BEDRAM VERMA vs UNION OF INDIA
- Court
- Chhattisgarh High Court
1
CGHC010063332026 2026:CGHC:45201
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
WPC No. 785 of 2026
Digitally
signed by
VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
Order Reserved on 07/08/2026
Order Delivered on 27/10/2026
1 - Bedram Verma S/o Late Shri Bhagwati Prasad Verma Aged
About 64 Years R/o Village Raveli, Ward No. 10, Tehsil Suhela,
District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)
2 - Prema Bai Verma W/o Late Shri Bhagwati Prasad Verma Aged
About 80 Years R/o Village Raveli, Ward No. 10, Tehsil Suhela,
District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)
3 - Bineshwari Verma W/o Bedram Verma Aged About 62 Years
R/o Village Raveli, Ward No. 10, Tehsil Suhela, District Baloda
Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)
--- Petitioners
versus
1 - Union Of India
2 - Engineer-In-Chief South Eastern Central Railway Bilaspur
Division, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
3 - Sub Divisional Officer (R)/ Land Acquisition Officer Simga
District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)
4 - Gram Panchayat Through The Sarpanch Village Raveli, Tehsil
Suhela, District Baloda- Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)
2
5 - Shree Cement Pvt. Limited Company Through General
Manager Village Khaprideeh, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara
(C.G.) --- Respondents
WPC No. 1523 of 2026
1 - Motiram Verma S/o Kuleshwar Verma Aged About 55 Years
R/o.- Para Dhobnidih, Suhela, Simga, District.- Balodabazar-
Bhatapra (C.G.)
2 - Puran Verma S/o Motiram Verma Aged About 47 Years R/o.-
Para Dhobnidih, Suhela, Simga, District.- Balodabazar-Bhatapra
(C.G.)
3 - Rameshwar Verma S/o Kejram Aged About 48 Years R/o.-
Village- Para Dhobnidih, Suhela, Block- Simga, Tehsil Simga,
District.- Balodabazar-Bhatapra (C.G.)
4 - Harishchandra Verma S/o Jujraj Aged About 49 Years R/o.-
Village- Gudgahan, Suhela, Simga, District- Balodabazar-
Bhatapara (C.G.)
5 - Ram Singh Ratre S/o Ramanand Aged About 43 Years R/o.-
Village Basin, Suhela, Simga, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara
(C.G.)
6 - Rekhraj Verma S/o Late Chandrika Prasad Verma Aged About
45 Years R/o.- Village Raveli, Ward No. 10, Tehsil Suhela, District
Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioners
Versus
1 - Union Of India Through General Manager Village Khaprideeh,
District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
2 - Engineer-In Chief South Eastern Central Railway Bilaspur
Division District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
3 - Sub Divisinal Officer (R),/ Land Acquisition Officer Simga,
District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
3
4 - Patwari Village Raveli, P.H.No. 38, Tehsil Suhela, District
Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)
5 - Gram Panchayat Through The Sarpanch Village Raveli, Tehsil
Suhela, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
6 - Shree Cement Pvt. Limited Company Through General
Manager Village Khaprideeh, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara
(C.G.)
7 - Gram Panchayat Through The Sarpanch Village Sohela,
District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
8 - Gram Panchayat Basin Through The Sarpanch Village Basin,
P.H. No. 34 R.N.M. Sohela, Tehsil Sohela, District Blaodabazar-
Bhatapara (C.G.)
