of 2022
======================================================
1. Raj Laxmi Bhushan, Wife of Shashi Bhushan Prasad, resident of Bhagwat
Nagar, Patel Seva Nagar, Road No.-4 Kumhrar, B.H. Colony, Patna
(800026).
2. Ruby Kumari, Wife of Arbind Kumar, resident of Patel Seva Nagar, Near
N.R.L. Petrol Pump, Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Bhagwat Nagar,
Kumhrar, Sampatchak, District Patna (800026).
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
7/125
3. Suchita Kumari, wife of Manish Kumar, Resident of Village-Road No. 5,
East Indira Nagar, P.O.-Lohiyanagar, P.S.-Kankarbagh, District-Patna.
4. Shakuntala Kumari, Wife of Arjun Prasad, Resident of House NO. -74,
Village-Teka Bigha, P.O.-Amuraura, P.S.-Chandi, District-Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, at
Patna.
2. Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna through
the Principal Secretary, District-Patna.
3. Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
4. Commissioner, Patna Division, District-Patna.
5. District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Patna.
6. District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, District-Patna.
7. Circle Offier, Sadar, District-Patna.
8. Patna Municipal Corporation through the Commissioner, District-Patna.
9. Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, District-Patna.
10. Chief Managing Director, Patna Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Indira Bhawan
7th Floor, Bailey Road, Patna-800001.
11. Director (Work) Project Patna Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Indira Bhawan
7th Floor, Bailey Road, Patna-800001.
12. Ministry of Jal Shakti, Department of Water Resources, River Development
and Ganga Rejuvenation, through the Project Director, Bihar at Patna.
13. National Mission for Clean Ganga, Ministry of Jal Shakti, Department of
Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, through
Project Director, Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar-800001.
14. Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Patna, Bihar through its Principal
Secretary, Bihar at Patna.
15. Principal Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Bihar at Patna.
16. Archaeological Survey of India through Regional Director, Patna Circle,
Puratattwa Bhawan, J.C. Road, Anta Ghat, Patna-800001.
17. Regional Director, Patna Circle, Archaeological Survey of India, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8577 of 2022
======================================================
1. Sunil Kumar Amar, Son of Suresh Prasad, Resident of Mina Bazar, Shahu
Colony, Gulzarbagh, P.S.-Alamganj, District-Patna.
2. Sujata Gupta, Wife of Sunil Kumar Amar, Resident of Mina Bazar, Shahu
Colony, Gulzarbagh, P.S.-Alamganj, District-Patna.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
8/125
3. Rinku Devi, Daughter of Ashok Kumar, Resident of B 502, Bali Road, P.S.-
Phulwari, District-Patna.
4. Ranjan Sinha, Wife of Surendra Sekhar, Resident of Village Maula Nagar,
Sahora P.O.-Maulanagar, P.S.-Atari, District-Gaya.
5. Sonmari Devi, Wife of Jamuna Prasad, Resident of Village-Asarhi, P.O.-
Asarhi, P.S.-Hilsa, District-Nalanda.
6. Rani Devi, Wife of Ashutosh Kumar, Resident of Ward No.-12 Pipal Tola,
Katauna, P.S. -Giriak, District-Nalanda.
7. Chinta Devi, Wife of Shyamnandan Prasad, Resident of Ward No.-16,
Bansbigha, P.O.-Bansbigha, P.S.-Chhati, District-Patna.
8. Mahendra Bhushan, Son of Sunil Bhushan, Resident of Indian Machinery
Campur, Naya Tola Kumhara, P.O.-Bahadurpur Housing Colony, P.S.-
Agamkuan, District-Patna.
9. Sonu Sharma, Son of Raghunath Sharma, Resident of Lodi Katraharna Tola,
P.S.-Nagla, Patna City, District-Patna.
10. Munni Devi, Wife of Upendra Thakur, Resident of Village-Ajhi Mehus
Road, Bypass, P.O.-Mubarakpur, P.S.-Korma, District-Sheikhpura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, at
Patna.
2. Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna through
the Principal Secretary, District-Patna.
3. Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
4. Commissioner, Patna Division, District-Patna.
5. District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Patna.
6. District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, District-Patna.
7. Circle Officer, Sadar, District-Patna.
8. Patna Municipal Corporation through the Commissioner, District-Patna.
9. Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, District-Patna.
10. Chief Managing Director, Patna Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, Indira Bhawan
7th Floor, Bailey Road, Patna-800001.
11. Director (Works) Project Patna Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, Indira Bhawan
7th Floor, Bailey Road, Patna-800001.
12. Ministry of Jal Shakti, Department of Water Resources, River Development
and Ganga Rejuvenation, through the Project Director, Bihar, at Patna.
13. National Mission for Clean Ganga, Ministry of Jal Shakti, Department of
Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, through the
Project Director, Vikash Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar-800001.
14. Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Patna, Bihar through its Principal
Secretary, Bihar at Patna.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
9/125
15. Principal Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Bihar at Patna.
16. Archaeological Survey of India through Regional Director, Patna Circle,
Puratattwa Bhawan, J.C. Road, Anta Ghat, Patna-800001.
17. Regional Director, Patna Circle, Archaeological Survey of India, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4562 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sumeet Kumar Singh
: Mr. Kumar Avinash
: Ms. Alka Singh
: Mr. Nikhil Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr.P.K. Shahi, A.G.
: Mr. Kinkar Kumar, SC 9
: Mr. Yogesh Kumar, AC to SC 9
: Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, SC 19
For PMRCL : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Manish Dhari Singh, Advocate
For U.O.I. : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Advocate
: Ms. Nirmala Singh
: Mr. Girish Nandan Abhishek
: Mr. Vibhuti Kumar
For P.M.C. : Mr. Prasoon Sinha
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7579 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sumeet Kumar Singh
Mr.Nikhil Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Yogendra Prasad Sinha ( Aag 7 )
For PMRCL : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Manish Dhari Singh, Advocate
For U.O.I. : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7641 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sumeet Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr.P.K. Shahi, A.G.
: Mr. Kinkar Kumar, SC 9
: Mr. Yogesh Kumar, AC to SC 9
For PMRCL : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Manish Dhari Singh, Advocate
For U.O.I. : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7650 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, Sr. Adv.
Mr.Anirudh Kumar Verma
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Manoj Kr. Sinha, AC to SC 19
For PMRCL : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Manish Dhari Singh, Advocate
For U.O.I. : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7726 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sumeet Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr.P.K. Shahi, A.G.
: Mr. Kinkar Kumar, SC 9
: Mr. Yogesh Kumar, AC to SC 9
For PMRCL : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Manish Dhari Singh, Advocate
For U.O.I. : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8427 of 2022)
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
10/125
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sumeet Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Yogendra Prasad Sinha ( AAG 7 )
For PMRCL : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Manish Dhari Singh, Advocate
For U.O.I. : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8577 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sumeet Kumar Singh
Mr.Nikhil Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Yogendra Pd. Sinha (AAG 7)
For PMRCL : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Manish Dhari Singh, Advocate
For U.O.I. : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
C.A.V.
Date : 21-12-2023
The petitioners, in this batch of writ applications, are
land as well as the house owners, whose properties have been
acquired for the construction of Patna Metro Rail Depot, having a
total area of 75.96 acres of land, in two mauza, i.e. Pahari and
Ranipur.
PRAYER OF THE WRIT PETITIONERS
2. The relevant prayers and facts are being taken from
CWJC No. 4562 of 2022 for the sake of brevity.
3. The petitioners have approached this Court for
quashing of the land acquisition notice (Annexure P/26), issued
under Section 11 (1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein after referred to as the '2013 Act')
with regard to 15.95 acres of land, situated in mauza Pahari and
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
11/125
23.35 acres of land, situated in mauza Ranipur, having a total area
of 75.96 acres.
4. Further prayer of the petitioners is for setting aside the
Social Impact Assessment Report (Annexure P/16), prepared by
the Development Management Institute, Patna.
5. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of the
formation of Technical Expert Committee, constituted under
Section 7 of the 2013 Act (Annexure P/17) as well as quashing of
the report of the Technical Expert Committee, dated 30.06.2021, as
contained in Annexure P/18.
6. By way of I. A. No. 01 of 2022, the petitioners have
prayed for quashing the order dated 02.02.2022 passed by the
District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, by which objections filed
by the petitioners have been rejected (Annexure P/30), for
quashing the paper publication, under Section 19 of the 2013 Act,
as contained in Annexure P/31).
7. By way of I. A. No. 06 of 2023, the petitioners have
prayed for quashing the award, dated 04.08.2023, prepared in L. A.
Case No. 29/2021-2022, under Sections 23 and 30 of the 2013 Act,
as contained in Annexure P/52.
DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND/HOUSE OF THE WRIT
PETITIONERS
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
12/125
8. The details of the lands/houses belonging to the
individual writ petitioners under acquisition are stated herein
below:
(i) The land of petitioner no. 1, Lalita Devi, of CWJC
No. 4562 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Alamganj, bearing Touzi No. 228, Thana No. 14, Khata No. 309,
Plot No. 1225, having an area of 02 kathas.
(ii) The land and house of petitioner no. 2, Ram Sajjan
Kumar, of CWJC No. 4562 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari,
Police Station Alamganj, bearing Touzi No. 22/15870, Thana No.
14, Khata No. 454, Plot No. 1656, having an area of 10 dhurs
(1.5625 decimals).
(iii) The land of petitioner No. 1, Ranjeet Kumar, of
CWJC No. 7579 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Alamganj, bearing Touzi No. 228, Thana No. 14, Khata No. 337,
Plot No. 1649, having an area of 2400 sq. feet.
(iv) The land of petitioner No.2, Anita devi, of CWJC
No. 7579 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Alamganj, bearing Touzi No. 229/15870, Thana No. 14, Khata No.
454, Plot No. 1656, having an area of 1.3133 decimals.
(v) The land of petitioner No. 3, Kanti Devi, of CWJC
No. 7579 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
13/125
Alamganj, bearing Touzi No. 229/15870, Thana No. 14, Khata No.
454, Plot No. 1656, having an area of 2.3437 decimals.
(vi) The land of petitioner No. 4, Archana Kumari, of
CWJC No. 7579 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Alamganj, bearing Touzi No. 227/1, Thana No. 14, Khata No. 126,
Plot No. 1307, having an area of 1.3125 decimals.
(vii) The land of petitioner No. 5, Sangita Kumari, of
CWJC No. 7579 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Alamganj, bearing Touzi No. 227/1, Thana No. 14, Khata No. 126,
Plot No. 1304, having an area of 3.125 decimals.
(viii) The land of petitioner No. 6, Urmila Devi, of
CWJC No. 7579 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Alamganj, bearing Khata No. 278, Plot No. 1671, having an area
of 3.501 decimals.
(ix) The land of petitioner No. 7, Anupriya Roy, of
CWJC No. 7579 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Alamganj, bearing Khata No. 454, Plot No. 1656, having an area
of 1620 sq. feet.
(x) The land of petitioner No. 8, Preeti Kumari, of
CWJC No. 7579 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Alamganj, bearing Touzi No. 229/15870, Thana No. 14, Khata No.
454, Plot No. 1656, having an area of 15 dhurs.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
14/125
(xi) The land of petitioner No. 9, Rubi Kumari, of
CWJC No. 7579 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Alamganj, bearing Touzi No. 229/15870, Thana No. 14, Khata No.
454, Plot No. 1656, having an area of 15 dhurs.
(xii) The land of petitioner No. 10, Umesh Prasad, of
CWJC No. 7579 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Alamganj, bearing Khata No. 278, Plot No. 1671, having an area
of 3000 sq. feet.
(xiii) The land of petitioner No. 1, Usha Devi, of CWJC
No. 7641 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Alamganj, bearing Touzi No. 228, Khata No. 309, Plot No. 1225,
having an area of 1500 sq. feet.
(xiv) The land and house of petitioner No. 2, Deepak
Kumar, of CWJC No. 7641 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari,
Police Station Alamganj, bearing Touzi No. 228, Khata No. 309,
Plot No. 1225, having an area of 1200 sq. feet.
(xv) The land of petitioner No. 3, Sarita Prasad, of
CWJC No. 7641 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Alamganj, bearing Touzi No. 228, Khata No. 309, Plot No. 1225,
having an area of 1200 sq. feet.
(xvi) The land of petitioner No. 4, Raj Kumar, of CWJC
No. 7641 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
15/125
Alamganj, bearing Touzi No. 228, Khata No. 309, Plot No. 1225,
having an area of 1200 sq. feet.
(xvii) The land of petitioner No. 5, Shyam Deo Prasad,
of CWJC No. 7641 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police
Station Alamganj, bearing Touzi No. 228, Khata No. 309, Plot No.
1225, having an area of 1200 sq. feet.
(xviii) The land of petitioner No. 6, Usha Devi, ofVidya
Sagar, CWJC No. 7641 of 2022, situated at mauza Ranipur, Police
Station Bypass, bearing Touzi No. 15/3, Khata Nos. 437 and 485,
Plot Nos. 4622 and 4623, having an area of 2400 sq. feet.
(xix) The land of petitioner No. 7, Rameshsar Prasad, of
CWJC No. 7641 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Alamganj, bearing Touzi No. 229, Khata No. 359, Plot No. 1655,
having an area of 2268.61 sq. feet.
(xx) The land of petitioner No. 8, Ravi Kumar, of
CWJC No. 7641 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Alamganj, bearing Touzi No. 15870, Khata No. 347, Plot No.
1639, having an area of 2.583 decimals.
(xxi) The land of petitioner No. 9, Pravila Kumari, of
CWJC No. 7641 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Alamganj, bearing Touzi No. 229/15870, Khata No. 444, Plot No.
1644, having an area of 1375 sq. feet.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
16/125
(xxii) The land of petitioner No. 10, Nirupa Kumari, of
CWJC No. 7641 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Alamganj, bearing Touzi No. 229/15870, Khata No. 444, Plot No.
1644, having an area of 1375 sq. feet.
(xxiii) The land of petitioner No. 1, Meena Devi, of
CWJC No. 7726 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Agamkuan, bearing Khata No. 298, Plot No. 1652, having an area
of 1200 sq. feet.
(xxiv) The land of petitioner No. 2, Mamta Kumari, of
CWJC No. 7726 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Agamkuan, bearing Khata No. 70, Plot No. 1309, having an area
of 1100 sq. feet.
(xxv) The land of petitioner No. 3, Saurabh Sharan, of
CWJC No. 7726 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Agamkuan, bearing Khata No. 78, Plot No. 1307, having an area
of 3850 sq. feet.
(xxvi) The land of petitioner No. 4, Sunita Kumari, of
CWJC No. 7726 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Agamkuan, bearing Khata Nos. 38, 377 and 400, Plot Nos. 1805,
1681 and 1683, having an area of 2400 sq. feet.
(xxvii) The land of petitioner Nos. 5 and 6, namely,
Renu Kumari and Kamlesh Kumar, of CWJC No. 7726 of 2022,
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
17/125
situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station Agamkuan, bearing Khata
No. 201, Plot No. 1303, having an area of 1200 sq. feet.
(xxviii) The land of petitioner No. 7, Namrata Kumari,
of CWJC No. 7726 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police
Station Agamkuan, bearing Khata Nos. 278 and 442, Plot Nos.
1671 and 1673, having an area of 35.9968 decimals.
(xxix) The land of petitioner No. 1, Raj Laxmi
Bhushan, of CWJC No. 8427 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari,
Police Station Agamkuan, bearing Khata Nos. 38, 377 and 400
Plot Nos. 1805, 1681 and 1683, having an area of 2400 sq. feet.
(xxx) The land of petitioner No. 2, Ruby Kumari, of
CWJC No. 8427 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Agamkuan, bearing Khata Nos. 38, 377 and 400, Plot Nos. 1805,
1681 and 1683, having an area of 1250 sq. feet.
