Case Note & Summary
The litigation concerned a challenge to land acquisition for the Mumbai-Ahmedabad High Speed Rail project, commonly called the Bullet Train Project. The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, claimed ownership of lands in village Vikhroli, Mumbai, based on a conveyance deed executed on 30 July 1948 and a consent decree passed by the Bombay High Court on 8 January 1962, which declared that all lands in Vikhroli except those vested under Section 4(c) of the Salsette Estate (Land Revenue Exemption Abolition) Act, 1951 belonged to the petitioner. In 1973, the State of Maharashtra filed a title suit for Survey Nos.61 to 65. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force, and an amendment ordinance was promulgated on 1 December 2014. The petitioner learned in September 2017 about the Bullet Train Project. On 26 April 2018, the Maharashtra Amendment Act No.XXXVII of 2018 came into effect, inserting Section 10A to exempt the project from Chapters II and III of the central Act. The petitioner first filed Writ Petition No.2131 of 2018 challenging acquisition on grounds that the proposed land split would render its property unfit for a proposed exhibition-cum-convention complex. During that petition, the parties discussed alternate land, and a public notice was issued on 25 September 2018 identifying CTS No.51/A (part) in Vikhroli as the subject plot for acquisition through private negotiation. The District Level Valuation Committee determined compensation of Rs.5,72,92,45,598/- on 15 November 2018. The National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited confirmed this valuation in a letter dated 29 January 2019. On 9 August 2019, the President of India, under Article 258(1), directed the Government of Maharashtra to perform the Central Government's functions under the Fair Compensation Act for the Bullet Train Project. Thereafter, on 20 August 2019, the State issued a notification under Section 10A exempting the project from Chapters II and III, and on 25 October 2019, a notification under Section 11(1) declaring the subject plot needed for public purpose. The first writ petition was disposed on 4 September 2019 with rights reserved. The present writ petition was filed in 2019 challenging the Maharashtra Amendment, the notifications, and the first proviso to Section 25. The court framed eleven issues covering estoppel, voluntary offer, burden of proof for constitutional challenge, natural justice, lapse, validity of the proviso, scope of Article 258(1) entrustment, scope of Section 33 rectification, and the court's discretionary power under Article 226 where public interest is involved. Interim applications sought disclosure of material placed before the President and an injunction against an award dated 15 September 2022. The available text does not contain the court's final analysis or decision on these issues.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Repugnancy of State Amendment - Articles 14, 254(1), 300A - Maharashtra Act No.XXXVII of 2018, Section 3; Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Petitioner sought declaration that the Maharashtra Amendment is repugnant to the central Act and void ab initio being ultra vires the Constitution - The Court framed the challenge but the provided text does not include its final answer (Paras 2, 6). B) Constitutional Law - Presidential Assent under Article 254(2) - Disclosure of Material Before President - Constitution of India, Article 254(2) - Interim Application sought production of letter dated 27 March 2020 and material placed before the President for assent to Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Bill No.7 of 2018 - The application was pending consideration (Para 3). C) Land Acquisition - Exemption from Social Impact Assessment and Consent - Section 10A, Chapters II and III, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - State notification under Section 10A exempted the Bullet Train Project from provisions of Chapters II and III citing public interest - Petitioner challenged the exemption as part of constitutional challenge (Paras 15, 20). D) Land Acquisition - Compensation and Valuation - Sections 11(1), 25, 33, 64, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - District Level Valuation Committee determined compensation at Rs.5,72,92,45,598/-; notifications under Sections 10A and 11(1) were issued; petitioner challenged first proviso to Section 25 as conferring unguided powers for multiple extensions (Paras 13-15, 17-18). E) Administrative Law - Violation of Natural Justice - Personal Hearing and Award by Different Officers - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Issue framed whether personal hearing before one Deputy Collector and award by another violates natural justice - No final holding in available text (Para 6(iv)). F) Land Acquisition - Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Issue framed whether acquisition proceedings had lapsed - No final holding in available text (Para 6(v)). G) Constitutional Law - Entrustment of Functions under Article 258(1) - State Amendment Beyond Scope - Constitution of India, Article 258(1); Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Section 10A - Issue framed whether State acted beyond entrustment by making Section 10A amendment - No final holding in available text (Paras 6(vii), 14, 15). H) Land Acquisition - Rectification of Award - Section 33, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Issue framed whether corrections ordered in award exceed scope of Section 33 - No final holding in available text (Para 6(viii)). I) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review under Article 226 - Public Interest vs Private Interest - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Issues framed regarding discretionary powers and whether public interest of national project prevails over private landowner interest - No final holding in available text (Paras 6(ix)-(xi)). J) Constitution of India - Fundamental Rights - Articles 14 and 300A - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, first proviso to Section 25 - Petitioner challenged first proviso as conferring unguided, uncanalised and unfettered powers, vague and contrary to Act's object, violating Articles 14 and 300A - Court framed issue of constitutional validity (Para 5, 6(iii)).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 3 of Maharashtra Act No.XXXVII of 2018 is repugnant to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; whether the first proviso to Section 25 of the central Act is unconstitutional; whether the acquisition notifications under Sections 10A and 11(1) are valid; whether there was violation of natural justice; whether the acquisition proceedings lapsed; whether the State acted beyond entrustment under Article 258(1); whether corrections in the award exceeded Section 33; and whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 given public interest.
Law Points
- Doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254
- Requirement of Presidential assent for State amendment
- Judicial review under Article 226
- Principles of natural justice in personal hearing
- Scope of Section 33 rectification
- Entrustment of functions under Article 258(1)
- Fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 300A
- Lapse of land acquisition proceedings
- Public interest versus private interest in eminent domain
