[Land Acquisition] Private interest has to give way to larger public interest even if there are minor discrepancies: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently refused to quash a land acquisition notification for construction of a railway bridge even as it noted the minor discrepancies in the process [Prabha Shukla v/s State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.]..A Division Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Piyush Aggarwal said that once a project of public importance has begun and has been significantly completed, about 45 per cent in this case, then setting aside such acquisition would not be in larger public interest. "Private interest has to give way to the larger public interest. Even if there are some small discrepancies in the process of acquisition ... the acquisition does not deserve to be set aside as otherwise the project will be delayed which will cause loss to the State besides suffering to the residents of the area," the Court said while noting that the petitioner will be duly compensated.The Court was hearing a plea moved by one Prabha Shankar Shukla for quashing of a notification dated April 6, 2021, issued under Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.Shukla was the owner and in possession of plot no. 293 (measuring 0.0688 hectare) which was earlier being utilised for agricultural purposes. However, she intended to construct a house for residential purposes, for which pillars were raised as foundation. Later, for the purpose of acquisition of aforesaid land, notification under Section 11 of 2013 Act was issued by the government and the land was sought to be acquired for the purpose of construction of a railway overbridge. The total area sought to be acquired was 0.5344 hectare. The petitioner filed objections to the same on May 26, 2021..The counsel for petitioner placed reliance on a notification issued under Section 19 of 2013 Act, which mentioned that as per the survey carried out, none of the landowners are required to be rehabilitated, even as the case set up by the petitioner was that a number of families will be displaced and required rehabilitation. The petitioner has a family of five persons and unless the rehabilitation scheme is published, a final notification under Section 19 of the 2013 Act for acquisition of the land could not be issued, the counsel argued.It was highlighted that the Collector is not final authority to dispose of the objection and he has to merely send his report to the appropriate authority to take a final decision.It was argued that in this case, the objections have been decided by Collector himself with no application of mind..The counsel appearing for the State submitted that the acquisition is for a total area of 0.5344 hectare of land. It was further submitted that it was only the petitioner who raised objections, and the same was considered and with the opinion of the Collector, the entire record was sent to the government, which finally issued the notification. Thus, there was a proper application of mind by the appropriate government authority before the issuance of the notification under Section 19 of the 2013 Act, he further submitted. .The Court after examining the submissions said that on one side pillars have been erected and on the other side where the land of the petitioner is situated, the same are yet to be erected. It further said that Shukla otherwise owns a small portion, that is. about 10 per cent of the total acquired land, which at present is lying vacant. The petition was, therefore, dismissed with a direction that the petitioner will be duly compensated for her land. .The petitioner was represented by advocate Udayan Nandan and the State/respondents were represented by Additional Chief Standing Counsel Suresh Singh and advocate Pranjal Mehrotra..[Read order]