(xxxi) The land of petitioner No. 3, Suchita Kumari, of
CWJC No. 8427 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Agamkuan, bearing Khata No. 444, Plot No. 1674, having an area
of 1940 sq. feet.
(xxxii) The land of petitioner No. 4, Shakuntala
Kumari, of CWJC No. 8427 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari,
Police Station Agamkuan, bearing Khata Nos. 38, 377 and 400,
Plot Nos. 1805, 1681 and 1683, having an area of 2310 sq. feet.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
18/125
(xxxiii) The land of petitioner No. 1, Sunil Kumar
Amar, of CWJC No. 8577 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari,
Police Station Agamkuan, bearing Khata No. 78, Plot No. 1313,
having an area of 01 katha.
(xxxiv) The land of petitioner No. 2, Sujata Gupta, of
CWJC No. 8577 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Agamkuan, bearing Khata No. 78, Plot No. 1307 and 1313, having
an area of 03 kathas.
(xxxv) The land of petitioner No. 3, Rinku Devi, of
CWJC No. 8577 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Agamkuan, bearing Khata No. 78, Plot No. 1307/1313, having an
area of 02 kathas.
(xxxvi) The land of petitioner No. 4, Ranjana Sinha, of
CWJC No. 8577 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Agamkuan, bearing Khata No. 384, Plot No. 1648, having an area
of 2360 sq. feet.
(xxxvii) The land of petitioner No. 5, Sonmari Devi, of
CWJC No. 8577 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Agamkuan, bearing Khata No. 384, Plot No. 1648, having an area
of 1600 sq. feet.
(xxxviii) The land of petitioner No. 6, Rani Devi, of
CWJC No. 8577 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
19/125
Agamkuan, bearing Khata No. 444, Plot No. 1674, having an area
of 4.8218 decimals.
(xxxix) The land of petitioner No. 7, Chinta Devi, of
CWJC No. 8577 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Agamkuan, bearing Khata No. 70, Plot No. 1309, having an area
of 1200 sq. feet.
(XL) The land of petitioner No. 8, Mahendra Bhushan,
of CWJC No. 8577 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police
Station Agamkuan, bearing Khata No. 442, Plot No. 1673 and
1672, having an area of 1349 sq. feet.
(xli) The land of petitioner No. 9, Sonu Sharma, of
CWJC No. 8577 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Agamkuan, bearing Khata No. 442, Plot No. 1672 and 1673,
having an area of 1065 sq. feet.
(xlii) The land of petitioner No. 10, Munni Devi, of
CWJC No. 8577 of 2022, situated at mauza Pahari, Police Station
Agamkuan, bearing Khata No. 444, Plot No. 1644, having an area
of 1375 sq. feet.
9. In CWJC No. 7650 of 2022, the details of the land
and houses of the petitioners has not been mentioned in the
pleadings.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
20/125
10. The relevant fact, involved in these writ
applications, is that earlier two depots were to be constructed in
mauza Aitwarpur and mauza Ramchak Bairiya, but subsequently it
was decided to construct only one depot, at mauza Pahari and
Ranipur. The Cabinet of the State of Bihar approved the Patna
Metro Rail Project on 09.10.2018. Earlier, the M/s Rail India
Technical and Economic Service (RITES) had given the proposal
for two depots.
11. In the year 2019, i.e on 03.09.2019, the work of
construction of Metro Rail and Depot in Patna has been given by
Patna Metro Rail Corporation Limited (in short, 'PMRCL') to
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (in short, 'DMRC') and the same
was approved by State of Bihar. The agreement between PMRCL
and DMRC was entered on 25.09.2019.
12. The DMRC has made changes in the line alignment
of the Patna Metro on 08.02.2020 and also changed the location of
metro depot from two locations to one locations, i.e. mauza Pahari
and Ranipur, which are under acquisition. The lands have been
acquired under the general provisions of the 2013 Act.
13. The Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, issued an Office Order on 17.03.2020, in
which reasons for relocation of the Metro depot from two depots
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
21/125
to one depot, has been mentioned that there shall be large number
of demolition of houses at previous location, drainage system,
seamless integration of I.S.B.T. and the Metro depot, and further
11.6 Hectares for the purpose of Property Development Area. The
revised detailed project report has been approved by the State
Government and the Central Government.
14. The objection hearing on Social Impact Assessment
Report was held on 04.06.2021 and the report of the Social Impact
Assessment was prepared and published on 14.06.2021 and
subsequently, Expert Committee was constituted on 23.06.2021
and this Committee submitted its report on 30.06.2021.
15. After submission of the report by the Expert
Committee, notification, under Section 11 of 2013 Act, was issued
on 23.10.2021. On 23.12.2021, objections were filed by the land
owners. The objections, so filed by the land owners, were rejected
on 27.01.2022 and 02.02.2022. Finally, the declaration
notification, under Section 19 of the 2013 Act, was published on
11.05.2022
and on 04.08.2022, the award was prepared under
Sections 23 and 30 of the 2013 Act.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONERS (EXCEPT CWJC NO. 7650 OF 2022)
16. Mr. Sumeet Singh, learned Counsel for the
petitioners, appearing in all the writ applications, except CWJC
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
No. 7650 of 2022, argued that the decision to change the
construction of depot from earlier two locations (mauza Aitwarpur
and Ramchak Bairiya) to one location (mauza Pahari and Ranipur)
is a decision taken in haste on contradictory reasons and without
approval of the State Government and is bad in law. Earlier two
depots were proposed at mauza Aitwarpur and Ramchak Bairiya,
which is in the same side of the new Inter-State Bus Terminal. The
DMRC made changes in the line alignment in order to save
historical structures, i.e. archaeological complexes or for the
reasons that large number of houses would be demolished. The
letter/notification, dated 17.03.2020, by which the decision was
taken to change the site from one place to another place with only
one depot instead of two depots was not approved by the State
Government. The letter, dated 17.03.2020, has suggested that
instead of 21 houses, there would be demolition of 7 houses,
would also save drainage problem, and will have seamless
integration from the I.S.B.T. to proposed I.S.B.T. Metro Station.
17. The reasons for change of Metro depot is not correct
as there is no historical structures and/or archaeological complex,
there are no large number of houses, which are required to be
demolished, the line alignment has been changed to protect the
archaeological complex, at Kumhrar, but the depot area is having
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
no archaeological complex, there is no historical structure at
mauza Aitwarpur and Ramchak Bairiya.
18. The line alignment was changed to avoid complexity
and demolition of large number of house and others. One
integrated depot has been decided to be constructed in front of
I.S.B.T. The respondent nos. 5 and 6 have not given any answer
with regard to the reasons as to why the one depot is there in place
of two depots and in their counter affidavit, it has been stated that
the construction of Metro depot from two locations to one location
has been done due to technical reasons. There is no technical
reason except to provide the additional area in the name of
Property Development Area suggested by the DMRC to the extent
of 11.2 Hectares.
19. He further argued that there will be less number of
demolitions of houses in the earlier two locations, which would be
evident from the following chart:
Sl. No. Depot Name Area to be Constructed
acquired units involved
as per DPR
1. Aitwarpur 14.4 Hectare 04
(Old proposal)
3. As per new 30.5 Hectare 23 (As on
proposal depot November, 2019
on eastern side
of the new
I.S.B.T. as per
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
revised DPR
20. The above chart will show that the total area from
26.9 hectares has been increased to 30.5 hectares. The revised
detailed project report prepared by M/s Rail India Technical and
Economic Service has been approved by the Government of Bihar
on 17.03.2020 is incorrect; rather, an Office Order has been issued
by the Urban Development and Housing Department (Annexure
R-5).
21. In the supplementary counter affidavit, in fact the
respondent nos. 5 has admitted that there are 37 houses in the
drone survey map as given by the Metro yard which is higher in
number. Thus, the entire action of the respondents regarding the
change of depot site on technical reasons is nothing but a farce.
22. He next submits that now the question would arise as
to whether the technical reason can be subject to judicial review.
The answer would be 'YES', if the error is apparent on the face of
it. Since, there is no archaeological complexes, there is no
historical structures at the depot site, therefore changing the
location from mauza Aitwarpur and Ramchak Bairiya to mauza
Pahari and Ranipur is apparently incorrect. There would be more
demolition at the new depot site, i.e. mauza Pahari and Ranipur,
inasmuch as 37 houses in comparison to 32 houses at mauza
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
Ramchak Bairiya and Aitwarpur would required to be demolished.
The total area, from 26.9 Hectares, has been increased to 30.5
Hectare at the new site of the depot, without there being any
justification and in violation of Section 4 (4) (d) of the 2013 Act,
which is in the garb of Property Development Area and given 11.2
Hectares out of 30.5 hectares for this purpose.
23. He further reiterated the letter, dated 17.03.2020, to
say that the same has not been approved by the Cabinet of the
State of Bihar; rather it is an Office Order, issued by the Urban
Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar,
inasmuch as approval of the Cabinet has not been brought on
record. 11.6 Hectares of land is being acquired in the name of
development of the property near Metro depot, which is equivalent
to 28.33 Acres. As such, 47.94 Acres of land is acquired for the
construction of Metro depot and 28.66 Acres of land is for
property development. Under this background, the entire process is
an apparent error on the record itself.
24. This is a case of non-application of mind on the
ground that no assessment was made by the respondents to
consider the viability and need of a new Metro depot at the new
site instead of the site based on earlier detailed project report.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
25. Learned Counsel relies upon the decision of the
Supreme Court, in the case of Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and
Others v. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2006) 11 SCC
356, and Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M.
Kamalia and Others, reported in (2004) 2 SCC 65, on the point
of action taken in undue haste.
26. The next argument of Mr. Sumeet Singh is that the
Social Impact Assessment Report, dated 14.06.2021, is bad on the
ground of non-compliance of Section 4 of the 2013 Act read with
the Bihar Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Rules, 2014 (herein
after referred to as the '2014 Rules'). The Social Impact
Assessment Report is perfunctory. The Social Impact Assessment
Report needs to have the assessment with regard to proposed
acquisition to serve public purpose, estimate of the affected
families and the number of families among them likely to be
displaced with extent of land and whether the extent of land
proposed for the acquisition is absolute bare minimum extent
needed for the project and also the alternative lands for acquisition
is to be considered and if found not feasible, then the cost and the
nature, the environmental impact assessment is to be done
separately. The Social Impact Assessment Report has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
prepared without complying Sections 4 and 5 of the 2013 Act and
Rules 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the 2014 Rules.
27. The alternative lands suggested by the petitioners,
i.e. dumping yard and Sahara land, has not been considered in the
Social Impact Assessment Report. Thus, the report is in teeth of
Section 4 (4) (e) of the 2013 Act read with Rule 10 (3) of the 2014
Rules.
28. In the Social Impact Assessment Report, no finding,
with regard to alternative land, has been given as well as
requirement of bare minimum land, as required under Section 4 (4)
(d) of the 2013 Act. The finding given in the Social Impact
Assessment Report is no finding in the eyes of law inasmuch as
from bare perusal of the conclusion, it would show that the
language of the Social Impact Assessment Report has shifted the
burden on land owners and the heading of the Social Impact
Assessment Report, though mention the conclusion, but absolutely
there is non-consideration of Sections 4 (4) (d) and 4 (4) (e) of the
2013 Act in the entire report. As such, the entire report is non-est
and contrary to law.
29. Mr. Sumeet Singh, while assailing the Social Impact
Assessment Report further submits that Rule 10 (3) of the 2014
Rules states about the preparation of Social Impact Assessment
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
Report under Form III, Clause 6 (C and D) of Form III states that
the land proposed for acquisition is the bare minimum land and
possible for alternative site for the project and its feasibility is to
be observed. The data of socio-economic and cultural profile of the
family must be prepared based on the available data and statistics
in visits as per column-C. Rule 10 (6) of the 2014 Rules also states
that all such preparation of collection of data in consultation with
the affected communities is to be done as per Form-III and social
impact management plan is to be prepared also. Form No. III to be
prepared as per Rule 6 (3) of the 2014 Rules is to deal and cover
the area as per Part C, that is the alternative site. It has also to
consider rational for project including how the project fits the
public purpose criteria in the Act, examination of alternatives,
need for ancillary infrastructure facilities, description and rational
for methodology and tools used to collect information for the
Social Impact Assessment Report. The present use of any public
unutilized land in the vicinity of the project under land assessment
heading. Also, analysis of cost and benefit and recommendation
and acquisition is to be prepared based on public purpose, less
displacement, displacing alternative minimum requirement of land,
the nature and intensity of social impact. Also, the analysis used in
the equality principle to be done. All these aspects has not been
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
considered in the social impact assessment report in principle and
in detail under the provisions of the 2013 Act read with 2014
Rules.
30. Mr. Sumeet Singh further argued that respondent
nos. 5 and 6 have stated in their counter affidavit that altogether
759 objections have been filed, which justifies that there are more
than 800 families, which would be affected, as objections against
the acquisition of the land has been filed in a large number. Thus,
it is much less than the total affected families, whom the Social
Impact Assessment team has contacted. The Social Impact
Assessment has been conducted by Development Management
Institute, Patna in the month of June 2021, i.e. during High
COVID-19 Wave. The various families, who have given objections
to the Social Impact Assessment team, are the families which are
being affected by the said acquisition having small plots for
residential purposes. The size of Social Impact Assessment Report
is small, which would show that the authorities themselves have
stated that only 108 families have directly approached to talk, it
means that the report prepared for Social Impact Assessment is
without considering the majority of families, which is, in fact, less
than 10 per cent.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
31. The 2014 Rules states about the process to be
conducted for the Public Hearing and Social Impact Assessment
has to deal with every aspects and the data is to be collected in
consultation with the affected communities and key stake holders.
32. As per Rules 6, 8, 10 and 11 of the 2014 Rules, the
Social Impact Assessment team must provide the conclusive
assessment of the balance and distribution of the adverse social
impact and social cost and benefit of the proposed project and land
acquisition, including the mitigation measures and provide
assessment as to whether the benefit from the proposed project
exceeds the social cost and adverse social impact. The entire report
of the Social Impact Assessment, based on less than 10 per cent of
the families, shows that the conclusion of the Social Impact
Assessment Report is in itself very small, thereby defeating the
aims and objectives of the Statute, especially Section 4 of the 2013
Act read with Rules 10 and 11 of the 2014 Rules.
33. Mr. Sumeet Singh, referring to Section 5 of the 2013
Act, argued that Section 5 of the 2013 Act read with Rule 11 of the
2014 Rules mandates the public hearing, which is to be done
within twenty one days' mandatory notice, but the same has not
been followed in the present case. The date of public hearing was
announced on 01.06.2021 in the daily newspaper 'Dainik Jagran'
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
and the same was conducted on 04.06.2021, i.e. only 72 hours of
notice for public hearing was given to the petitioners. Non-giving
of 21 days' mandatory notice to the petitioners is in breach of the
principles of natural justice also. An act is to be done in the
manner prescribed and there cannot be departure from the said
procedure.
34. The Ward Councillor of Ward No. 56 gave an
objection to this effect to the District Magistrate, Patna, on
02.06.2021, stating therein that COVID-19 pandemic was
prevailing in the entire country and still public hearing was held on
04.06.2021.
35. In the Social Impact Assessment Report, it has been
stated that in the public hearing, 250 families have participated,
which is also incorrect inasmuch as no signatures of the family
members have been taken in the public hearing and in fact not
more than 50 per cent have come and even those, who had
appeared, have objected to the entire process. Out of 1300
families, only 111 stakeholder samples have been taken, which is
less than 10 per cent.
36. The intent of the Legislature, while framing the 2013
Act was abundantly clear that they want to have say of each of the
persons to be before the land is acquired and by the illegal act of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
the respondents, the intent of the Legislature for framing the law
has been defeated. At the same time, any work has to be done in
accordance with law and if breach is apparent, then such process
may be struck down. No authority has a right to take away the
Constitutional right, as guaranteed under Article 300-A of the
Constitution of India in the garb of public project, ignoring the
mandate of law.