--- Respondents
WPC No. 6592 of 2025
1 - Dilip Kumar Nirmalkar S/o Babla Nirmalkar Aged About 34
Years R/o Village- Khilora, P.S.- Hathband, District - Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 493113
2 - Bedram Sahu S/o Ajab Singh Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o
Makan No. 108 Gautiya Para, Gram-Khilora, P.S. Hathband, Teh-
Simga, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 493113
3 - Bhan Kumari Koshle W/o Yougendra Koshle Aged About 38
Years R/o Village- Khilora, P.S.- Hathband, District - Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 493113
4 - Rameshwar Prasad Sahu S/o Baratu Ram Sahu Aged About
56 Years R/o 211, Ward No. 08, Bazar Chowk Khilora, P.S.-
Hathband, District - Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 493113
5 - Dageshwar Sahu S/o Loknath Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o
Village- Khilora, P.S.- Hathband, District - Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 493113
4
6 - Loknath Sahu S/o Khamban Sahu Aged About 59 Years R/o
Village- Khilora, P.S.- Hathband, District - Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 493113
7 - Dukalu Ram Sahu S/o Chaitu Ram Sahu Aged About 50 Years
R/o Village- Khilora, P.S.- Hathband, District - Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 493113
8 - Sudhuram Sahu S/o Laxman Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o
Khilora, P.S.- Hathband, District - Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh 493113
9 - Takhatram Sahu S/o Mukutram Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o
134, Daihan Para, Khilora, P.S.- Hathband, District - Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 493113
10 - Revti Sahu W/o Kirtan Ram Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o
Makan No. 122, Shambhu Dukan Chowk, Gram- Khilora, P.S.-
Hathband, Teh- Simga, District - Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh 493113
11 - Tukaram Sahu S/o Jirakhan Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o
Khilora, P.S.- Hathband, District - Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh 493113
12 - Ghanaram Kosle S/o Uderam Kosle Aged About 55 Years R/o
Khilora, P.S.- Hathband, District - Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh 493113
13 - Manglu Ram Sahu S/o Sukdev Sahu Aged About 46 Years
R/o Village- Khilora, P.S.- Hathband, District - Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 493113
14 - Lekha Bai Sahu W/o Mangalu Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o
Khilora, P.S.- Hathband, District - Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh 493113
15 - Shobharam Sahu S/o Bharat Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o
Khilora, P.S.- Hathband, District - Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh 493113
5
16 - Mohan Sahu S/o Shyam Lal Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o
Durga Chowk, Ward No. 11, Gram-Khilora, P.S.- Hathband, Tah-
Simga, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 493113
17 - Maniram Sahu S/o Makhan Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o
Khilora, P.S.- Hathband, District - Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh 493113
18 - Balkaran Jaiswal S/o Jugun Jaiswal Aged About 54 Years R/o
Khilora, P.S.- Hathband, District - Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh 493113
19 - Sonchand Tandan S/o Chandram Tandan Aged About 47
Years R/o Gram- Khilora, Khilora, P.S.- Hathband, District - Baloda
Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 493113
20 - Nirabai Koshle W/o Dukal Das Koshle Aged About 51 Years
R/o Makan No. 51, Jai Stambh Chowk, Gram-Khilora Teh-Simga,
P.S.- Hathband, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
493113
21 - Yougesh Kumar Markande S/o Aamdas Markande Aged About
37 Years R/o Khilora, P.S.- Hathband, District - Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 493113
22 - Sukria Navrenge W/o Samaru Navrenge Aged About 75 Years
R/o Village- Khilora, P.S.- Hathband, District - Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
23 - Lakhan Lal Sahu S/o Dhanva Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o
Village- Khilora, P.S.- Hathband, District - Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh
24 - Hariram Dhritlahre S/o Kejuram Dhritlahre Aged About 53
Years R/o Village- Khilora, P.S.- Hathband, District - Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh
25 - Shrichand Sahu S/o Tekram Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o
Village- Khilora, P.S.- Hathband, District - Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh
6
26 - Shekhar Rajak S/o Dauva Rajak Aged About 40 Years R/o
Village- Khilora, P.S.- Hathband, District - Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh
27 - Khorbahara Tandan S/o Chandram Tandan Aged About 49
Years R/o Village- Khilora, P.S.- Hathband, District - Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh
28 - Fulchand Sahu S/o Ratiram Sahu Aged About 70 Years R/o
Village- Khilora, P.S.- Hathband, District - Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh
29 - Ramkhilawan Tandan S/o Sukhiram Tandan Aged About 50
Years R/o Village- Khilora, P.S.- Hathband, District - Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh
30 - Bedram Sahu S/o Ratiram Sahu Aged About 67 Years R/o
Village- Khilora, P.S.- Hathband, District - Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh
31 - Chhanak Anant W/o Sitaram Anant Aged About 48 Years R/o
Purani Basti Para, Hathband, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara
Chhattisgarh.
--- Petitioners
Versus
1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Railways,
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001.
2 - South East Central Railway (Secr) Through The General
Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur Zone, District-
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495001.
3 - Senior Divisional Engineer South East Central Railway, Raipur
Division, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492001.
4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya,
Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
7
5 - Collector Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara District- Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh - 493332
6 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Simga Also Functioning As
Competent Authority / Land Acquisition Officer For The Special
Railway Project, Tehsil- Simga, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh
7 - Tehsildar Simga, Tehsil- Simga, District- Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh
8 - Shree Cement Pvt. Limited Company Through General
Manager Village- Khaparideeh, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
WPC No. 987 of 2026
1 - Chinta Ram S/o Late Nand Ram Kurmi Aged About 70 Years
R/o Village Kesali, Tahsil Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara
Chhattisgarh
2 - Bedu Ram S/o Mukut Ram Aged About 35 Years R/o Village
Kesali, Tahsil Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
3 - Harday Ram S/o Janak Ram Aged About 62 Years R/o Village
Kesali, Tahsil Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
4 - Ganesh Ram S/o Janak Ram Aged About 42 Years R/o Village
Kesali, Tahsil Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
5 - Loknath @ Loman Verma S/o Dhaniram Aged About 66 Years
R/o Village Kesali, Tahsil Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara
Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioners
Versus
1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Railways,
Government Of India, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi
8
2 - South East Central Railway Zonal Office, Bilaspur, Through Its
General Manager, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
3 - Principal Chief Engineer Engineering Department, Secr,
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
4 - Collector District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
5 - S.D.O. (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer Simga, District
Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
6 - M/s Shree Cement Limited Village Khaparadih, Tehsil Simga,
District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh Pin 493332
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For respective :- Mr. Purnendra Khinchariya, Mr. Praveen
Petitioners Dhurandhar, Mr. Aman Ansari, Mr. Vikram
Ussendi on behalf of Mr. Ishan Verma,
Advocates
For State :- Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. A.G.
