JAIVEER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

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

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

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