37. Mr. Singh further argued that the preparation of
Social Impact Assessment Report, dated 14.06.2021, and its
publication, were incorrectly done without conducting the extent
of land proposed for acquisition being absolute bare minimum
land for the project and without seeing as to whether land
acquisition at an alternative place has been considered and found
not feasible.
38. The Social Impact Assessment Report, under Section
6 of the 2013 Act, was not published in the affected area in such
manner as prescribed under the 2013 Act and was also not
uploaded on the website of the State. The respondents have not
brought on record any document showing that the Social Impact
Assessment Report was published in the affected area. Non-
compliance with the procedure prescribed prior to the stage of
Section 15 of the 2013 Act will render the submission of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
objections by interested parties and the hearing on such objections
meaningless. The objections raised by the petitioners have not
been considered and they have faced huge hardships and
prejudices. The suitability of the land proposed to be acquired has
not been considered considering the exhaustive procedure
prescribed for the Social Impact Assessment contemplated under
the 2013 Act. The reasons assigned by the District Land
Acquisition Officer, Patna, for rejection of the objections, as
recorded in the report under Section 15 (2) of the 2013 Act, would
show that the objections raised by the petitioners have not been
considered at all.
39. He relied upon a decision of the Bombay High
Court, in the case of Manekbben Rama Tandel and Another v.
The Collector, Daman Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar
Haveli and Daman and Diu and Another (W.P. No. 2727 of
2022) (paragraph 46), which says that any summary of the Social
Impact Assessment Report, if any, in the report under Section
8 cannot be termed as due compliance with the mandatory
requirements of publication of the notification under Section 4 and
publication of the Social Impact Assessment Report as
contemplated under Section 6.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
40. Next challenge of the petitioners is the constitution
of the Expert Committee, under Section 7 of the 2013 Act read
with Rule 13 of the 2014 Rules. Section 7 (2) (b) of the 2013 Act
mandates two representatives of Panchayat, Gram Sabha, or
Municipal Corporation as the case may be. Meaning thereby, the
representatives of the local elected body must be represented at the
time of formation of Expert Committee. In the present case, there
is non-compliance of the requirement of the local self-government.
Formation of Expert Committee will show that the two persons,
who were made part of Expert Committee were basically the
members of different wards. One Amarjeet Kumar, Pramukh of
the Panchayat Samiti, Patna Sadar and the second, Manoj Kumar
Ward Councillor, Ward No. 67, were made members of the Expert
Committee despite the fact that they were not remotely associated
with the concerned ward/municipality. Both of them have written
letter categorically stating that their signatures have been taken on
paper and they have not consented being the members of the
Expert Committee nor they were part of the area under acquisition.
41. Mr. Sumeet Singh emphasizes on the phrase "as the
case may be", used in Sections 4(1), 4(2),4(6), 6 (1), 7 (2) (b), 7
(6), 8 (3) of the 2013 Act and Rules 6(1), 6(2) of 2014 Rules and
submits that it would be depending upon the nature of locality, i.e.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
if it is Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, the
concerned Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation will
have the members as an expert and not otherwise.
42. In Legal Dictionary, Advance Law Lexicon, 5th
Edition, (P. Ramanathanathaiyars), the word, 'as the case may be',
has been discussed. The expression. 'as the case may be', has been
defined based on various judgments that the one out of the various
alternatives would apply to one out of the various situations and
not otherwise. One will include more than one contingencies for
one set of circumstances in the given case.
43. In the cases of Union of India v. Ashok Kumar,
reported in (2005) 8 SCC 760, Rajendra Lal Shadi Lal and
Company Private Limited and Another v. the State of
Maharashtra and Another (AIR 1980 BOMBAY 261) and Shri
Balaganesan Metals v. M. N. Shanmugham Chetty and Others,
reported in (1987) 2 SCC 707, the phrase 'as the case may be' has
been interpreted.
44. The selection of the members of the Expert
Committee has to be based on a particular demography so that
expert representatives of that locality can be part of the Expert
Committee and give its final report on the social impact
assessment. The report of the Expert Committee is subject to
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
approval by the State Government under Section 8 of the 2013
Act, which has to examine the proposal of land acquisition and
Social Impact Assessment Report. The State Government has to
give its finding, if any finding/recommendation is given by the
Expert Committee.
45. In the present case, the formation of the Expert
Committee is contrary to the intent of the Legislature and the same
is bad in law. Accordingly, the report given by the Expert
Committee is also bad in the eyes of law.
46. The Government has also not published the final
social impact assessment report in the affected area in the manner
prescribed under Section 8 (3) of the 2013 Act and also not
uploaded on its website.
47. On the point of issuance of notification, under
Sections 11, 11 (1) and 11 (3) of the 2013 Act, Mr. Singh argued
that the notification under Section 11 (1) of the 2013 Act is a
preliminary notification and Section 11 (3) is the embargo on
Section 11(1) that it has to contain a statement on the nature of the
public purpose involved, reasons necessitating the displacement of
affected persons, summary of social impact assessment report and
particulars of the Administrator appointed for the purposes of
rehabilitation and resettlement under Section 43 of the 2013 Act.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
48. It has further been argued that upon perusal of the
notice, issued under Section 11 (1) of the 2013 Act and its heading
would show that the project name is Patna Metro Rail Depot and it
further states that there is no family which is likely to be displaced
at mauza Pahari and Ranipur. It is incorrect to state in the notice
that families are not being displaced; whereas the houses are
constructed over the land under acquisition and the residential
lands have been purchased in the small areas for construction of
dwelling houses.
49. The respondent nos. 5 and 6, in their counter
affidavit, have admitted that there are 23 houses, including 2 under
construction houses and 15 boundary walls, which are to be
demolished. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed by
respondent nos. 5 and 6, a report, dated 18.04.2022, of the Deputy
Director Food -cum- Deputy Officer, Revenue Branch, has been
brought to the effect that no person is entitled for rehabilitation and
resettlement for the project by a six-member committee. There are
37 houses and 101 boundary walls on the acquired land, as per the
report submitted by the Executive Engineer, Building Division,
Patna.
50. The respondent no. 10 has stated, in the counter
affidavit, that there are 23 houses existing in mauza Pahari and
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
Ranipur and there are 32 houses in mauza Aitwarpur and Ramchak
Bairiya (New I.S.B.T.). The notification does not state how many
families are going to be affected; rather, surprisingly, in the
opposite, it is stated that there are no families, which are going to
be displaced.
51. The State Government has completely bypassed the
procedure prescribed under Section 16 of the 2013 Act, which is
for preparation of rehabilitation and resettlement scheme by the
Administrator. Section 16 (5) of the 2013 Act speaks about public
hearing, which shall be conducted in such manner as may be
prescribed. Section 18 of the 2013 Act talks about the proved
rehabilitation and resettlement scheme to be made public and
Section 19 (2) states that the Collector has to publish a summary of
the rehabilitation and resettlement scheme along with the
declaration referred under section 19 (1).
52. Mr. Singh next argued that the petitioners'
objections, filed under Section 15 of the 2013 Act, have been
rejected perfunctorily by the District Land Acquisition Officer,
Patna. The petitioners, in their pleadings, have clearly stated that
their objections have vaguely been rejected in one line or 3-4 lines
and no objection has been dealt with separately. The objection of
petitioner No. 2, with regard to availability of alternative land, it
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
has been stated that so far as the issue of alternate land is
concerned, action cannot be taken at the level of District Land
Acquisition Office. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna,
while rejecting the objection, has mentioned that the Social Impact
Assessment Report has stated with regard to more benefit than the
negative impact. In fact, a new finding has been given with regard
to constitution of six-member committee for higher compensation.
The entire exercise was an empty formality, there is a procedural
impropriety, non-application of mind and non-consideration of the
objections in terms of the statutory provisions.
53. The commentary of H. Heverley's Vol. 1, 10th
Edition, 2020, discusses about Section 15 and says that the
provision of Section 15 of the 2013 Act is almost similar to
Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The only
difference in the 2013 Act and the 1894 Act is that so far hearing
of the objections are concerned, the objections are heard under the
new provisions of 2013 Act at 3 levels; first, at the time of Public
hearing under Section 5, while preparing the Social Impact
Assessment Report under Section 4; secondly, the objection is
heard under Section 15 (1), when the notification is issued under
Section 11; and thirdly, the objection is heard under Section 16 (5)
by the Administrator with regard to Rehabilitation and
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
Resettlement scheme. Under the 2013 Act, the public hearing is
under section 5 (A) of 1894 Act.
54. Mr. Singh relies upon the decision of the Supreme
Court, in the cases of Dev Sharan and Others v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 769 and Kamal
Trading Private Limited v. State of West Bengal and Others,
reported in (2012) 2 SCC 25, in which the Supreme Court has
dealt the aspect as to whether the objections if filed and not
considered then it would amount to non-application of mind and
set aside the acquisition proceeding on this ground.
55. In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corpn.
Limited v. Darius Shapur Chennai and Others, reported in
(2005) 7 SCC 627, a question arose that whether judicial review
can be done if there is any illegality, irrationality, and procedure
impropriety is being found. In the said case, the High Court has
set aside the land acquisition proceeding, as objections were not
considered. The Supreme Court has held that there cannot be any
doubt that due application of mind on the part of statutory
authority was imperative.
56. The case of Surinder Singh Brar and Others v.
Union of India and Others, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 403,
relates to acquisition of land for IT park. In the said case,
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
objections were filed and the same were rejected. The Supreme
Court, while examining the entire facts, has observed that the
objections, though rejected by the District Land Acquisition
Officer, but the District Land Acquisition Officer had not applied
his mind to the objections of the land owners and merely created a
facade of doing so.
57. On the point of deciding the objections, Mr. Singh
further relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court, in the
cases of Kedar Nath Yadav v. State of West Bengal and Others,
reported in (2017) 11 SCC 601, Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State
of Haryana and Others, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 792 and Usha
Stud and Agricultural Farms Private Limited and Others v.
State of Haryana and Others, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 210.
58. Mr. Singh next relied upon the decision of the
Supreme Court, in the case of Shiv Singh and Others v. State of
Himachal Pradesh and Others, reported in (2018) 16 SCC 270,
in which the land acquisition was rendered under the new Act and
public notice and non-compliance of Section 15 (2) of the new Act
has been discussed. The Supreme Court held that it is mandatory
on the part of the Collector to comply with the procedure
prescribed under Section 15(2) of the Act so as to make the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
acquisition proceedings legal and in conformity with the
provisions of the Act.
59. Mr. Singh next relied on a decision of the learned
Single Judge of Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court, in the case
of Alok Kothawala and Others v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 10504 of 2012). The matter related to
acquisition of land for Jaipur Metro Rail Project and Metro Car
Depot, wherein the acquisition of land under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act 1894 was issued.
60. Mr. Singh next argued that the declaration
notification, issued under Section 19 of the 2013 Act, has not
considered the mandatory provisions of law. In the present case, no
such report has been submitted under Section 15 (2) of the 2013
Act by the Collector. There is no publication of the summary of the
rehabilitation and resettlement Scheme along with the declaration
referred under section 19 (1) of the 2013 Act. The 2014 Rules also
prescribes, under Rule 24 (1), that upon receipt of a report of the
Collector as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 15, a
declaration for acquisition of the land under sub-section (1) of
Section 19 of the Act along with the summary of the Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Scheme shall be made by the Government in
FORM VII, provided further that no declaration shall be made
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
unless the requiring body has deposited an amount in full towards
the cost of acquisition of the land.
61. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Compensation,
Rehabilitation & Resettlement and Development Plan) Rules,
2015, has been framed by the Government of India in exercise of
power conferred under Section 109 (1) and (2) of the 2013 Act.
62. Accordingly, Mr. Singh's submission is that there is
complete breach of the mandate of law. No such report has been
sent by the Collector along with the objections rejected by the
District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna and no such document has
been brought on record by the respondents to the notice of this
Court.
63. On the point of preparation of award, Mr. Singh
argued that the language used in the award would itself make it
clear that it has been prepared in complete violation of Section 30
of the 2013 Act, which mandates that the Collector shall issue
individual awards, detailing the particular of compensation
payable as specified in the First Schedule. In the present case,
determination made under Sections 23 and 30 of the 2013 Act
makes it clear that there is no individual award; rather, a
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
compilation has been done under Form No. 9 of 2014 Rules. This
is in complete breach of the 2013 Act and 2014 Rules.
64. Mr. Singh further argued that the language used in
the award will itself make it clear that it has been prepared in
complete violation of Section 30 of the 2013 Act, which mandates
that the Collector shall issue individual awards detailing the
particulars of compensation payable and details of the payment of
the compensation as specified in the First Schedule. He next
argued that no land can be acquired without following the due
procedure of law as it violates Article 300-A of the Constitution of
India inasmuch as it is not only a constitutional right, but a human
right as well. It is necessary for the acquiring body to follow the
due procedure of law, as the same has been held in various
landmark decisions of the Supreme Court.
65. Mr. Singh relied upon the decisions of the Supreme
Court, in the cases of Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh,
reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569, B. K. Ravichandra v. Union of
India, reported in (2021) 14 SCC 703 and D. B. Basnett v.
L.A.O., reported in (2020) 4 SCC 572.
66. The petitioners also relied upon the selective
parliamentary debate and speeches and objectives of the 2013 Act
and submits that the 2013 Act was introduced with the objective to
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
do away with certain British era provisions regarding forceful
acquisition of land and utmost violation of right to property, as
enumerated under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and to
make the land acquisition as a consultative, participatory process
of the land owners as well and the same has been manifested from
the speech of the then Hon'ble Minister for Rural Development.
67. Another Hon'ble Minister of the House, while
introducing the Bill of the 2013 Act, highlighted its aims and
objectives and stated that this Bill will ensure a humane,
participatory, informed consultative and transparent process for
land acquisition for industrialization, development of essential
infrastructural facilities and urbanization with the least disturbance
to the land owners and other affected families and provide just and
fair compensation to the affected families, whose land has been
acquired or proposed to be acquired or are affected by such
acquisition and make adequate provisions for such affected
persons for their rehabilitation and resettlement thereof, and for
ensuring that the cumulative outcome of compulsory acquisition
should be that affected persons become partners in the
development leading to an improvement in their post-acquisition
social and economic status and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto to be taken into consideration.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
68. Another Hon'ble Member of the House, while
highlighting the purpose of the Bill, said that the provision of
Rehabilitation and Resettlement issues was never dealt in Land
Acquisition Act and any land acquisitions legislation thus
committing a horrible injustices to the land owners, especially
marginal land owners and the farmers, whose livelihood depends
upon the land and the same has been acquired only in lieu of the
one-time compensation. For the first time, a Bill has been
presented which not only talks about the land acquisition, but an
attempt has been made to link rehabilitation and resettlement with
land acquisition.
ARGUMENT ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONERS OF CWJC NO. 7650 OF 2022
69. Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners, in CWJC No. 7650 of 2022, while
adopting the arguments advanced by Mr. Sumeet Singh, argued
that the law makers had made a major departure in the 2013 Act
completely jettisoning the archaic law of doctrine of eminent
domain and purported to make a fair and transparent law in the
larger public interest, restricting the power of State to acquire the
land at the will simply by stating that the acquisition was in public
interest. In the 2013 Act, he pointed out the provisions of law with
special features, like Section 2 (Application of Act). Section 4
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
(Preparation of Social Impact Assessment Study), Section 5
(Public hearing for Social Impact Assessment), Section 6
(Publication of Social Impact Assessment Study), Section 7
(Appraisal of Social Impact Assessment report by an Expert
Group), Section 8 (Examination of proposals for land acquisition
and Social Impact Assessment report by appropriate Government),
Section 15 (Hearing of objections), Section 16 (Preparation of
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme by the Administrator),
Section 17 (Review of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Scheme) and Section 19 (Publication of declaration and summary
of Rehabilitation and Resettlement), etc.