For Respondent-UOI :- Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSGI along with Mr.
Rishabh Deo Singh, Advocate
For Respondent- :- Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate
Shree Cement Pvt. Limited along with Mr. Pankaj Singh and
Company Pranjal Agrawal, Advocates
For Respondent- :- Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate
Gram Panchayat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
CAV Order
1. Since common issue is involved in all the abovementioned
9
petitions, they are being decided by this common order.
2. By way of these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the
order dated 27.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent
No.3, whereby their objections preferred under Section 20-D of the
Railways Act, 1989 against the acquisition of their lands for the
Gati Multi-Modal Cargo Terminal Project have been rejected in a
summary and non-speaking manner. The petitioners contend that
despite the specific direction issued by this Court vide order dated
24.09.2025 in W.P.(C) Nos.5079/2025, 5083/2025 and 5069/2025
to consider and decide their objections in accordance with law,
respondent No.3 has rejected the objections without conducting
any proper enquiry or recording reasons dealing with the grounds
raised by the petitioners. It is, therefore, contended that the
impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and violation
of the requirement of passing a reasoned and speaking order and
is, consequently, liable to be set aside.
3. The facts of the case, in WPC No. 785/2026, are that the
petitioners are agriculturists having their agricultural lands situated
at Village Raveli, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh;
petitioner No.1 is owner of land bearing Khasra No.700
admeasuring 0.14 hectare, out of which 0.06 hectare has been
proposed for acquisition, petitioner No.2 is owner of land bearing
Khasra No.657 admeasuring 0.18 hectare, out of which 0.08
10
hectare has been proposed for acquisition, and petitioner No.3 is
owner of lands bearing Khasra Nos.150/1 admeasuring 0.27
hectare and 160/7 admeasuring 1.05 hectare, out of which 0.11
hectare has been proposed for acquisition; the Ministry of
Railways published a notification dated 16.06.2025 in the
newspaper dated 28.06.2025 proposing acquisition of land for
construction of a railway track for linear connectivity from
Hathbandh Railway Station East Cabin to Khaparadih Village in
connection with the Gati Shakti Multi-Modal Cargo Terminal,
pursuant to which the petitioners submitted separate objections
under Section 20-D of the Railways Act, 1989, contending, inter
alia, that the proposed acquisition was not genuinely for a public
purpose but was intended to facilitate railway connectivity to
respondent No.5–Shree Cement Company, a private entity, and
also pointing out the availability of existing railway infrastructure
and alternative land; as the objections were not considered and
the acquisition proceedings were proceeded with, the petitioners
approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) Nos.5079/2025, 5083/2025
and 5069/2025, which were disposed of vide order dated
24.09.2025 directing respondent No.3 to consider and decide their
objections in accordance with law and the applicable rules within
30 days; the said order was thereafter brought to the notice of
respondent No.3 by representation dated 10.10.2025, and
11
respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted their reply to the objections on
16.12.2025; however, respondent No.3, while exercising powers
under Section 20-D of the Railways Act, rejected the objections
vide impugned order dated 27.01.2026 (Annexure P-1), which
according to the petitioners was passed in a summary and
mechanical manner without conducting any proper enquiry or
dealing with their specific objections, particularly the contention
that land had earlier been acquired for construction of a railway
line for UltraTech Cement and sufficient vacant land was available
alongside the existing track, that respondent No.5 had already
privately purchased land and constructed a railway track up to
Village Raveli which could be connected with the existing railway
line, and that the proposed track would pass through the middle of
the petitioners' irrigated agricultural fields adversely affecting their
agricultural activities; hence, the petitioners have challenged the
impugned order on the ground that the competent authority failed
to examine whether the proposed acquisition was genuinely for a
public purpose as contemplated under Sections 20-A and 20-D of
the Railways Act, 1989 or was primarily intended to benefit
respondent No.5, and that the impugned order suffers from non-
application of mind, absence of proper enquiry and violation of the
statutory requirement under Section 20-D of the Act.
4. Following reliefs have been sought in WPC No. 785/2026:-
12
“ 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleaed to set-aside quash the order dated 27-01-
2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent
No.3 in Revenue Case
No.202509211000011/A/82/2024- 25.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to quash and set-aside the entire
acquisition proceeding arising out of the
notification dated 16- 06-2025 (Annexure P-2).
