High Court Test 3
10 min40 WPM required643 words
Click on the passage and start typing to begin.
The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the constitutional validity and legal correctness of the notification issued by the State Government under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013, as extended to the state with modifications, whereby approximately forty-two acres of agricultural and homestead land belonging to the petitioners situated in villages Rampur, Sirsapur, and Dhandhari in tehsil Bilaspur has been proposed for acquisition for the public purpose of constructing a four-lane bypass road intended to ease traffic congestion on the national highway passing through the district headquarters. The petitioners, who are small and marginal farmers and members of farm labouring households for whom the affected land constitutes the primary means of livelihood and the principal family asset, contend on multiple grounds that the acquisition proceedings are vitiated and must be set aside. They submit that the acquisition is mala fide and actuated by extraneous considerations because the alignment of the proposed bypass road was changed late in the planning process without any public disclosure or transparent technical justification from an alternative route that would have affected substantially less agricultural land to the present alignment that causes maximum displacement of the farming community occupying some of the most fertile agricultural land in the district. They further submit that the concerned authorities did not comply with the mandatory statutory requirement under Section 11 of the 2013 Act of conducting a Social Impact Assessment study before issuing the preliminary notification under Section 11, and that in the absence of such a study the authorities proceeded without any proper assessment of the extent of displacement of families, the loss of livelihoods, the impact on availability of food and agricultural land in the area, and the adequacy of the proposed rehabilitation and resettlement package. The respondent State and the acquiring body, the National Highways Authority of India, have filed detailed counter affidavits denying all the petitioners' contentions and asserting that the acquisition proceedings have been conducted in strict conformity with the procedure prescribed by the Act and the rules made thereunder, that the preliminary notification was published in the Official Gazette and in two local newspapers with wide circulation in the district, that notices were individually served on all affected landholders including the petitioners, that the Social Impact Assessment was indeed conducted by an independent agency empanelled for the purpose, that the report of the Social Impact Assessment Expert Group was duly considered by the appropriate government before issuing the declaration under Section 19, and that the compensation offered to the petitioners has been assessed strictly in accordance with the statutory formula including the prescribed multiplier applicable to rural land and the amounts payable for standing crops, structures, and trees on the acquired land. The petitioners further contend that the compensation calculation has failed to take into account the recent significant appreciation in market values of agricultural land in the district following the announcement of a new industrial estate in the vicinity, and that the reference to the Sub-Registrar's guideline values for the purpose of assessing compensation grossly understates the true market value at which comparable land is actually transacting in the area. After examining the voluminous record produced before this Court, the Court is prima facie satisfied that the question of compliance with the Social Impact Assessment requirements merits detailed examination and that the petitioners have raised a triable issue regarding the adequacy of compensation. Let notice be issued to the respondents returnable within six weeks from today. The petitioners shall file a comprehensive compilation of documents supporting their contentions regarding market value within four weeks. In the meantime, the operation and further progress of the land acquisition proceedings including the taking of physical possession of any acquired land shall remain stayed pending further orders of this Court.