70. From the aforesaid quoted provisions of law, it is
crystal clear that the hands of the executives are no more
unchecked and unrestricted and the executive is supposed to
strictly follow the procedure provided therein sincerely and
bonafide. Any insincerity, unreasonableness and non-application of
mind by executive while purporting to acquire land is not
permissible and that will vitiate the whole proceeding of the
acquisition.
71. Mr. Choudhary further argued that after the present
law of acquisition came into existence, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in the case of K. S. Puttaswamy and Another v. Union of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
India and Others, reported in 2017 (10) SCC 1, while discussing
the scope of right to privacy held that Article 21 of the
Constitution of India is a declaration of life and liberty, which
comprises of many other fundamental rights, such as Right to
Shelter also. Hence after declaration of right to shelter as
fundamental right. the State respondents have to be extremely
careful circumspect while acquiring the dwelling houses for any
purpose, much less for constructing a mall and market in order to
add the income of PMRCL. Sub-clauses (a) to (f) of Clause (2) of
Section 2 of the 2013 Act though permits acquisition for
constructing private hotels but explicitly prohibits construction of
malls and markets.
72. The facts of existence of houses of the petitioners
has been taken note of by the Social Impact Assessment
Committee. The Committee has further concluded that the houses,
in question, should not be acquired and the alignment should shift
500 to 600 meters south where there are no houses. The
Committee further concluded that construction of malls or
multiplex will lead to congestion of traffic and pollution since
Inter-State Bus Terminal of Patna is to be constructed/established
there.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
73. Further, recommendation of the Social Inspection
Team is that those houses, which are being affected on account of
acquisition, should be given alternative sites. All the aforesaid
conclusions, observations and recommendations of the Social
Impact Assessment Committee have completely been ignored by
the State respondents. Sub-clause (d) of Clause (4) of Section-4 of
the 2013 Act clearly mandates the Social Impact Assessment
Committee to see whether the extent of land proposed for
acquisition is the absolute bare minimum extent of land needed for
the project. The purported exercise to acquire the houses of the
petitioners clearly shows that it does not come under the
conception of bare minimum land acquired for the project.
74. The petitioners filed several representations to the
authorities, which has already been annexed in the writ
applications. It has been submitted that the District Magistrate,
Patna, has not yet considered those representations, though the
Office of District Magistrate, vide letter, dated 21.04.2022
(Annexure 17) constituted a team to enquire into the facts as to
how many houses/ boundary walls have to be affected.
75. The argument of the State that the land, in question,
is acquired for the purpose of property development is simply
ridiculous, bogus and fit to be rejected. The construction of malls,
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be integral to the depot
nearby. The integral part of the depot is work shops, sheds, tracks,
domestic canteen for the workers, residential quarters for the
workers and is no case, it can be a mall.
76. The stand of the respondent-State that the
construction of malls and markets will generate revenue is simply
a ridiculous and cruel joke with the petitioners and others, whose
houses are standing there. According to the estimate, nearly 2
lakhs riders are estimated to use the metro every day, which will
go on increasing when the entire Patna Metro Project will be
functional. This metro project will not only provide a rapid
transportation of men and goods, but will also go a long way to
reduce congestion on the roads of the Patna, decrease the carbon
level in the city and saving of citizens' time which are of immense
quantifiable values. The State Government has to spend only 20
per cent of value of total work and, therefore, Patna Metro will
never prove to be a burden on exchequers if the Patna Metro is
administered efficiently and competently by the professionals and
experts. The map (Annexure 19) will clearly show the position of
houses, in question, in blue squires and plenty of vacant lands
available on the southern and northern side of the houses, in
question. In CWJC No. 7650 of 2022, there are 20 persons, whose
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
houses are standing over the land acquired for the purpose of
property development and admittedly, in the total area acquired for
the purpose of depot and property development area, there are 37
houses, some fully constructed and some are semi constructed.
There is one Sanjay Gandhi Divyang Hospital also. No work has
been started in the property development area till now. Thus, it
would not make any loss to the Patna Metro by shifting the
property development area to new Inter-State Bus Terminal
contiguous to depot.
77. Section 19 (5) (b) of the 2013 Act clearly envisaged
that in the Gazette notification and the declaration, the purpose of
the land acquired and the area must be clearly mentioned, but in
the present case, the notification goes to show that the lands are
acquired for the public purpose and now the Patna Metro is
intending to establish part of the land acquired for the purpose of
property development area for revenue generation at the cost of
displacement, which is contrary to the scheme introduced in the
2013 Act. The averment, which has, now, been made by the
PMRCL as well as the State that the property development area is
an integral part of the depot is absolutely misconceived and
unfounded. The exemption of standing houses from acquisition
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
will, in no way, affect the track or depot, which would be evident
from the map.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
78. Mr. P. K. Shahi, learned Advocate General,
representing the State respondents, argued that that launching of
Patna Metro Rail Project is an ambitious project, which will prove
a game changer in future.
79. He next argued that the Metro Rail, all over the
world, is recognized as an efficient, economical and faster mode of
public transport. The size and population of Patna, over the last
two decades, has grown exponentially, commuters have increased
manifold and the business activities, which was confined at select
places, have spread over to every nook and corner of the city. The
Government of Bihar has so far done its best to broaden, increase
and maintain length of road in the city. However, there is a limit to
the expansion of road network. As a result of expansion of
business activity coupled with manifold increase in the population,
the pressure of commuters has led to congestion, traffic snarls and
practically unmanageable traffic on roads. Manifold growth of
vehicular traffic has made the life worst. Not only the roads are
more often than not congested and witness long hours of traffic
jam, but it is also taking a toll on environment. The emission of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
carbon dioxide/carbon monoxide has polluted the city. Most of the
time, air quality index is extremely hazardous causing serious
health issues. Pollution, by motorized vehicles, poses a serious
threat to the health of the people.
80. Every urban conglomerate, therefore, has a
responsibility to not only provide an efficient means of public
transport, but also to minimize the causes of pollution. Rail
transport, worldwide, has been considered as an alternate, efficient
and faster mode of public transport. Wherever, metro rail has been
launched and made functional, it has provided manifold benefits
not only to the commuters in general, but also in reducing overall
air pollution. Experience has proved that metro rail, connecting
end to end in urban areas, is the best mode of efficient and non-
pollutant commutation.
81. At present, in the city of Patna, the only means of
transport is either private transport or motorized road transport.
Keeping in view the present scenario of the transportation system,
The Government of Bihar had planned of introducing Metro Rail
Project.
82. Once the concept of introducing metro rail was
conceived, the work to accomplish the same started. A detail
deliberations with the experts took place over the years. A detail
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
project report was prepared and deliberated time and again. It was
considered appropriate to rope an agency having the experience of
successfully implementing Metro Rail Project, its commissioning
and operationalization. Accordingly, in principle, it was resolved
to take help of DMRC. DMRC needs no introduction as the
Corporation is known for successfully completing the Delhi Metro
Project, which is one of the most successful project in the world. It
has almost covered entire National Capital Region of Delhi.
Accordingly, after several round of deliberations, the Government
of Bihar formalized its association with DMRC.
83. The Patna Metro Rail Project (in short, 'PMRP') is
an ambitious infrastructure project in larger public interest and for
public convenience and the same is a joint venture of the State
Government of Bihar and Government of India. In February, 2016,
the Government of Bihar has approved the detail project report of
PMRP, which had two depots, the first one at Aitwarpur and the
second one at Ramchak Bairiya, on the western side of State
Highway No. 01.
84. M/s Rail India Technical and Economic Service, a
Government of India Undertaking, was entrusted with the task of
seeing the feasibility of PMRP and preparation of detail project
report by the Urban Development and Housing Department,
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
Government of Bihar, Patna, who, in turn, submitted the detail
project report. The Government of Bihar, vide Letter No. 422,
dated 02.03.2016, has given the administrative approval in
principle of the PMRP and forwarded the proposal of PMRP, along
with detail project report to the Ministry of Urban Development,
Government of India, vide Letter No. 486, dated 11.03.2016. The
Government of India, vide Letter No. K-14011, dated 01.09.2017,
has returned the project report for getting the same updated in
terms of the Metro Rail Policy. 2017.
85. According to the Metro Rail Policy, 2017, inclusion
of Comprehensive Mobility Plan (CMP), Alternative Analysis
(AA), Transit Oriented Development (TOD), Value Capturing
Finance (VCF) and Non-Fare Box Revenue ete, are required.
86. M/s Rail India Technical and Economic Service,
after including the above said Comprehensive Mobility Plan,
Alternative Analysis, etc., upgraded the project report, and as per
the upgraded project report, the total estimated cost of the PMRP
comes to be Rs. 17,887.56 crores for execution of project on the
basis of Special Purpose Vehicle model.
87. The project report of the first phase of PMRP, having
two corridors as submitted by the M/s Rail India Technical and
Economic Service is East-West Corridor and North-South
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
Corridor. The Government of Bihar and the Central Government is
bearing the equal share of the project cost, i.e. 20 per cent each and
rest 60 per cent of the project cost is funded by Japan International
Credit Agency on long term loan basis.
88. The State Government, vide Letter No. 5244, dated
09.10.2018, has accorded administrative approval after getting
approval of the State Cabinet for sending the PMRP and upgraded
detail project report to Central Government.
89. The PMRCL has been incorporated for the said
project as Special Purpose Vehicle. The construction work of the
aforesaid two corridors of PMRP, along with depot and property
development area, were allotted to DMRC on 04.09.2019 on
nomination basis, on which the Cabinet has accorded its sanction
on 03.09.2019. Thereafter, Memorandum of Understanding/
agreement was signed between PMRCL and DMRC on
25.09.2019.
90. After physical/actual verification of the PMRP, the
DMRC suggested some changes in the line alignment in order to
save historical and archaeological site of Kumhrar and it was also
suggested that instead of two depots, only one depot shall be
constructed at the eastern side of State Highway No. 01, at mauza
Pahari and Ranipur. The detail project report was sent to M/s Rail
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
India Technical and Economic Service with the aforesaid
suggestions, who, in turn, prepared a fresh project report of the
PMRP, having only one depot at mauza Pahari and Ranipur, which
has been approved by the State Government on 17.03.2020. The
revised project report was also considered and approved by the
Japan International Credit Agency as well as the Government of
India.
91. As per the revised project report, the total cost of
PMRP is, now, reduced to Rs. 13,365/- crores. Requisition for total
76.6450 acres of land has been made by the PMRCL. Since 0.10
acre of land, at mauza Pahari and 0.60 acres of land, at mauza
Ranipur was Gair Mazarua Aam land, the same was transferred to
PMRCL, and for rest land, i.e. 75.95 acres, required for
construction of depot and property development area, acquisition
proceeding was initiated.
92. Social Impact Assessment study was conducted by
Development Management Institute, Patna, in which 250 people as
well as representative of Ward No. 56 had participated. After
considering all the aspect of the matter, the Development
Management Institute, Patna, submitted its report on 14.06.2021,
recording that the positive impact is higher than the negative
impact and is in continuity, therefore, the Government should take
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
prompt action so that the benefits of the project reaches to the
public. The Social Impact Assessment report was examined by an
independent Expert Committee, duly constituted in terms of
Section 7 of the 2013 Act and the Expert Committee has
recommended the proposed acquisition for timely completion of
the project.
93. Altogether, 759 objections were submitted and after
affording the opportunity of hearing to all the objectors, all the
objections were duly considered and disposed of by the District
Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, vide order, dated 02.02.2022,
passed in L. A. Case No. 29 of 2021-22 and L. A. Case No. 30 of
2021-22. Out of entire 759 objections, 221 objections were with
regards to publication of their names, which were accordingly
published; 531 objections were with regard to not giving their
land, which did not come under the purview of objections and
remaining 7 objections were with regard to making payment of
compensation as per commercial value or giving job.
94. After hearing all the objections and disposal of the
same, under Section 15 (2) of the 2013 Act, it has been sent to the
Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna, which has been approved by the appropriate government.
Notification, under Section 19 of the 2013 Act was published on
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
11.05.2022 and award was prepared in L. A. Case No. 29 of 2021-
22 for 50.595 Acres at mauza Pahari on 04.08.2022 and in L. A.
Case No. 30 of 2021-22 for 25.35 acres of land at mauza Ranipur
on 05.09.2022.
95. The physical possession of the entire 75.95 acres of
land was handed over to PMRCL on 10.09.2022 and the structures
and construction over the acquired land had been measured by a
Six-men Committee on 11.10.2022. The estimation of the
structures and construction was verified on 22.11.2022, in which
altogether 37 houses and 101 boundary walls have been found.
96. The total number of original raiyats were 110, total
number of plots acquired was 82, total number of persons/land
owners going to be affected was 1362, total number of houses
situated over the acquired land was 37, number of petitioners
before this Court is 63, total area of the writ petitioners (except in
CWJC No. 7650 of 2022) is 1.8963 acres, which is less than 3 per
cent of the total acquired land) and Rs. 130.03 crores have already
been disbursed to the land owners as compensation. In any case,
the total land, in all the writ petitions pending before the Hon'ble
Patna High Court, is approximately 4.47 acres, which is only 5 per
cent of the total acquired land. The total number of applications
received for compensation for disputed plots is 288 and number of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
applications which are under process for payment of compensation
is 32. An amount of Rs. 20 crores has already been deposited with
Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority in
course of disposal of claims of compensation to the raiyats. The
total expenditure incurred over construction of PMRP, till 30th
September, 2023, is Rs. 2,781.83 crores, out of which Rs. 65
crores have been incurred over construction of depot.
97. The total area acquired for the depot is 44.76 acres,
total area acquired for property development is 28.39 acres, the
physical completion of depot is about 44 per cent, financial
completion of the depot is 42.5 per cent and the time for
completion is 2025.
98. He further argued that it needs to be emphasized that
in any Metro Rail, its viability is not dependent only on fare
recovered from commuters and its viability also depends upon
Non-Fare Box Revenue. In other words, metro rail must have
component of commercial utilization of its property, including
metro stations, depots etc. Everywhere in the world, including in
India, where metro rail project has been launched, it necessarily
includes components of revenue to be generated from sources
other than fare.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
99. The property development by the Metro Rail is one
of the accepted modes of resource mobilization towards capital
cost as well as sustainable operation. The property development by
Metro Projects is in line with the global example as Metros are
highly capital intensive projects and the only way they can remain
financially healthy, without government subsidy, is to increase the
non-operational revenue, i.e. revenue from advertisement,
retailing, real estate, parking lot etc., as in the case of Hong Kong
and other international Metros is done.
100. He, referring to letter, dated 30.03.2009, as
contained in letter no. K-14011/8/2000, issued by the Ministry of
Urban Development, Government of India (Annexure M to the
supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.
5 and 6), argued that paragraph nos. 3(ii), 3(iv) and 3(v) says that
while notifying land acquisition, the aspect of property
development would also suitably be taken care of, raising
resources through property development is one of the ways of
mobilizing resources for the project, therefore, the word "Project"
would also include "Property Development" and the property
development on the acquired land shall also be considered as part
of the project.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
101. Accordingly, in the original project report, which
was approved by the State Government on 02.03.2016 and
submitted to Ministry of Urban Development, Government of
India, on 11.03.2016, the Government of India, after detail
scrutiny, required to re-look at the project report and accordingly
the same was returned on 01.09.2017. It was categorically
mentioned that the project report need to factor the policy
incorporated in Metro Rail Policy, 2017.
102. On receipt of directives of Ministry of Urban
Development, Government of India, the project report was again
referred to the consultant Development Management Institute,
Patna, Development Management Institute, Patna, revised its
detail project report by including above referred components
including Non-Fare Box Revenue, which has been considered and
approved by the Japan International Credit Agency as well as
Government of India. PMRP is a composite project and depot and
property development area is the integral part of the PMRP.