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to take
fresh decision in accordance with and in
requirement of Section 20D of Railways Act over
the objections dated 10-07- 2025 (Annexure P-3).
10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to detailed inquiry be conducted to
ascertain whether the beneficiary of the rail
corridor is a private company as contemplated
under section 20d of the Railway Act.
10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to grant any other relief which this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of the present case including cost
of the petition.”
5. Facts of the case in WPC No. 1523/2026 are that the
petitioners are agriculturists and the lands owned by them situated
at Village Dhabhindih, Village Budgahan, Village Basin and Village
Raveli, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, are recorded in their
respective names and are being used for agricultural purposes;
the Ministry of Railways published a notification dated 16.06.2025
in the newspaper dated 28.06.2025 proposing acquisition of land
for construction of a railway track for linear connectivity from
13
Hathbandh Railway Station East Cabin to Khaparadih Village in
connection with the Gati Shakti Multi-Modal Cargo Terminal,
pursuant to which the petitioners submitted separate objections
under Section 20-D of the Railways Act, 1989, contending that the
proposed acquisition was not for a genuine public purpose but was
intended to facilitate respondent No.5–Shree Cement Company, a
private entity, and also raised various legal objections and pointed
out the availability of alternative land and existing railway
infrastructure; as the objections were not considered and the
acquisition proceedings were proceeded with, petitioner No.6
earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.5082/2025,
which was disposed of vide order dated 24.09.2025 directing
respondent No.3 to decide the objections in accordance with law
and the applicable rules within 30 days; the said order was brought
to the notice of respondent No.3 by representation dated
10.10.2025, and thereafter respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted their
reply to the objections on 16.12.2025; however, respondent No.3,
while exercising quasi-judicial powers under Section 20-D of the
Railways Act, rejected the objections vide impugned order dated
27.01.2026 (Annexure P-1), which according to the petitioners was
passed summarily, without proper enquiry, consideration of the
specific objections or application of mind; the petitioners had
specifically contended that the proposed acquisition was intended
14
to provide railway connectivity to respondent No.5, which had
already privately purchased land and constructed a railway track
from Khapridih up to Village Raveli, and that the existing railway
track constructed for UltraTech Cement from Village Rawan to
Dhoha (Hathbandh), for which land had earlier been acquired by
the Central Government on 12.06.1998, could be utilized for
transportation of goods, particularly when sufficient vacant land
was available alongside the existing track; it was further contended
that the proposed railway line would pass through the middle of
the petitioners' irrigated agricultural fields, adversely affecting their
agricultural activities and productivity, and that the acquisition was
therefore primarily for the benefit of a private entity rather than for
a public purpose as contemplated under Sections 20-A and 20-D
of the Railways Act; the petitioners also relied upon the order
dated 23.02.2026 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.785/2026,
whereby further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notification
dated 16.06.2025 were stayed till the next date of hearing,
contending that their lands are similarly situated and are also
sought to be acquired pursuant to the same notification; hence, the
petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 27.01.2026
and the acquisition proceedings on the ground that the competent
authority failed to properly consider their objections and determine
whether the proposed acquisition was genuinely for a public
15
purpose or intended to serve the private interest of respondent
No.5.
6. Following reliefs have been sought in WPC No. 1523/2026:-
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleaded to set-aside quash the order dated 27-01-
2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent
No.3 in Revenue Case No.
20250921.1000013/Α/82/2024, Revenue Case
No. 202509211000014/Α/82/2024- 25 and
Revenue Case No. 202509211000011/A/
82/2024-25.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to quash and set-aside the entire
acquisition proceeding arising out of the
notification dated 16- 06-2025 (Annexure P-2).
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to take
fresh decision in accordance with and in
requirement of Section 20D of Railways Act over
the objections dated 10-07- 2025 (Annexure P-3).
10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to detailed inquiry be conducted to
ascertain whether the beneficiary of the rail
corridor is a private company as contemplated
under section 20d of the Railway Act.
10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to grant any other relief which this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of the present case including cost
of the petition.”
