Bombay High Court Hears Challenge to Land Acquisition Notification Under RFCTLARR Act, 2013; Section 15 Compliance and Article 300-A Right to Property Considered. Petitioners Allege Collector Failed to Consider Objections Under Section 15 Before Issuing Notification Under Section 11(1).

Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution challenging a land acquisition notification issued under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Petitioners seek quashing of the notification dated 03/10/2023 under Section 11(1), stay on the notification, restraint on the Collector from acquiring their land, and costs.

Petitioners allege that the Collector issued the notification without considering their objections as required under Section 15 of the Act, violating their constitutional right to property under Article 300-A.

Earlier Writ Petition No.6881/2013 was filed challenging the acquisition proceedings; High Court by judgment dated 19/01/2023 declared the award dated 02/12/2015 as contrary to statute and granted liberty to respondents to take fresh steps. The impugned notification dated 03/10/2023 is the fresh step.

Whether the impugned notification dated 03/10/2023 under Section 11(1) of the Act of 2013 is vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 15 (hearing of objections) by the Collector? Whether social impact assessment under Sections 4-9 of the Act of 2013 is exempted due to prior environmental clearance? Whether right to property under Article 300-A mandates strict adherence to statutory procedure?

Petitioners contended that their objections under Section 15 were not dealt with by the Collector, which vitiated the notification; they argued that right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300-A and procedural impropriety is not permissible; they relied on the earlier judgment in Writ Petition No.6881/2013 which found departure from Sections 6 and 7 and on the Supreme Court decision in Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah emphasizing meaningful hearing. Respondent No.2 contended that environmental clearance was obtained on 11/05/2007, so social impact assessment under Sections 4-9 is not applicable under the proviso. Respondent No.3 argued that the project is of huge magnitude, has reached advanced stage, and halting acquisition would cause colossal public loss; thus the petition should be dismissed.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. The bone of contention put forth by the petitioners Shri Chopde, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the petitioners have approached this Court on successive occasions with a plea that the respondent-authorities have not adhered the statutory mandate. Although, the right to property is a constitutional right, it has migrated from Chapter-III of the Constitution of India from the purview of the Fundamental Rights pursuant to 44th Constitutional Amendment. However, it still enjoys the status of being a constitutional and human right, in the dint of mandate of Article 300-A, land of the petitioners can be acquired save and except by the authority of law. 33.2.1. Following the right to a meaningful and effective prior notice of acquisition, is the right of the property-bearer to communicate his objections and concerns to the authority acquiring the property. This right to be heard against the proposed acquisition must be meaningful and not a sham.

The acquisition process for Jigaon Major Project commenced in 2008. By communication dated 29/07/2009, the State Government temporarily stayed acquisition proceedings. Notification under Section 4 was issued on 02/02/2013 for acquisition of 30.91 hectares. A meeting on 01/10/2013 agreed to drop acquisition proceedings, but they continued. Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.6881/2013 challenging the acquisition. By judgment dated 19/01/2023, the High Court declared the award dated 02/12/2015 as contrary to statute, granting liberty to acquire afresh. The impugned notification under Section 11(1) dated 03/10/2023 was issued. Present writ petition filed challenging that notification. Court passed orders on 08.11.2023 and 28/02/2025 amending parties. While issuing notice, the Court directed that acquisition proceedings may continue but possession of petitioners shall not be disturbed until further orders.

• Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: 11(1), 15, 4-9
• Constitution of India, 1950: Article 300-A
• Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 5-A
• Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952: 3(1)
• National Highways Act, 1956: 3-C