103. He next argued that the earlier estimated cost of
construction of the PMRP, having two depots, was Rs. 17887.56
crores; whereas, as per the revised detail project report, having
only one depot, the estimated cost of constructions of the project
reduced to Rs. 13365 crores.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
104. He further argued that project authority, noticing
that the line alignment of North-South Corridor of the PMRP has
to be revisited in order to save archaeological sites and large
number of structures, changed the line alignment and also
relocated the inter changeability junction. Besides the above, in the
earlier proposal, land for depot was identified at two places, both
at east and west of the State Highway. In course of execution, the
project authorities realized that the alignment needs to be changed
and instead of two depots, only one depot with inter-changeability
at Khemnichak would serve the purpose. The construction of
depot, at present site, is also beneficial for seamless integration
between the Inter-State Bus Terminal and I.S.B.T. Metro Station.
The present depot is adjacent to proposed I.S.B.T. Metro Station,
which is Terminal Station and, therefore, operationally and
financially is found to be most suitable by the PMRCL. It was in
the interest of PMRP to have depot at one place instead of two
depots, at two different locations. Accordingly, the project report
was again revised incorporating the revised alignment and laying
of metro rail, which was approved by the State Government on
17.03.2020.
105. At no point of time, the award, dated 04.08.2022
and 05.09.2022, was challenged. It is only when the State resumed
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
its submission in the writ applications, the petitioners filed an
interlocutory application, I. A. No. 06 of 2023, praying for
amending the prayer made in the writ application to challenge the
award. The said interlocutory application was allowed by this
Court, on 05.09.2023.
106. The land owners, whose land is sought to be
acquired, have largely opposed to the acquisition itself. Several
attempts were taken to stall the acquisition. One Balram Kumar
filed a writ application, bearing CWJC No. 862 of 2022, in the
form of Public Interest Litigation. He was championing not only
his cause, but cause of all land owners. He had prayed, inter alia,
for quashing of the notification, issued under Section 11 of the
2013 Act. By order, dated 28.01.2022, this Court has permitted
him to file a representation and appear before Collector, Patna. He
appeared before Collector, Patna, who, after hearing the petitioner
and other concerned, has rejected the objection by a reasoned
order, dated 01.04.2022. Again Balram Kumar moved before this
Court, by filing CWJC No. 7427 of 2022 and this Court observed
that "we are also of the considered view that the project i.e.
construction of metro railways cannot be stalled, as is being sought
to be done by the petitioner by filing petitions/applications
repeatedly before various fora, including this Court".
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
107. Some of the land owners have filed the present writ
application, and this Court, by order, dated 19.07.2022, has not
only refused to grant any interim protection, but further said that
the project work shall continue. The order, dated 19.07.2022, was
challenged before the Supreme Court, in SLP (C) No. 18118 of
2022 and the Supreme Court, vide its order, dated 21.10.2022,
observed that it is not appropriate to interfere with the impugned
order, which is interim in nature and the Supreme Court requested
this Court to dispose of the writ petition at the earliest. Again the
petitioners moved before the Supreme Court, in SLA (C) No.
12067 of 2023 and grant of any interim protection was declined by
the Supreme Court.
108. The Government has been magnanimous in the
interest of the land owners, whose land has been acquired by
considering the entire land as residential for the purpose of
payment of the compensation amount, though there are only 37
houses and 71 boundary walls (total 108 structures) over the entire
75.94 acres of land, which has been acquired. The major/rest part
of the acquired land is vastly used for the agriculture purpose, such
as growing of vegetables etc. Accordingly, the Six-men
Committee, in its report dated 22.06.2021, has unanimously
considered the nature of the entire land under acquisition as
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
residential under mauza Pahari, Thana no-14. The said land is
south to National Highway No. 30 and East to Patna Masaurhi
Main Road. The Plot No. 1306 and 1313 under the said mauza,
which is adjacent to Patna Masaurhi Main Road, has been
considered as residential Main Road. The nature of the land under
mauza Ranipur, under Thana No. 19, has also been considered to
be residential branch road by the said Committee. By way of
treating the entire land as residential, the land owners would be
getting much more amount of compensation in comparison to the
compensation amount they would have been getting treating the
land as agriculture in nature.
109. As per section 26 of the 2013 Act, for
determination of the market value, the higher of the rates of MVR
and the average rate of the sale deeds of three preceding years is
taken for payment of the compensation amount. For the
Residential Branch Road, the higher average rate of the 50 per cent
sale deeds has been found to be Rs. 5,53,97,282/- per acre;
whereas, the MVR for the mauza Pahari has been found to be Rs.
5,50,00,000/- per acre. Thus the higher rate of Rs. 5,53,97,282/-
per acre has been considered for the payment of the compensation
amount as per the provision under section 26 of the 2013 Act.
Similarly, for the Residential main road, the rate of Rs.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
7,59,37,500/- per acre has been decided which has been approved
by the competent authority i.e. the Collector, Patna, vide letter no.
396, dated 04.06.2022.
110. The rate fixation of mauza Ranipur has also been
done on basis of the MVR sent by the Sub-Registrar, Patna City,
and the rate of the sale deeds of preceding three years and the
higher rate among the two has been taken for payment of the
compensation amount i.e. for the Residential Branch Road. The
higher average rate of the 50 per cent sale deeds has been found to
be Rs. 3,34,14,955/- per acre; whereas the MVR for the mauza
Ranipur has been found to be Rs. 3,30,00,000/- per acre. Thus, the
higher rate of Rs. 3,34,14,955/- per acre has been considered for
the payment of the compensation amount as per the provision
under section 26 of the 2013 Act, which has also been approved by
the competent authority i.e. Collector, Patna, dated 19.05.2022.
Apart from the amount of compensation, under Section 26 of the
2013 Act, amount of 100 per cent solatium, under Section 30, has
also been added in the award and it also include the interest
amount as per the provision of the 2013 Act. Apart from the
amount of compensation and solatium, estimated cost, as
determined by the Six-Men Committee, for the structure and
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
boundary walls over acquired land, has also to be paid to the land
owners.
111. Thus, it is apparent from the aforesaid facts that the
award prepared for the payment the compensation amount to the
affected persons, including the petitioners, has been done in
accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act, and if petitioners
are dissatisfied with the award at all, they may resort to the remedy
available under section 64 of the 2013 Act.
112. Since, the possession of the acquired land has been
taken over by the PMRCL, it has made substantial development
both physical and financial. Up till 30th September, 44% physical
progress has been achieved and 42.5% financial investment have
been made. If any interference is made at this stage the entire
PMRP would get totally derailed and frustrated. It may also to be
kept in mind that whether, at the behest of land owners, whose
only 05 acres of land is involved in these writ applications, the
entire acquisition can be jeopardized.
113. Learned Advocate General relied upon the decision
of the Supreme Court, in the case of Nand Kishore Gupta and
Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (2010)
10 SCC 282, G. Narsing Rao (Died) through LRS v. The
National Highway Authority of India and Another (SLP (C)
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
Nos. 9314-9315/2022), Ramji Veerji Patel and Others v.
Revenue Divisional Officer and Others, reported in (2011) 10
SCC 643, Ramniklal N. Bhutta and Another v. the State of
Maharashtra and Others, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 134,
Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra through the Government Pleader and Others
(Writ Petition No. 3337 of 2019), State of Haryana v. Eros City
Developers Private Limited and Others, reported in (2016) 12
SCC 265, and Dr. Abraham Patani of Mumbai and Another v.
State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in (2022) SCC
ONLINE SC 1143.
114. Learned Advocate General, referring to the
aforesaid decision, argued that the Supreme Court has explained
by saying that even if there is procedural irregularity, acquisition
of land for infrastructural project in public interest should not be
stalled. The Supreme Court has held that exercise of discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should
be very circumspect and not only on making of a case even if there
are certain procedural violations, the land owners are entitled to be
appropriately compensated.
115. He, then, argued that the second question relates to
the selection of land. The petitioners' contention is that alternative
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
land suggested by them was not taken into consideration. In the
counter affidavit of PMRCL, it has been elaborately explained that
the present site is more suitable for the project in comparison to
suggested site. Besides, PMRCL. has also averred that the project
cost would go up by approximately Rs. 500-700 crores, if the site
suggested by the petitioners is selected for work of depot and
property development area. Moreover, it is held in a catena of
decisions of the Supreme Court that selection of land, unless
shown to be the arbitrary, unreasonable and mala fide is the
domain of the acquiring authority. The petitioners have not alleged
any mala fide. The petitioners have further not shown any
arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the selection of the land. On
the other hand, the respondents have demonstrated the need for
selection of the present land with sufficient justification. It is,
therefore, not open for the Writ Court to substitute the views of
acquiring authority. In this regard, reference has been made to the
case of Ramji Veerji Patel (supra).
116. In the case of G. Narsing Rao (supra), the Supreme
Court has held that the National Highway Authority can be said to
be the best judge to decide which land is to be acquired and which
not to be acquired for the purpose of constructions of the
Highways.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
117. The petitioners have also raised an issue with
regard to component of property development. It need not be
repeated again that the Metro Rail Project is a composite project
consisting not only ferry of commuters, but of many essential
items including property development. In the Metro Rail Policy of
2017, the necessity of including public property development has
been emphasized. It has already been pointed out that in order to
make a Metro Rail Project viable, it must be able to generate
revenue from Non-Fair Box also and the property development is
one of the modes to generate revenue from Non-Fair Box.
118. The Supreme Court has considered all these
aspects, in details, in the case of Soora Ram Pratap Reddy and
Others v. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and Others,
reported in 2008 (9) SCC 552, Nand Kishore Gupta (supra) and
Eros City Developer (P) Limited (supra).
119. The PMRP, having commercial components, is an
essential facet of infrastructure development. It would, thus, be
evident that the petitioners have not been able to make out a case
for interference by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
120. It needs no repetition that commissioning of Metro
Rail project is with an object of subserving greater public interest.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
If this is an issue between public interest for the benefit of entire
population and private interest of few individuals, public interest
must prevail. The determination of compensation has been done
strictly in accordance with statutory provisions and even though it
is not yet a residential area, the entire land has been classified as
residential area and compensation has been determined on that
basis. The procedural requirement has been meticulously followed.
The experts commissioning the project are the best judge to decide
efficacy and suitability of land. PMRCL has conducted field
survey and has identified the present chunk of land for
establishment of depot and property development area. In exercise
of writ jurisdiction, this Court may not substitute its views on
persuasion of some of the objectors for the view taken by the
experts. In every acquisition, people are likely to be affected. If the
considerations, which have been highlighted by the petitioners, are
factored in, no acquisition would be possible. While protecting the
right of individual is an important facet, this Court may not
outweigh individual rights in comparison to the overwhelming
public interest.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE PMRCL
121. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 10 and 11 (PMRCL),
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
argued that the petitioners are assailing the shifting of the depot
from one place to other, establishment of one depot instead of two
depots, change of alignment etc. but no relief whatsoever with
respect to aforesaid grievances have been sought for in the instant
writ applications.
122. It is well settled that even though the power of the
High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is wide
enough, where the Court can mold the relief, but, the Supreme
Court, in the case of Manohar Lal (dead) by LRS. v. Ugrasen
(Dead) by LRS and Others, reported in 2010 (11) SCC 557, has
held that the Court should not grant a relief not prayed for by the
petitioner.
123. He further argued that as per the earlier detail
project report, two depots were to be constructed, the North South
Corridor, having the starting point at Patna Junction and
terminating at New I.S.B.T. and depot was to be established at
Ramchak Bairiya; whereas, the East and West Corridor having the
starting point at Saguna More and terminating at Aitwarpur, where
another depot was to be constructed.
124. The Council of Minister decided to entrust the
construction of the project to DMRC on 04.09.2019 and
accordingly on 25.09.2019, PMRCL and DMRC entered into an
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
agreement. Thereafter, DMRC made physical assessment of the
detailed project report prepared by M/s Rail India Technical and
Economic Service at ground level and made suggestions to change
in the line alignment in order to save Kumhrar Archaeological
sites, due to change of the alignment suggested by DMRC at
certain points, the proximity, i.e. the distance between the two
Corridors, came very close and as such it was suggested to inter
link both Corridors at Khemnichak and in view of the aforesaid
changes suggested by DMRC, instead of two depots, it was
suggested to construct only one depot at the Inter-State Bus
Terminal.
125. The above suggestions were sent to M/s Rail India
Technical and Economic Service for appraisal. M/s Rail India
Technical and Economic Service approved the same and thereafter
the said revised detail project report was approved by the Cabinet
on 17.03.2020 and subsequently the revised detail project report
was also approved by the Government of India on 26.08.2022 and
also approved by Japan International Corporation Agency. An
agreement was entered into with aforesaid Japan International
Credit Agency for grant of 60 per cent soft loan and the rest 40 per
cent is to be borne by Government of India and State of Bihar in
equal share of 20 per cent each.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
126. Earlier the depot was to be constructed at Ramchak
Bairiya, but it was ultimately found not suitable because of various
drainage and another issues, and instead thereof, contiguous to the
I.S.B.T. Metro Station, on the eastern side, the land at mauza
Ranipur and Pahari was found more suitable and as such in the
revised detail project report, construction of depot was earmarked
at mauza Ranipur and Pahari.
127. The submission in respect of acquisition of land for
property development area, learned Senior Counsel argued that in
the order, dated 30.03.2009, issued by the Government of India,
property development area is an integral part of the Metro project.
The property development is for sustainability of the Metro Project
and to make the Metro Project more financially viable and
sustainable, it is necessary to develop certain area in order to
generate revenue for the Metro Project.
128. As per Clauses 12.22 and Clause 12.24 of the
Agreement between Government of India, Government of Bihar
and PMRCL, dated 06.11.2019, it is stipulated that the
Government of Bihar will make all endeavour for development of
property development area by the PMRCL.
129. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
acquisition of land for the purpose of property development, being
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
it not only an integral part of the Metro Project; rather, in absence
thereof, the said project cannot financially sustain.
130. With regard to alternative sites, as argued by the
petitioners, learned Senior Counsel argued that the petitioners have
suggested three other alternative places for construction of depot
instead of the present site, which are (i) Sahara Land, (ii) dumping
yard and (iii) Abdullachak. These sites are not viable because the
present depot is contiguous to the I.S.B.T. Metro Station. By
producing a sketch map of the aforesaid area, it has been
demonstrated that Abdullachak is located at a distance of about
2.96 Km, which will increase the cost of construction by Rs.
393.39 crores. Similarly, the other site, namely, Sahara Land is at a
distance of 5.52 Km, which will incur additional cost of Rs.
733.62 crores and the third site suggested by the petitioners, i.e.
dumping yard is at a distance of 1.64 Km, which will incur
Additional cost of construction of Rs. 217.96 crores. Apart from
the aforesaid additional cost towards construction of the depot, it
will also increase the recurring operational costs because the train
will have to cover the aforesaid extra distance without any
passenger in order to reach the depot. As such, the aforesaid
alternative sites are not viable and suitable in comparison to the
site at which the depot is being constructed at present.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
131. The Japan International Credit Agency, after
minutely scrutinizing the revised detail project report and
considering all aspects, has accepted the revised detail project
report for both the Corridors at Phase 1 of PMRP.
132. This Court, on 19.7.2022, while directing the
respondents to file counter affidavit, held that the aforesaid order
(i.e. adjournment for filing counter affidavit) would not come in
any way in the progress of the PMRP work and the project shall
continue. The aforesaid order of this Court was assailed before the
Supreme Court, vide SLP (C) No. 18118 of 2022) and the Supreme
Court also not only dismissed the SLP preferred by the writ
petitioners on 21.10.2022, but further held after that "we do not
feel it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order which is an
interim order ".
133. In view of the aforesaid liberty granted to the
PMRCL to go ahead with the construction of the project, the
construction work of the project, including the construction of the
depot, continued and is continuing and till date, more than Rs.
2,7,81/- crores have already been spent over the said project.