7. Facts of the case in WPC No. 6592/2025 are that the
petitioners are permanent residents of Village Khillora and
16
adjoining villages in Tehsil Simga, District Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara, primarily engaged in agriculture and dependent upon
their ancestral agricultural lands and common village resources for
their livelihood; the Ministry of Railways, vide notification dated
26.03.2025, declared the proposed linear railway connectivity from
Hathbandh Railway Station (East Cabin) to Khaparadih Village
leading to the Gati Shakti Multi-Modal Cargo Terminal as a Special
Railway Project under Section 2(37A) of the Railways Act, 1989,
and thereafter, vide notification dated 22.04.2025, appointed the
Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Simga, as the Competent
Authority for the project; the Collector, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara,
also appointed the SDO (Revenue), Simga, as the Land
Acquisition Officer and, vide order dated 15.04.2025, imposed
restrictions on sale, purchase, mutation, diversion and construction
activities in 13 villages covered by the proposed alignment;
thereafter, the acquisition proceedings were initiated under Section
20-A of the Railways Act, 1989, vide Gazette Notification dated
19.06.2025, covering approximately 93.0832 hectares of land
situated in the said 13 villages; aggrieved by the proposed
acquisition, the Gram Panchayat Khillora and affected villagers
submitted successive objections and representations before the
competent authority, including the resolution dated 02.07.2025 and
letters dated 09.07.2025 and 11.07.2025, raising objections
17
regarding the adverse impact of the proposed railway line upon
fertile agricultural land, village pond, school, playground and other
common utility properties, and contending that the proposed
acquisition would primarily benefit Shree Cement and was
unnecessary in view of the existing approved railway corridor
alongside the UltraTech Cement railway line; objections were also
raised regarding the alleged absence of mandatory SIA/EIA
compliance and the impact of the project upon agricultural
livelihood and common lands, while a further objection dated
25.07.2025 was submitted in respect of disputed lands bearing
Khasra Nos.135/2 and 895/1, which were subject matter of Civil
Suit No.12/2019, seeking withholding of compensation; thereafter,
notices dated 25.08.2025 were issued to the Gram Panchayat and
affected landholders calling them for hearing on 08.09.2025, and
subsequently, twenty-eight villagers submitted a joint affidavit
dated 19.09.2025 supporting the project subject to alteration of the
alignment alongside the existing UltraTech Cement railway line
and acquisition of complete parcels so as to avoid fragmentation of
agricultural holdings; further objections were also submitted
referring to pending litigation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and reiterating the objections regarding the adverse agricultural
impact and alleged non-compliance with SIA/EIA requirements; the
petitioners have accordingly approached this Court challenging the
18
acquisition proceedings and asserting that the proposed project,
as presently planned, would cause serious prejudice to their
agricultural livelihood and village common resources and that the
objections raised by the affected villagers require due
consideration in accordance with law.
8. Following reliefs have been sought in WPC No. 6592/2025:-
“a. Issue a writ or any other appropriate order/
direction quashing the impugned Section 20A
notification (Annexure P/1) issued under the
Railways Act, 1989 and all consequential
actions/orders passed thereafter in respect of
the proposed "Special Railway Project from
Hathbandh Railway Station (East Cabin) to
Khaparadih village, as being arbitrary and
illegal.
b. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing
Competent Authority (SDO Revenue, Simga)
to consider and decide afresh all objections
already submitted by the Petitioners, in strict
PSUPTA compliance of the Railways Act,
1989, by passing a reasoned and speaking
order after granting personal hearing to each
objector, within a time frame to be fixed by this
Hon'ble Court.
c. Issue a further writ of Mandamus directing
the Respondents to permit the Petitioners and
all other affected persons to file fresh
objections to the proposed acquisition.
d. Issue appropriate orders staying all further
land acquisition proceedings, including
demarcation, survey, mutation restriction,
issuance of notices, passing of awards, and
taking of possession, until the objections of the
19
Petitioners are freshly invited, heard and
decided in accordance with the Railways Act
and principles of natural justice.
e. Issue such further or other writ, order, or
direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem just,
fit, and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the present case, to secure the ends of
justice.”
9. Facts of the case in WPC No. 987/2026 are that the
petitioners are poor agriculturists and residents of Village Kesali,
District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, and their agricultural lands are
their sole source of livelihood; UltraTech Cement Limited has
cement plants at Village Rawan and Village Hirmi and had earlier
challenged the In-Principle Approval dated 08.04.2021 granted for
establishment of a Greenfield Private Freight Terminal by filing
W.P.(C) No.2989/2021, which was allowed by this Court vide order
dated 09.05.2024, whereby the said approval was quashed, with
liberty to the authorities to consider afresh the application for
establishment of Greenfield PFT after affording due opportunity of
hearing to UltraTech Cement, and the writ appeals preferred
against the said order were subsequently dismissed; according to
the petitioners, during the pendency of the writ appeals,
respondent No.6 approached the Railway authorities for a
separate proposal for construction of Greenfield PFT and,
thereafter, Notification No.S.O.2732(E) under Section 20-A of the
Railways Act, 1989 was issued on 16.06.2025 and published in the
20
Gazette on 19.06.2025 proposing acquisition of land, including the
agricultural lands situated at Village Kesali belonging to the
petitioners; subsequently, respondent No.4 nominated respondent
No.5 as the Land Acquisition Officer vide order dated 04.04.2025
and the Collector imposed restrictions on sale and purchase of
lands falling within the proposed railway alignment vide order
dated 15.04.2025, while the Senior Divisional Engineer, Raipur,
forwarded the description and map of the proposed project to
respondent No.5; the petitioners submitted objections before the
competent authority on 30.06.2025 and thereafter sought copies of
the entire acquisition proceedings, including the project map, but
the complete documents were not supplied to them; the petitioners
also sought authenticated copies of the project under the Right to
Information Act; however, despite the earlier judgment in W.P.(C)
No.2989/2021 requiring due opportunity of hearing before
consideration of the Greenfield PFT proposal, the petitioners
contend that the present acquisition proceedings have been
initiated in the guise of a public purpose to extend benefit to
respondent No.6, thereby adversely affecting the petitioners'
agricultural lands and livelihood; their objections were allegedly
rejected by the SDO (Revenue)/Land Acquisition Officer vide order
dated 27.01.2026 without conducting any proper enquiry, affording
effective opportunity of hearing or carrying out site inspection;
21
thereafter, Notification under Section 20-E of the Railways Act,
1989 was published on 19.02.2026 stating that the objections of
the villagers had been decided and rejected and that the lands
specified in the schedule would vest in the Central Government;
aggrieved by the aforesaid acquisition proceedings and the
rejection of their objections, the petitioners have approached this
Court challenging the impugned action on the ground that the
acquisition has been undertaken for the benefit of a private entity
under the guise of a public purpose and without compliance with
the statutory requirements and principles of natural justice.
