GEORGE JOSEPH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are agriculturists of the Villages of Erattupetta, Thalappalam, Bharanganam, Kanjirappally, Kadanad and Kondoor within the Meenachil and Kanjirappally Taluks, Kottayam District. According to them, they are aggrieved by the action of the respondents 4 and 5 for acquisition of the land, for the proposed Angamali-Erumeli Broad-Gauge Railway line. A Government of India Enterprises, by name RITES, had conducted Engineering-cum-Traffic survey for the proposed Broad-Gauge railway line between Angamali and Erumeli, via. Muvattupuzha, and prepared a report and plan. The case of the petitioners is that respondents have taken a decision to accept Alternative I proposal as against Alternative IV proposal. According to the petitioners if Alternative I proposal is accepted, that will not serve any purpose and it will upset the ecology of the land. It is also averred that various Panchayats have also raised objection against the accepting of Alternative No. I proposal. The petitioners have produced Ext.P7 representation of the Sabarimala Pilgrims Welfare Committee and resolutions passed by the Kadanad, Bharananganam, Thalappalam, Erattupetta, Thidanad Grama Panchayats, as evidenced by Exts. P8 to P12, to show that the Samithi as well as the local authorities are opposing the present railway line, accepting Alternative No. I proposal. So the petitioners pray that this Court may issue a direction to the respondents to accept Alternative IV proposal for the proposed Angamaly-Erumeli Broad-Gauge Railway line.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the Railways submitted that the proposal has been studied by the railways and a decision was taken and the petitioners can only challenge the notification that may be issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is argued that this Writ Petition is premature. It is argued that there is no provision of law which enables a person/an organisation/a local authority to raise objections against the acquisition of land for a proposed railway line or road etc. It is also argued that the petitioners, whose lands are not yet notified for a acquisition have no right to seek a direction to the second respondent to accept the Alternative No. IV in the place of Alternative No. I.

(3.) It is true that at present there is no provision in the Land Acquisition Act which enables a person whose land may be acquired and who is likely to be affected to raise any objection challenging the proposed acquisition prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. But the fact remains that whenever the Government starts a new project a section of people come forward with objections. The question arising for consideration is whether the State/Union is bound to consider their objections also before taking a decision.