134. So far the issue regarding illegality or otherwise
with respect to acquisition of the land in question is concerned, the
same has been elaborately rebutted by an elaborate argument by
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
the learned Advocate General and the same is being adopted on
behalf of respondent nos.10 and 11 also.
REPLY OF THE PETITIONERS ON THE ARGUMENTS
ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE STATE AND THE
PMRCL
135. In reply, learned Counsel for the petitioners argued
that the learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the
State, i.e. respondent nos. 5 and 6, has not dealt with any
provisions of the law, as discussed in the writ applications and has
also not denied any fact, as stated in the writ applications. Insofar
as the decisions cited by him, including the decision, in the case of
Godrej and Boyce (supra) is not applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the present case inasmuch as in the aforesaid
decision, paragraph 2 and 5 clearly spells out that the alternative
lands suggested by the Godrej for construction of Bullet Train
project from Ahmedabad to Mumbai and the proposal no. 2 has
been accepted. The facts of the case of Godrej and Boyce (supra)
is totally different inasmuch as the issue was was with regards to
maintainability, as to whether a party, who has already consented
for giving up the land, can again agitate and challenge under 2013
Act, and the second issue was with regard to Section 25 of 2013
Act, in relation to the preparation of the award. Thus, under this
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
background, the decision, in the case of Godrej and Boyce (supra)
is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
136. Another decision relied upon by learned Advocate
General, in the case of Ramniklal N. Bhutta (supra), is not
applicable and submits that there is a sea change from 1997 to
2012 and in the year the 2013 Act came into force. The intent of
the Legislature is evident from the aims and objectives, which is a
part of various decisions, hence no relevance can be made to the
facts of the present case. In fact, the issue, in the case of
Ramniklal N. Bhutta (supra), was of the year 1979, where
notification under Section 4 was issued and in the year 1982,
notification under Section 6 was issued and then this judgement
was delivered in the year 1997.
137. In the case of Union of India v. Chajju Ram
(Dead) by LRS and Others, reported in (2003) 5 SCC 568, the
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that every case
can differ from each other case and slight change/little difference
in facts or addition to fact may led to different conclusion.
138. The decision cited by the State respondents, in the
case of Soora Ram Pratap Reddy (supra), on the point that the
Government is the best judge to decide what construes public
purpose, is not applicable in this case.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
139. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that
there is no issue with regard to the public purpose. However, it is
an admitted position that the PMRP is a public purpose project and
the Writ Court need to intervene if the acquisition authority has not
followed the statutory provisions and, therefore, the intervention of
the Writ Court is warranted only if the due procedure has not been
followed.
140. Another decision relied upon by the State
respondents, in the case of Nand Kishore Gupta (supra), learned
Counsel for the petitioners argued that this decision is also not
applicable in the facts of the present writ applications inasmuch as
in the present case, there is a clear violation of the statutory
provisions of the 2013 Act.
141. In the case of Ramji Veerji Patel (supra) relied
upon by the State respondents on alternative land, learned Counsel
for the petitioners submits that the State Government considered
the proposal of alternative land given by the petitioners, but found
the same unsuitable. He further argued that this decision is also not
applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case on the
ground that the decision in the case of Ramji Veerji Patel (supra)
has different circumstances under which the Supreme Court has
allowed the land acquisition by the authority on totally on distinct
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
ground, which can be inferred after reading paragraph 32 of Ramji
Veerji Patel (supra).
142. In the present case, the proposal of alternative land
has never been considered and no assessment has been done by
any expert and proper evaluation has also not been made under
Section 4 (4) (e) of the 2013 Act read with 2014 Rules.
143. The decision cited by the State respondents, in the
case of Eros City Developer Private Limited (supra) is not
applicable in the facts of the case in hand inasmuch as the case of
Eros City Developer Private Limited (supra) relates to the old
Act and objections, under Section 5-A, were duly considered;
whereas in the cases in hand, the objections were not considered at
all on the point of jurisdiction by the District Land Acquisition
Officer, Patna, though he has all such rights under Section 15(1)
(c) of the 2013 Act to decide the alternative sites.
144. In the case of Eros City Developer Private
Limited (supra), the Supreme Court has held that the decision of
the Government is not beyond the judicial scrutiny in cases of
public purposes and public necessity.
145. The decision of Dr. Abraham Patani of Mumbai
(supra) is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the
present case inasmuch as the cited decision relates to a road for
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
which initial notification was issued in 1984, then re-alignment
was done in the year 1992.
146. Rebutting the arguments advanced by learned
Senior Counsel for the PMRCL, learned Counsel for the
petitioners argued that it has been submitted regarding difficulties,
which would be faced, if any three of the proposals are considered
by the PMRCL. At this juncture, it is submitted that none of the
proposals given by the petitioners, during the course of hearing of
preparation of Social Impact Assessment report, under Section 4
(4) (e) of the 2013 Act, has been considered, which mandates for
consideration of the alternative sites. At the same time, no
consideration of the Section 5 of 2013 Act has been done. The
PMRCL, in the supplementary counter affidavit, has stated such
facts, but nothing has been stated with regards to the facts and
figures on affidavit except by bringing one piece of map wherein
three proposals has been stated.
147. Against the map submitted by the PMRCL
regarding the alternative sites, the petitioners relied upon another
map with regard to the alternative land at Ramchak Bairiya and
submits that in Ramchak Bairiya, the displacement, as per Google
Earth Map, would be agricultural lands, land owners having large
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
chunk of land, lesser families would be affected, 1300 families
would be saved and drainage through nala is also available.
148. With regard to the Sahara land (proposal no. 2), it is
argued that there will be no displacement of any family, drainage
through nala is available and Rs. 759.66 crores would be saved
and it will have 2-3 more stations which is likely to happen in near
future as this land falls under Patna Nagar Parisad.
149. With regard to the third alternative site at Dumping
Yard, it is argued that there will be no displacement of any family
and as such, 1300 families would be saved from displacement, Rs.
790 crores would be saved, this site can help in the future
expansion of land alignment, only 400 meters of extra line
alignment is for existing project, that is why this small length
cannot be considered and if it is considered, the same will cost
only Rs. 53.16 crores and if this dumping yard is removed, the
surrounding area will be saved from pollution.
150. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, referring to the
map submitted by the PMRCL, argued that respondent nos. 10 and
11 have suggested in the map that the dumping yard will have to
have radius of 300 meters, but if the radius is taken to be 130
meters, there would be no demolition of any house and it is a
Government land of 85 acres. The respondents suggested that they
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
have to put in 217.96 crores and there would be demolition of 73
houses which is to be relocated, but the fact is that it is absolutely
false, which would be evident from the map provided by the
petitioners and there will be demolition of only one house. So far
as the extra amount of 217.96 crores to be incurred by the
respondents is concerned, it is argued that the State is willing to
pay Rs. 790.90 crores for mauza Pahari and Ranipur and this
amount of Rs. 790.90 crores is taken into consideration, still the
Government would be saving Rs. 573 crores. Not only this, the
Government will save about 1300 families from displacement.
Apart from this, the vicinity of mauza Ramchak Bairiya has so
much environmental issues, which would be cured and the entire
surrounding, which is catering to the needs of about 2000 families,
will be saved.
151. Even the alternative site, such as proposal No. 1,
though incorrectly been given in the map and given by the
PMRCL, the second map given by the petitioners, which is
adjacent to Gyanasthali High School
152. So far as demolition of 200 houses, as given in the
map at Abdullachak is concerned, it is absolutely baseless and
false. The petitioners have never given any suggestions for the
lands at Abdullachak; rather, it is the opposite side of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
Abdullachak near Gyanasthali High School. In fact, the families at
mauza Ramchak Bairiya are willing to give their land near
Gyanasthali High School.
153. Learned Counsel further argued that in a Public
Interest Litigation, bearing CWJC No. 20570 of 2015, a Division
bench of this Court, by order, dated 17.10.2023, directed the
Municipal Commissioner to place on record the concrete proposals
as to the separate site identified and also the processing of the
waste in the present location. The Government was also directed to
identify an alternate site, where the future dumping can be done.
The Municipal Commissioner informed that there is a proposal to
set up an Integrated Solid Waste Management Plant, which is
pending before the Central Government for approval. The Central
Government Counsel was directed to take instruction as to the
stage of the approval which is pending before the Central
Government. The State Government was directed to ensure the
preparedness of the Police Department and the Fire Department to
meet any adverse situation arising and to contain any fire mishap
that may occur at the site.
154. There has been a request for acquiring the land in
terms of the general procedure of the 2013 Act and not in
accordance with Section 40 of the 2013 Act, which mandates for
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
compulsory emergency acquisition. Application for emergency
acquisition was given by PMRCL, vide letter no. 723, dated
27.08.2020, but the District Land Acquisition Officer has
consented for acquiring the land except for emergency acquisition.
The Social Impact Assessment report was given on 01.06.2021 but
there is no discussion with regard to property development area in
the said hearing/notice.
155. The property development area for the PMRP, the
DMRC has suggested for taking more land of the Government and
thus under this background the land of Transport Nagar, which is
shifting to some other location, is taken into consideration and
then also, the alternative sites can be considered.
156. In the Master Plan 2030-31, at page No. 68, it
would be evident that Ramchak Bairiya and Dumping Yard is
commercial one type land and in 2030-31, they will be used as
commercial land. The Government has 85 acres of land, which can
be utilised for the purposes of construction of depot area.
157. Learned Counsel next argued that the entire project
is to be completed by December, 2028, as per the press release,
dated 29.03.2023, issued by the Japan International Credit Agency
and the claim of the PMRCL that 42 per cent of the work has been
completed is absolutely false and baseless, and only 5 per cent of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
the work has been done, if photography is taken into consideration.
There is no construction work done on the site except boundary
and even that is also not complete. Even if 65 crores of investment
has been made, then, if the project is shifted to some other place,
there will be recovery of the invested amount, if at all paid to some
other person for the respective land.
158. Even otherwise, the compensation amount, which
has been paid, is much below and thus under this background, the
people, who will have been paid will automatically be happy to
return the said amount to the respective authorities. In fact, there
are 1300 families, in number, and the amount which has been
alleged to be accepted by them is very minimal, i.e. less than 5 per
cent.
159. Altogether 188 petitioners have approached this
Court and the people, who are approaching the Court, are
representing 23.56 acres of land. The 63 petitioners, along with
others, petitioners are having 2.6 acres of land. If the total
petitioners are considered, then 1/3rd of the parties are before this
Court.
CONSIDERATION
160. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at
length and have gone through the relevant materials on record.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
161. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, during the
course of arguments, challenged the acquisition of land done by
the State Government and has mainly argued that (i) acquisition
has been done in violation of provisions as contained in the 2013
Act and further without considering the proposal of rehabilitation
and resettlement of the petitioners; (ii) the alternative sites
suggested by the petitioners were not considered by the
authorities; (iii) the component of property development area not
being the public purpose and (iv) compensation paid is
inadequate.
162. Mr. Sumeet Singh, learned Counsel for the
petitioners, during the course of argument, has admitted that the
PMRP is a public purpose project. However, his submission is that
the Writ Court need to intervene if the acquisition authorities have
not followed the statutory provisions of law. The PMRP is a mass
rapid transit system, which is under construction in Patna, the
capital of Bihar, by PMRCL, through Special Purpose Vehicle
(SPV).
163. The PMRP shall be constructed in five phases and
will be operated by State run PMRCL. The present case relates to
Phase-1 of the PMRP, which consists of two corridors. The line of
Corridor-1 (also known as 'East-West Corridor') will cover a
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
distance of 16.86 kms. from Danapur Cantonment to Khemnichak,
and has 14 metro stations. The line of Corridor-2 (also known as
'North-South Corridor') will cover a distance of 14.05 kms. from
Patna Junction to New I.S.B.T., and has 12 metro stations.
164. The acquisition of land has been done by the State
authorities for the purpose of construction of depot and property
development area, which is the subject matter of the present writ
applications. The objective of the PMRP is to cope up with the
increasing traffic demand in Patna, which will contribute to the
improvement of the urban environment. Patna has a population of
little over 2.5 million, making it eligible for metro services. The
PMRP will contribute to the achievement of sustainable
development goals. Altogether 11.2 Hectares of land have been
acquired for the property development area and 19.2 Hectares of
land has been acquired for the purpose of construction of depot.
165. On 25th September, 2018, the Government of Bihar
approved the constitution of PMRCL as the Special Purpose
Vehicle for construction of PMRP, which, in turn, appointed
DMRC, as the general consultant to assist in the implementation of
the PMRP. The PMRP received the approval of the Central
Government on 06.02.2019 and in November, 2019, the DMRC
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
suggested a change in the detailed project report of the PMRP and
line alignment of both the corridors.
166. In relation to the depot under the PMRP, initially
there were two locations, the first one at mauza Aitwarpur and the
second one at mauza Ramchak Bairiya, which has later been
changed to only one location, at mauza Pahari and Ranipur, to
which the petitioners belong. The estimated cost of construction of
the depot is Rs. 143 crores.
167. The petitioner, in the present writ applications, have
challenged the acquisition of the land in mauza Pahari and
Ranipur, which is being acquired for the purpose of construction of
depot and property development area. The total land required for
the depot and the property development area is 76.6450, out of
which, at mauza Pahari and Ranipur, 0.70 acres of land is of
Government of Bihar and rest 75.95 acres of land has been
acquired in mauza Pahari and Ranipur.
168. Regarding the challenge to the acquisition by the
petitioners in violation of provisions of 2013 Act, it has been
argued on behalf of the writ petitioners that the decision to change
the depot from mauza Aitwarpur and Ramchak Bairiya to mauza
Pahari and Ranipur has been taken in haste and that too, without
the approval of the State Government. Further argument on behalf
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
of the writ petitioners is that the Social Impact Assessment
Study/Report is bad in law as there is non-compliance of Section 4
of the 2013 Act read with Rules 5 to 10, under Chapter III, of 2014
Rules. There is no finding that the alternative lands have been
considered and found not feasible. There is also no finding with
regard to bare minimum land, which is required for the purpose of
construction of depot. Section 5 of the 2013 Act was also not
followed properly. The public hearing was fixed during COVID-
2019 pandemic, which was prevailing in the entire country and
less than 10 per cent of the affected families took part in the public
hearing.
169. Rule 11 (3) of the 2014 Rules mandates that public
hearing must be announced three weeks in advance through daily
newspaper and clear 21 days' time was not given in the present
case inasmuch as the public hearing was announced on 01.06.2021
and the hearing was conducted on 04.06.2021.
170. Section 6 of the 2013 Act has also not been
followed as the Social Impact Assessment Report was not
published in the affected area in such manner as prescribed and
was not uploaded on the website of the State Government. The
formation of the Technical Expert Committee, prescribed under
Section 7 of the 2013 Act, read with Rule 13 of the 2014 Rules,
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
has also been violated inasmuch as Section 7 (2) (b) of the 2013
Act mandates two representatives of Panchayat, Gram
Sabha/Municipal Corporation, as the case may be, but in the
present case, there is sham compliance of this requirement and two
persons, who were part of the Expert Committee, were
representatives of different ward and both of them were not
properly associated with the concerned Municipality and have
written letters saying that their signatures have been taken on
paper and they have not consented, being the members of the
Expert Committee.
171. Learned Counsel has also argued that there was
non-compliance of the procedure, as prescribed under Section 8 of
the 2013 Act, which mandate that the decision of the appropriate
Government shall be made available in the local language to the
Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case
may be, and also in the Office of the Collector, the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate and the Tehsil, and shall be published in the affected
areas in such manner, as the case may be, and uploaded on the
website of the appropriate Government. The State Government has
also not published the Social Impact Assessment Report in the
affected areas in the manner as provided and also not uploaded the
same on the website of the State Government.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
172. Attacking on the notification under Section 11 (1)
of the 2013 Act, learned Counsel submitted that it mandates that
the notification is a preliminary notification and it has to contain
the status of the public purpose involved, reasons necessitating
displacement of affected person, summary of Social Impact
Assessment Report and the particulars of the Administrator
appointed for the purpose of rehabilitation and resettlement, under
Section 43 of the 2013 Act, but in the present case, all these
procedures were not followed and have, thus, been violated. There
is no mentioning of the reasons for displacement of the affected
families, there is no summary of the Social Impact Assessment
Report and there is no particulars of the Administrator appointed
under Section 43 of the 2013 Act. The said notification does not
indicate as to how many families are going to the displaced; rather,
in the opposite, it is stated that no family is going to be displaced.