10. Following reliefs have been sought in WPC No. 987/2026:-
“10.1) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call
for the records from the respondents.
10.2) That after the perusal of records, quash
the notification (annexure P-3) and notification
dated 19.02.2026 (P-12) and also the
proceedings before the respondent no.5.
10.3) That the court may grant any other relief it
deems necessary.”
11. Mr. Purnendra Khinchariya, Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Mr.
Aman Ansari and Mr. Vikram Ussendi, on behalf of Mr. Ishan
Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners, in
substance, submit that the impugned acquisition proceedings
initiated under Sections 20-A to 20-F of the Railways Act, 1989, as
22
well as the order dated 27.01.2026 rejecting the objections raised
by the petitioners under Section 20-D of the Act, are illegal,
arbitrary and contrary to the statutory scheme. It is submitted that
the petitioners are agriculturists and their agricultural lands
situated at Village Raveli, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara
constitute their principal source of livelihood and, therefore, the
proposed acquisition directly affects their valuable proprietary
rights protected under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel submit that, pursuant to the earlier proceedings
initiated under Section 20-A of the Act, the petitioners had
submitted detailed objections under Section 20-D on 10.07.2025,
specifically disputing the necessity and purpose of the proposed
acquisition and contending that the acquisition, though projected
as being for a public purpose, is in substance intended to facilitate
and confer benefit upon respondent–Shree Cement Private
Limited, a private commercial entity. It is submitted that the said
objections were earlier not decided and the Railway authorities
proceeded further, compelling the petitioners to approach this
Court in W.P. Nos. 5079/2025, 5083/2025 and 5069/2025, which
were disposed of by order dated 24.09.2025 directing respondent
No.3 to consider and decide the objections in accordance with law,
rules and regulations within the stipulated period. However,
despite the said direction, respondent No.3, by the impugned order
23
dated 27.01.2026, rejected the objections in a cryptic and
mechanical manner, virtually by recording a conclusion in only a
few lines, without conducting any proper enquiry, spot inspection
or meaningful hearing and without dealing with the specific
grounds raised by the petitioners.
12. Learned counsel further submit that Section 20-D of the
Railways Act confers a substantive and valuable right upon the
landowners to object to the proposed acquisition before they are
deprived of their property and, therefore, the statutory requirement
of consideration of such objections cannot be treated as an empty
formality. The competent authority, while exercising powers under
Section 20-D, performs a quasi-judicial function and is required to
objectively consider the objections, conduct such enquiry as may
be necessary, afford an effective opportunity of hearing and pass a
reasoned and speaking order. It is argued that even an
administrative authority is required to record reasons where its
decision adversely affects valuable rights, and the impugned order,
being completely bereft of reasons and showing no application of
mind to the objections, is liable to be set aside.
13. Learned counsel place reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nareshbhai Bhagubhai and Others v.
Union of India and Others , reported in (2019) 15 SCC 1 , in
support of the proposition that compliance with the statutory
24
safeguards relating to consideration of objections is mandatory
and cannot be dispensed with. Reliance has also been placed
upon the judgment in the matter of H.D.F.C. Bank Limited vs.
Kishore K. Mehta (Dead) thr. Lrs. 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1320,
State of West Bengal and Others vs. Committee for Protection
of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others (2010) 3 SCC
571 .
14. Mr. Anand Dadariya, learned State counsel, opposing the
petition, submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable
to be dismissed. It is submitted that the notification dated
16.06.2025 was issued under Section 20-A of the Railways Act,
1989 for acquisition of land required for the Special Railway
Project, namely, the proposed Linear Connectivity from Hathbandh
Railway Station East Cabin to Village Khaparadiha, including the
Gati Shakti Multi Modal Cargo Terminal in District Balodabazar-
Bhatapara, which is a project undertaken in public interest and not
for any private purpose. The petitioners, being interested persons,
had submitted their objections under Section 20-D of the Act on
10.07.2025, and pursuant to the order dated 24.09.2025 passed
by this Court in W.P.C. Nos. 5079/2025, 5083/2025 and
5069/2025, the competent authority issued notice to the petitioners
and afforded them an opportunity of personal hearing. Thereafter,
upon consideration of the objections, the reply and technical
25
material/report furnished by the Railway authorities, the competent
authority passed the order dated 27.01.2026 rejecting the
objections. It is therefore submitted that there has been due
compliance with the statutory procedure and the principles of
natural justice, and merely because the objections were ultimately
rejected cannot constitute a ground for interference under Article
226 of the Constitution. Learned State counsel further submits that
the petitioners have failed to challenge the subsequent declaration
issued under Section 20-E of the Railways Act, despite being
aware of the progress of the acquisition proceedings, and
therefore cannot seek to indirectly invalidate the subsequent stage
of acquisition by selectively challenging the earlier notification and
the order passed on their objections. It is contended that Section
20-E declaration constitutes a material stage of the statutory
acquisition process and, in view of Section 20-E(4), the declaration
cannot be called in question in any Court or by any other authority
once made. Learned counsel further submits that the ownership of
the acquired land as well as the railway line would vest with the
Railways and, therefore, the contention that the acquisition is
intended to confer a private benefit upon respondent No.5 is
misconceived. It is argued that the petitioners cannot claim an
absolute or indefeasible right to prevent acquisition merely
because their private lands are being acquired for a project of
26
public importance. The scope of judicial review in matters of
acquisition is limited and, unless the petitioners establish illegality,
arbitrariness, mala fides, lack of jurisdiction or violation of
mandatory statutory procedure, this Court would not substitute its
own opinion for that of the competent authority regarding the
necessity or suitability of the land. Learned State counsel submits
that no such jurisdictional error, procedural irregularity or violation
of natural justice has been demonstrated in the present case;
rather, the competent authority acted pursuant to the directions of
this Court, afforded personal hearing, considered the material
placed before it and thereafter passed the impugned order.
Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order dated
27.01.2026 is the culmination of a duly followed statutory process
and the writ petition, having failed to disclose any ground
warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, is
liable to be dismissed.
15. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Pankaj
Singh & Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for
respondent – Shree Cement Limited, opposing the writ petitions,
submits that the challenge to the acquisition proceedings is wholly
misconceived and liable to be rejected. It is submitted that the
acquisition has been undertaken under Chapter IV-A of the
Railways Act, 1989 for a duly sanctioned Special Railway Project,
27
namely, the proposed linear connectivity from Hathbandh Railway
Station East Cabin to Village Khaparadiha for the Gati Shakti Multi-
Modal Cargo Terminal, which is a project of public importance
forming part of the national railway infrastructure. It is further
submitted that the notification under Section 20-A was duly
published and objections under Section 20-D were invited from all
interested persons; 57 objections were received and were duly
considered and rejected by the Competent Authority after affording
opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, the declaration under Section
20-E was published on 19.02.2026 and, by virtue of Section 20-
E(2), the acquired lands stood vested absolutely in the Central
Government free from all encumbrances. Learned counsel submits
that the present acquisition extends over ten villages and involves
approximately 800 landholders, and therefore the integrated
railway project cannot be stalled at the instance of a few
landowners. Reliance is placed upon Surendra Mohan Bist v.
State of Chhattisgarh , W.P.(C) No.562 of 2013, decided on
25.10.2024, to contend that acquisition forming part of a larger
railway project cannot be quashed at the instance of individual
landholders. It is further submitted that the allegation that the
acquisition is for the private benefit of respondent No.5 is
misconceived, as under the Gati Shakti Multi-Modal Cargo
Terminal Policy, the land for connectivity is acquired by the Railway
28
Administration at the cost of the terminal operator, but ownership
and control of the land and infrastructure remain with the Railways,
and the operator has no proprietary right therein. Reliance is
placed on Sooraram Pratap Reddy v. District Collector, Ranga
Reddy District, (2008) 9 SCC 552 , to submit that public purpose
must be construed broadly and incidental benefit to a private entity
does not alter the character of a public infrastructure project. It is
also submitted that the declaration under Section 20-E(1) is
protected by the statutory bar under Section 20-E(4) and cannot
be questioned before any Court. Even assuming procedural
irregularity, it is contended that the same would not justify
quashing of the acquisition in view of the larger public interest, and
the remedy, if any, lies in compensation under Sections 20-F and
20-G, as held in Nareshbhai Bhagubhai v. Union of India,
(2019) 15 SCC 1, and Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of
Maharashtra, (1997) 1 SCC 134 .