173. The objections filed by the petitioners against the
acquisition have also not been considered in accordance with law
as contained in Section 15 of the 2013 Act and the petitioners'
objections have perfunctorily been rejected in one line or three-
four lines, and no objection has been dealt with separately. The
District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, has failed to give any
finding with regard to the alternative land. The notification, under
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
Section 19 of the 2013 Act has not considered the mandatory
provisions of law. There is no such report, which has been
submitted under Section 19 (2) by the Collector, Patna, as
mandated under Section 19 (1) of the 2013 Act. It is also mandated
that under Section 15 (2) of the 2013 Act, the Collector has to
submit a report along with the recommendations on the objections
to the appropriate Government for decision. There is no such
publication of summary of the rehabilitation and resettlement
scheme along with the declaration referred to under Section 19 (1)
of the 2013 Act.
174. The language used in the award will make it clear
that it has been prepared in complete violation of Section 30 of the
2013 Act, which mandates that the Collector shall issue individual
award, detailing the particulars of compensation payable as
specified in the First Schedule.
175. Learned Counsel has argued that the property
development area cannot be taken as an integral part of the PMRP.
176. These were precisely the grounds taken by the
petitioners while challenging the acquisition of the land, in
question.
177. On the point that no assessment was made by the
respondents to consider the feasibility and need of new metro
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
depot at the new site and that the decision was taken in undue
haste, learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the
decisions of the Supreme Court, in the cases of Inderpreet Singh
Kahlon (supra) and Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil (supra), in
which the Supreme Court has held that the action taken in undue
haste can be declared as bad in law.
178. He further relied on the case of Manekbben
Rama Tandel (supra), which says that summary of the Social
Impact Assessment Report, if any, in the report under Section
8 cannot be termed as due compliance with the mandatory
requirements of publication of the notification under Section 4 and
publication of the Social Impact Assessment Report as
contemplated under Section 6 of the 2013 Act.
179. He also relied on the decision of the Supreme
Court, in the case of Dev Sharan and Others (supra) in which a
question arose in relation to the action of the State as to whether it
is justified for acquiring the land when alternative land is already
available and further, in the case of Kamal Trading Private
Limited (supra), the Supreme Court has dealt with the aspect as to
whether if the objections are filed and not considered, then it
would amount to non-application of mind and set aside the
acquisition proceeding on this ground.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
180. In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corpn.
Limited (supra), a question arose that whether judicial review can
be done if there is any illegality, irrationality, and procedure
impropriety is being found. In this case, the High Court has set
aside the land acquisition proceeding, as objections were not
considered.
181. In the case of Surinder Singh Brar (supra), relied
upon by the petitioners, the Supreme Court, while examining the
entire facts, has observed that the objections, though rejected by
the District Land Acquisition Officer, but the District Land
Acquisition Officer had not applied its mind to the objections of
the land owners and merely created a facade of doing so.
182. On the point of deciding the objections, the
petitioners have relied upon the decision, in the case of Kedar
Nath Yadav (supra) and Raghbir Singh Sehrawat (supra). He
also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of
Shiv Singh (supra), in which public notice and non-compliance of
Section 15 (2) of the 2013 Act has been dealt with. The Supreme
Court has held that it is mandatory on the part of the Collector to
comply with the procedure prescribed under Section 15 (2) of the
2013 Act so as to make the acquisition proceedings legal and in
conformity with the provisions of the Act.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
183. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed
reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court, in the cases of
Vidya Devi (supra), B. K. Ravichandra (supra) and D. B.
Basnett (supra) in support of the argument that the right to
property ceased to be a fundamental right by the Constitution,
however, it continued to be a human right and the State cannot
dispossess a citizen of its property except in accordance with the
procedure established by law. The obligation to pay
compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300-A of
the Constitution of India, can be inferred in that Article.
184. In Vidya Devi (supra), the Supreme Court has
quoted its earlier decision, in the case of Hindustan Petroleum
Corpn. Limited (supra), wherein it has been held that having
regard to the provisions contained in Article 300-A of the
Constitution, the State in exercise of its power of "eminent
domain" may interfere with the right of property of a person by
acquiring the same, but the same must be for a public purpose and
reasonable compensation therefor must be paid.
185. The decision, in the case of K. S. Puttaswamy
(supra) has also been relied upon for the purpose that right to
shelter has been declared as fundamental right.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
186. The argument advanced on behalf of the State
respondents is that in the city of Patna, the only means of transport
is either private transport or motorized road transport, which has
led to congestion, unmanageable traffic on roads and long hours of
traffic jam, leading to emission of carbon dioxide/carbon
monoxide, causing air and sound pollution in the city. Most of the
times, the 'air quality index' is extremely hazardous, causing
serious health issues. The PMRP is an ambitious project in larger
public interest and for convenience of general public at large. The
PMRP will be efficient, economical and faster mode of public
transport and shall look the increase in the population, the pressure
of commuters and the same will also reduce the overall air
pollution.
187. On the Social Impact Assessment Study/Report, it
has been submitted that the Social impact Assessment Study was
conducted by the Development Management Institute, Patna, in
which 250 people as well as representatives of Ward No. 56 had
participated. The Social Impact Assessment Report was submitted
on 14.06.2021, before the Technical Expert Committee. In the
Social Impact Assessment Report, the finding is that the positive
impact of PMRP is higher than the negative impact. The Social
Impact Assessment Report was examined by the Expert
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
Committee, which recommended for timely completion of the
PMRP.
188. Upon the notification issued by the respondents,
under Section 11 (1) of the 2013 Act, it has been submitted that
759 objections were submitted and after affording the opportunity
of hearing to the objectors, the objections were duly considered
and disposed of by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, on
02.02.2022. After hearing all the objections and disposal of the
same under Section 15 (2) of the 2013 Act, it has been sent to the
Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna, and the same has been approved. Thereafter, the
notification, under Section 19 of the 2013 Act was published on
11.05.2022 and award was, accordingly, prepared. Rs. 133.03
crores has already been disbursed in favour of the land owners,
whose land has been acquired for the PMRP and physical
possession of the entire acquired land, i.e. 75.96 acres of land was
handed over to the PMRCL on 10.09.2022. The total expenditure
incurred over construction of PMRP, till 30 th September, 2023, is
Rs. 2,781.83 crores, out of which Rs. 65 crores have been incurred
over construction of depot. The physical completion of the depot is
44 per cent and financial completion of the depot is 42.5 per cent
and the date of completion of the depot is August, 2025.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
189. On property development area, it has been
submitted by the State that in any Metro Rail project, its viability
is not dependent only on fare recovered from commuters, but
mostly depends upon Non-Fare Box Revenue. The metro rail must
have component of commercial utilization of its property,
including metro stations, depots etc. Everywhere in the World,
including India, where metro rail project has been launched, it
necessarily include the component of revenue generation from
sources other than fare. The property development by the Metro
Rail is one of the accepted modes of resource mobilization towards
capital cost as well as sustainable operation. The Ministry of
Urban Development, Government of India has issued letter, dated
30.03.2009, bearing K-14011/8/2000, stating therein that the
property development is one of the ways of mobilizing resources
for the project. Therefore, the word "Project" would also include
"Property Development", as such the property development on the
acquired land shall also be considered as part of the project. The
property development area/Non-Fare Box Revenue has been
considered and approved by the Japan International Credit Agency
as well as the Government of India and the same is integral part of
the metro rail project.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
190. It has also been highlighted in the argument of the
State that the line alignment of the North-South Corridor of Phase-
1 of the PMRP was revisited in order to save historical and
archaeological site at Kumhrar and large number of other
structures and the line alignment has been changed on the
suggestion of the DMRC. In course of execution, the project
authorities realized that the line alignment needs to be changed and
instead of two corridors, only one corridor, with inter-
changeability at Khemnichak, would serve the purpose. The
construction of depot, at the present site, is also beneficial for
seamless integration between the Inter-State Bus Terminal and
I.S.B.T. Metro Station. The revised detail project report, having
only one depot at mauza Pahari and Ranipur, got approved by the
State Government on 17.03.2020 and the same has also been
approved by the Japan International Credit Agency as well as the
Government of India.
191. On the issue of availability of alternative land, as
suggested by the petitioners, it has been submitted that the project
cost will increase by approximately Rs. 500-700 crores, if the site
suggested by the petitioners is selected for work of depot and
property development area. The petitioners have further not shown
any arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the selection of the land.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
192. The respondent-State has relied upon the decision
of the Supreme Court, in the case of Nand Kishore Gupta
(supra). This case related to the construction of Yamuna
Expressway and the acquisition of land was made along Yamuna
Expressway for development of the same for commercial,
amusement, industrial, institutional and residential purposes. The
Supreme Court considered Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, which contains definition of "Public Purposes' and observed
that the Expressway is a work of immense public importance. The
State gains advantages from the construction of an expressway and
so does the general public. Creation of a corridor for fast-moving
traffic resulting into curtailing the travelling time, as also the
transport of the goods, would be some factors, which speak in
favour of the Project being for the public purpose. The creation of
the five zones for industry, residence, amusement, etc. would be
complementary to the creation of the Expressway. The Supreme
Court has further held that it cannot be forgotten that the creation
of land parcels would give impetus to the State creating more jobs
and helping the economy and thereby helping the general public.
The creation of five parcels will certainly help the maximum
utilization of the Expressway and the existence of an Expressway
for the fast-moving traffic would help the industrial culture created
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
in the five parcels. Thus, both will be complimentary to each other
and can be viewed as parts of an integral scheme. Therefore, it
cannot be said that it is not a public purpose. Accordingly, the
Supreme Court has held that the creation of five Zones for
industry, amusement, residence etc. was made for public purpose.
193. In yet another decision cited by the State, in the
case of G. Narsing Rao (supra), the Supreme Court has held that
"it cannot be disputed that the public interest is the paramount
consideration and the National Highway Authority can be said to
be the best judge to decide which land to be acquired and which
not to be acquired for the purpose of construction of the Highway
and in that view of the matter, no interference is called for in
exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India".
194. In yet another decision of the Supreme Court, in the
case of Ramji Veerji Patel (supra), it has been held that if land
proposed to be acquired and alternative land is suggested by the
owners/persons interested are equally suitable for the purpose of
which land is being acquired, the satisfaction of the Government,
if not actuated with ulterior motive, must get primacy. It is not
open to the Court to examine the aspect of suitability as a court of
appeal and substitute its opinion.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
195. In the case of Ramniklal N. Bhutta (supra), it has
been held by the Supreme Court that the means of transportation,
power and communications are in dire need of substantial
improvement, expansion and modernization. These things very
often call for acquisition of land and that too without any delay. It
has further been held that whatever may have been the practices in
the past, a time has come where the courts should keep the larger
public interest in mind while exercising their power of granting
stay/injunction. The power, under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, is discretionary and will be exercised in furtherance of
interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal
point. In the matter of land acquisition for public purposes, the
interests of justice and the public interest coalesce. They are very
often one and the same. The courts have to weigh the public
interest vis-à-vis the private interest while exercising the power
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It may even be open
to the High Court to direct, in case it finds finally that the
acquisition was vitiated on account of non-compliance with the
legal requirement that the persons interested shall also be entitled
to a particular amount of damages to be awarded as a lump sum or
calculated at a certain percentage of compensation payable. There
are many ways of affording appropriate relief and redressing a
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
wrong; quashing the acquisition proceedings is not the only mode
of redress.
196. In the case of Eros City Developers Private
Limited (supra), the Supreme Court has held that the Government
is the best judge to decide as to whether the acquisition is for
public purpose or not. The project for which land is acquired
should be taken as a whole and must be judged whether it is in the
larger public interest and it cannot be split into different
components to consider whether each and every component will
serve public purpose or not.
197. In Dr. Abraham Patani of Mumbai (supra), the
Supreme Court has held that we must not lose sight of the fact that
in several situations, the needs of the many must outweigh that of
the few. We say so not with any fervour nor as a mantra, but as a
solemn acknowledgment of the realities of modern life. Generally,
the executive would be the best judge to determine whether or not
the impugned purpose is a public purpose.
198. The respondent-State has alo relied on a Division
Bench decision of the Bombay High Court, in the case of Godrej
and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra), in which the
Bombay High Court has dealt with the ambit and scope of the writ
jurisdiction in matters where acquisition of land is for eminent
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
public purpose. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court,
the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has considered that
even if there are any irregularities in the procedure followed by the
acquiring authority for infrastructural project, whether Court can
exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and can interfere with the infrastructural
project of public importance or that no interference is warranted
since the petitioner should be compensated in terms of money by
seeking enhancement of compensation under Section 64 of the
2013 Act. It has been held that in case of procedural difficulties, if
any, in acquiring the property, it would at the most affect the
quantum of compensation and not validity of acquisition. The
powers of Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are
discretionary and merely because there are certain alleged
irregularities in the procedure required to be followed while
acquiring the property, the Court cannot exercise discretionary
power in view of the fact that the project being infrastructure and
public project of national importance.
199. The said decision of the Bombay High Court was
challenged before the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court
declined to interfere.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
200. The argument of learned Counsel for the PMRCL is
that the Property Development area is an integral part of any metro
project. Property Development area is for sustainability of the
metro project and to make the metro project viable financially and
sustainable. It is necessary to develop certain area in order to
generate revenue for the metro project. In absence of the Property
Development area, the metro project cannot survive. The
alternative sites suggested by the petitioners are also not viable
because the present depot is contiguous to the proposed I.S.B.T.
Metro Station and further if the project is shifted to any of the sites
suggested by the petitioners, it would incur additional cost of Rs.
217-733 crores. Further, in view of the order, dated 19.07.2022,
passed by this |Court, and the SLP filed by the petitioners against
the said order, having been dismissed by the Supreme Court, the
construction work of the metro project, including the construction
of depot, continued and is continuing till date and more than Rs.
2781/- crores have been spent over the entire PMRP, including Rs.
65 crores in the construction of depot, i.e. 42.5 per cent financial
work of the construction of the depot has been completed and 44
per cent of the physical progress have been made in the
construction and Rs. 125 crores has been paid as compensation of
the land/houses of the land/house owners.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
201. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties
concerned and upon consideration of their arguments, following
questions emerge for considerations before this Court:
(a) Whether the provisions of the 2013 Act have been
followed for acquiring the land, in question?
(b) Scope of rehabilitation and resettlement, if any
(c)Whether the property development area and the depot
area are integral part of the PMRP?
(d) Whether the PMRP, including the property
development area, is a project of larger public interest?
202. The submissions of the petitioners regarding public
hearing during the course of preparation of Social Impact
Assessment Report, as mandated under Section 5 of the 2013 Act
read with Rule 11 (3) of the 2014 Rules is concerned, emphasis
has been given by learned Counsel that clear three weeks' notice
was not given and the notice regarding public hearing was
published on 01.06.2021 and the public hearing was conducted on
04.06.2021.
203. While preparing Social Impact Assessment Report,
the alternative lands suggested by the petitioners/objectors, as
required under Section 4 (4) (e) of the 2013 Act read with Rule 10
(3) of the 2014 Rules, including the requirement of bare minimum
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
land have also not been considered. Further, the argument that
Social Impact Assessment Report was not published in the affected
area in the manner prescribed under Section 11 of the 2013 Act
and not uploaded on the website of the Government.
204. From the materials produced by the parties, it
transpires that in the public hearing, during the course of
preparation of Social impact Assessment Report by the
Development Management Institute, Patna, 111 persons
participated and according to the State, 250 people as well as
representatives of Ward No. 56 had participated. The Social impact
Assessment Report was submitted on 14.06.2021, saying that the
positive impact is higher than the negative impact and the
Government should take prompt action so that the benefits of the
project should reach to the public.
205. The contention of the petitioners that 21 days'
notice, as required under Rule 11 (3) of the 2014 Rules, appears to
be correct, but upon consideration of the entire facts, during the
preparation of the Social impact Assessment Report, it appears that
there was substantial compliance of these provisions, except some
procedural lapses here and there.
206. On the point of non-consideration of alternative
sites suggested by the petitioners, it is the case of the State that
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
alternative sites are not suitable and shall incur extra cost, ranging
between 500 and 700 crores. Further, the construction work has
started on the present site and substantial construction, to the
extent of 44 per cent, has been done on the land, in question.
Majority of the land owners have received compensation to the
tune of Rs. 130 crores. The suitability of the land is domain of the
acquiring agency and the agency, which is executing the metro rail
project. The respondent-State and its agency are the best judge to
decide the suitability and feasibility of the project.
207. The Supreme Court, in the cases of Ramji Veerji
Patel (supra) and G. Narsing Rao (supra), has held that authority
is the best judge to decide which land is required to be acquired for
the purpose of construction of public project for public purpose.
The satisfaction of the Government, if not actuated with ulterior
motive, must get primacy. It is not open to the Court to examine
the aspect of suitability as a court of appeal and substitute its
opinion.
208. Accordingly, I am of the view that non-
consideration of the proposal of the petitioners regarding
alternative sites by the State Government in the facts and
circumstances of the present case does not vitiate the acquisition,
in question.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
209. From the contention of the petitioners regarding
formation of the Expert Committee for appraisal of Social Impact
Assessment Report, as mandated under Section 7 (2) (b) of the
2013 Act, which requires two representatives of Panchayat, Gram
Sabha, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be,
it appears that the two representatives of Gram Panchayat, who
were inducted as Members of the Expert Committee, were not the
representatives of the area, but were representatives of other
Wards. But the fact of the matter is that detailed deliberations were
done on the Social Impact Assessment Report by the Expert
Committee, in which the specialized persons were members and
has made certain recommendations to the State Government
regarding the acquisition of the land for the construction of depot
and Property Development Area, which would be evident from the
report of the Expert Committee (Annexure 18). At page 190 of
CWJC No. 4562 of 2022, the recommendation of the Expert
Committee are as follows:
(1) It is recommended that in view of the present-day
economic usefulness of the land being acquired, the appropriate
authority may consider updation of land classification and bring
parity in the land rates in the area. To make the compensation
amount more relevant, it is suggested that all the plots being
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
required for the project may be given a minimum classification of
developing land' (Vikas-sheel Bhoomi) and above for the purpose
of compensation fixation. The compensation may be paid as per
the provisions of the 2013 Act, and 2014 Rules.
(2) Some raiyats will lose their residential/commercial
structures due to this acquisition. It is suggested that in accordance
with the Section 29 (1) of the 2013 Act, the value of the attached
property may be determined for proper compensation. As an
ameliorative measure, the competent authority may consider
arrangement of credit support for such people to reorganize their
business.
(3) The competent authority may, after proper
verification, determine compensation for standing crops and other
immovable properties as per Section 29 of 2013 Act.
(4) For rehabilitation and resettlement purpose, the
requiring body and the competent authority may consider utilizing
the government land in the vicinity.
(5) As regards demand for jobs, decision may be taken
by the requiring body in accordance with the rules and provisions
of PMRCL.
(6) It is suggested that a grievance redressal mechanism
should be established to receive and mitigate the concerns and
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
complaints. Also, some NGOs or external monitoring agencies
may be engaged to assist in the implementation and monitoring of
the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan.
(7) To conclude the potential benefits of this project
outweighs the social cost and adverse social impacts. This project
is expected to bring multiple socio-economic benefits for the
residents of Patna and adjoining areas. Hence, the expert
committee recommends proposed land acquisition for timely
completion of the Project.
210. During the course of argument, learned Advocate
General has categorically submitted that rehabilitation and
resettlement proposal of the Expert Committee was not considered
by the State Government. Thus, it is clear that the
recommendations of the Expert Committee were not considered at
the level of State Government.
211. With regard to the contention of the petitioners that
the decision to change two depots to one depot to be constructed at
the present site was taken in haste is concerned, the respondents-
State has submitted that the construction of metro depot from two
locations to one location has been done due to technical reasons on
the basis of the suggestion given by the DMRC, which has been
approved by M/s Rail India Technical and Economic Service. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
present site has been suggested as most suitable site for the
purpose of construction of depot. As per the revised detail project
report, the total cost of construction nof PMRP is reduce to Rs.
13365 crores from Rs. 17887.56 crores. Further, the location has
been changed from the earlier site to the present site at mauza
Pahari and Ranipur due to change in line alignment in order to
save historical places, at Kumhrar, including the archaeological
complexes. The revised detail project report prepared by M/s Rail
India Technical and Economic Service has been approved by the
State Government, Central Government as well as Japan
International Credit Agency. Therefore, it appears that at various
stages, the deliberations and decisions have been taken by the
State Government, Central Government, executing agency as well
as financing agency. Thus, it cannot be said that decision to change
the site and to construct only one depot instead of two depots was
taken in haste. It is not the case of the petitioners that this decision
was taken by the respondent authorities with ulterior motive or
with any mala fide intention. As such, I do not find any force in
this argument advanced by the petitioners.
212. On the point that whether this PMRP is a public
project of larger public importance, Mr. Sumeet Singh, submits
that PMRP is a public purpose project, however, Mr. Basant
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
Kumar Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the
petitioners, in CWJC No. 7650 of 2022, argued that even though it
is accepted that PMRP is a public purpose project, but the Property
Development Area, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be
a project of public purpose. The State has no role to indulge in
profiteering by constructing malls, cinema halls near metro
stations/depot. In this regard, the argument advanced by the State
is that the Property Development Area is an integral part of any
metro project and in any metro rail project, its viability is not
dependent upon fare recovered from the commuters and its
viability also depends upon Non-Fare Box Revenue. The metro
rail must have component of commercial utilization of its property,
including metro stations, depots etc. Everywhere in the world,
including India, where metro rail project has been launched, it
necessarily includes components of revenue to be generated from
sources other than fare. The property development by the Metro
Rail is one of the accepted modes of resource mobilization towards
capital cost as well as sustainable operation. The property
development by Metro Projects is in line with the global example
as Metros are highly capital intensive projects and the only way
they can remain financially healthy, without government subsidy,
is to increase the non-operational revenue, i.e. revenue from
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
advertisement, retailing, real estate, parking lot etc., as in the case
of Hong Kong and other international Metros is done.
213. The Supreme Court, in the case of Nand Kishore
Gupta (supra), which was related to the construction of Yamuna
Expressway, where the acquisition of land was made along
Yamuna Expressway for development of the same for commercial,
amusement, industrial, institutional and residential purposes. The
Supreme Court considered the definition of "Public Purposes' and
held that the creation of a corridor for fast-moving traffic resulting
into curtailing the travelling time, as also the transport of the
goods, would be some factors, which speak in favour of the
Project being for the public purpose. It has also been held that the
creation of the five zones for industry, residence, amusement, etc.
would be complementary to the creation of the Expressway. Both,
the Expressway and the five zone, along with the Expressway, is
complimentary to each other and can be viewed as parts of an
integral scheme. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is not a public
purpose. The Supreme Court has held that the creation of five
zones was made for public purpose.
214. The Metro Rail Policy, 2017, also contemplates
provisions for enhancement of revenue of the metro rail projects
and include commercial/property development at stations and on
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
other urban land can be used as a key instrument for maximizing
revenues in metro rail/railway systems in cities This system is
being used in the cities around the world, including Hong Kong
and Tokyo. The metro rail implementing agencies should endeavor
to maximize revenue through commercial development at stations
and on land allocated for this purpose. The detail project report
should also mandatorily contain a chapter on enhancing non-fare
box revenue through conventional as well as innovative means.
Accordingly, in the present case also, the respondent-State while
constructing the metro rail project system in Patna have taken into
account the factors, which may increase the Non-Fare Box
Revenue in line with the Metro Rail Policy, 2017, and has decided
to construct the Property Development area, which, in my opinion,
would be a part of the public purpose inasmuch as metro rail
project and the Property Development Area are complimentary to
each other and can be said to be a part of an integral scheme of the
PMRP.
215. Thus, the argument of Mr. Choudhary, that the
Property Development Area is not for public purpose under the
PMRP does not have any force and it cannot be said that it is not
for public purpose and the integral part of any metro rail project.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
216. On the point of objections having not been
considered by the Collector/District Land Acquisition Officer,
Patna, after publication of the notification, under Section 11 (1) of
the 2013 Act, the petitioners have submitted that objections, under
Section 15 of the 2013 Act filed by the petitioners have
perfunctorily been rejected by the District Land Acquisition
Officer, Patna, and the objections have not been dealt with
separately, including the availability of alternative sites. Learned
Advocate General submitted that altogether 759 objections were
submitted and after affording the opportunity of hearing to all the
objectors, all the objections were duly considered and disposed of
by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna,. Out of 759
objections, 221 objections were with regard to publication of their
names, which were accordingly published; 531 objections were
with regard to not giving their land, which did not come under the
purview of objections; and remaining 7 objections were with
regard to making payment of compensation as per commercial
value or giving job.
217. Thus, I find that objections were invited and
considered by the Collector/District Land Acquisition Officer,
Patna, under the 2013 Act, since the present project is of larger
public importance, some discrepancies in the process of disposal
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
of objections shall not render the entire acquisition as invalid. The
petitioner may be entitled for just and fair compensation and the
benefit of rehabilitation and resettlement prescribed under the
Statute.
CONCLUSION
218. Upon consideration of the arguments advanced by
the parties, discussion held, findings arrived herein above, in my
considered opinion, it would not be in the interest of public at large
to interfere with the acquisition of the subject land. Accordingly,
writ applications, seeking quashing of the acquisition notice, are
dismissed.
219. During the preparation of Social Impact
Assessment Report, majority of the land owners have demanded
just and fair compensation based upon the revised M.V.R. and
rehabilitation, job in lieu of acquisition of their land.
220. The possession of the entire acquired land, at
mauza Pahari and Ranipur, has already been taken by the State and
handed over to the PMRCL, upon which the PMRCL has started
construction of the depot and about 45 per cent of the construction
work of depot has been completed and around Rs. 130 crores have
already been disbursed towards the compensation to the land
owners.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
221. The whole scheme has progressed to a substantial
level wherefrom it would be extremely difficult now to return back
and quash the entire acquisition proceeding. Interference, at this
stage, would mean impeding or bringing at halt the infrastructural
development of the City of Patna in the shape of metro rail, which
is of immense public importance for the benefit of about 22.5
millions residents of Patna and other persons visiting the State
capital of Bihar.
222. It is well settled law that in judicial review, it is not
open to the Court to examine the aspect of suitability of land as a
court of appeal and substitute its opinion. In the present case, the
PMRCL has found the land, in question, more suitable for
construction of depot under the PMRP at mauza Pahari and
Ranipur and has also given reasons as to why the land, in question,
has been selected to be most suitable for the purpose of
construction of depot and Property Development Area. The courts
have to weigh the overwhelming public interest vis-à-vis the
private interest while exercising the power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
223. In the case of Godrej and Boyce (supra), the
Bombay High Court has dealt with the ambit and scope of the writ
jurisdiction in the matter of acquisition of land for eminent public
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
purpose. The Bombay High Court has considered that even if there
are any irregularities in the procedure followed by the acquiring
authority for infrastructural project, the Court, in exercise of its
discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
may not interfere with the project of public importance. The
powers of the Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
are discretionary and merely because there are certain alleged
irregularities in the procedure required to be followed while
acquiring the property, the Court cannot exercise discretionary
power in view of the fact that the project being infrastructural and
public project of national importance.
224. In the case of Ramniklal N. Bhutta (supra), the
Supreme Court has held that the power, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is discretionary and the same will be
exercised in furtherance of interest of justice and not merely on the
making out a legal point. In the matter of land acquisition for
public purposes, the interest of justice and the public interest
intermingle. It may even be open to the High Court to direct, in
case it finds finally that the acquisition was vitiated on account of
non-compliance with some legal requirement, that the persons
interested shall also be entitled to a particular amount of damages
to be awarded as a lump sum or calculated at a certain percentage
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
of compensation payable. There are many ways of affording
appropriate relief and redressing a wrong; quashing the acquisition
proceeding is not the only mode of redress, which is ultimately a
matter of balancing the competing interest beyond this, which is
neither visible nor advisable to say.
225. In the present acquisition process, certain
provisions of the 2013 Act as well as 2014 Rules were not
followed and there appears to be procedural lapses at the stage of
preparation of Social Impact Assessment Report, formation of
Expert Committee and non-consideration of the recommendations
of the Expert Committee by the Government.
226. I have already held herein above that since this
project is a public project, certain procedural infirmities shall not
render the entire acquisition process as invalid. However, upon
balancing the public interest vis-a-vis the interest of land/house
owners, who have lost their entire land, including houses and some
business establishments, the interest of justice demands that just,
fair and adequate compensation be paid to the land/house owners,
including their rehabilitation and resettlement, as prescribed under
the Scheme of the 2013 Act and also recommended by the Expert
Committee.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
227. From the records of these cases, it appears that the
lands have been acquired at two mauza, i.e. Pahari and Ranipur,
For mauza Ranipur, the rate of the lands fixed by the State
Government is less than the rate fixed for the land of mauza
Pahari. Since the lands have been acquired in both the mauza, i.e.
Pahari and Ranipur, for one project, therefore, on the principle of
one project one compensation, the lands owners of mauza Ranipur
are entitled to get equal compensation at the same rate, which has
been given to the land owners of mauza Pahari. Both the lands are
situated adjacent to each other.
228. The question, which, now, requires consideration is
as to how to ascertain the just and fair compensation, which the
petitioners and others are entitled and at the same time, the Court
must balance the State exchequer by not awarding any amount,
which may be in excess so that not to put additional burden on the
State entity.
229. The price of the land in Patna has skyrocketed and
increased manifold, but the M.V.R./circle rate of the area has not
been revised for many years. The Court has been informed that the
compensation has been fixed on the M.V.R./circle rate prevalent in
the year 2014.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
230. The M.V.R./circle rate is provided for the purpose
of payment of stamp duty, but that cannot be made a basis to
determine the actual price of the market value of the property. The
purchasers, while purchasing the land, in the sale deed, quote the
consideration amount on the basis of the M.V.R./circle rate and not
the actual price paid for the purchase of the land.
231. Accordingly, in my considered opinion, let the
M.V.R./circle rate, which has not been revised since long by the
Collector, be revised by taking into consideration the relevant
factors, including the opinion of the Expert. The concerned
respondents are further directed to re-fix the compensation
amount, payable to the petitioners, based upon the revised
M.V.R./circle rate.
232. It has also been found that recommendations of the
Expert Committee, as quoted herein above, have not been
considered by the State Government, including the
recommendation of the Expert Committee on the point of
rehabilitation and resettlement, accordingly, I direct the State
Government and the Collector, Patna, to consider the
recommendation of the Expert Committee, and to take decision on
the point of rehabilitation and resettlement of the land/house
losers, as per Section 31 of the 2013 Act.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4562 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023
233. The aforesaid exercises must be completed by the
respondents within the maximum period of six months from today.
234. With the aforesaid observations and directions,
these writ applications are partly allowed, to the extent indicated
above.
235. All the interlocutory applications, filed in this
batch of writ applications, are also disposed accordingly.
236. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 16.10.2023
Uploading Date 21-12-2023
Transmission Date N/A