16. It is further submitted that judicial review in such matters is
limited and the Court cannot substitute its view on alignment or
technical feasibility of a railway project in the absence of mala
fides or colourable exercise of power. Article 300-A is not violated
as the acquisition is strictly in accordance with law. Accordingly, it
is prayed that the writ petitions be dismissed and the interim order
dated 23.02.2026 be vacated. It is further submitted, by way of
29
additional note, that in Smt. Ayyamma v. Government of India &
Others , W.P. Nos. 203560 and 200328 of 2025, decided on
17.07.2026, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi Bench,
upheld an identical acquisition under Chapter IV-A of the Railways
Act, 1989, undertaken for a Special Railway Project under the Gati
Shakti Multi-Modal Cargo Terminal Policy, wherein Shree Cement
Limited was also a respondent. The Court held that the project
constituted a valid public-purpose infrastructure initiative and that
the acquisition was lawful. It further held that incidental benefit to a
private entity does not detract from the public character of the
project, and dismissed the challenge raised by individual
landholders. It is submitted that the reasoning of the said judgment
applies squarely to the present case, as the statutory scheme,
policy framework, project structure, and legal issues are identical.
The said judgment reinforces the submissions already advanced in
the principal note and supports the validity of the acquisition
proceedings in question. In view of the above, it is prayed that the
writ petitions be dismissed.
17. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSG along with Mr. Rishabh Deo
Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent–Union of
India submits that the present writ petition is misconceived and not
maintainable, as the acquisition proceedings have been
undertaken strictly in accordance with the Railways Act, 1989,
30
which provides a complete statutory framework for acquisition of
land for railway purposes. It is submitted that the subject land is
being acquired for a duly notified Special Railway Project, namely,
the railway connectivity for development of a Gati Shakti Multi-
Modal Cargo Terminal (GCT) under the South East Central
Railway, connecting Hathbandh Railway Station to Village
Khapradih, Raipur Division. The project has been duly approved
by the competent authority and is governed by the Railway Board's
policy dated 06.12.2022. Learned counsel submits that the
notification under Section 20A of the Railways Act was issued on
19.06.2025 and the declaration under Section 20E was thereafter
issued and published on 19.02.2026, in accordance with law. The
petitioners had an opportunity to raise their objections under the
statutory scheme, and no jurisdictional error, procedural illegality
or violation of principles of natural justice has been demonstrated
so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
It is further submitted that the allegation that the acquisition is
undertaken for the benefit of a private company is misconceived.
Under Clause 17.2.2 of the Gati Shakti Multi-Modal Cargo Terminal
Policy, ownership of the acquired land shall vest absolutely in the
Indian Railways, and M/s Shree Cement Limited shall have no
right, title or interest in the acquired land. Its role is confined to the
operational aspects permitted under the GCT framework, and no
31
independent or unrelated commercial activity can be undertaken
on the acquired land.
18. Learned counsel further submits that the alignment has been
finalized on technical considerations and in accordance with the
prescribed railway norms. The alternative alignment involving the
existing railway line serving UltraTech Cement Limited would
require the proposed track to pass through the
reservoir/waterlogged area, necessitating construction of a long-
span bridge and creating technical complications. The acquisition,
therefore, cannot be alleged to be arbitrary or mala fide merely on
the basis of the petitioners' preference for an alternative alignment.
It is also submitted that the survey and acquisition have been
undertaken in accordance with the applicable technical standards
and that compensation, as determined by the competent authority
in accordance with law, shall be paid to the affected landholders.
On these grounds, learned counsel submits that the acquisition is
for a lawful public-purpose railway project, has been undertaken in
accordance with the statutory procedure, and does not infringe any
legal or fundamental right of the petitioners. The writ petition,
therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
19. Mr. Virendra Verma, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent–Gram Panchayat submits that the Gram Panchayat
has no objection to the proposed railway project in public interest,
32
provided that the rights and interests of the villagers and the
village common resources are duly protected. It is submitted that
the Panchayat had raised objections regarding the impact of the
proposed alignment on agricultural lands, village pond, school,
playground and other common utility properties. The Gram
Panchayat had also suggested that the alignment may preferably
be altered alongside the existing railway corridor so as to minimize
acquisition and avoid fragmentation of agricultural holdings. It is
further submitted that the objections of the Gram Panchayat were
made in the interest of the village community and not with an
intention to obstruct the railway project. The Panchayat has no
objection to acquisition in accordance with law, subject to proper
consideration of its objections, protection of village common
properties and payment of lawful compensation to the affected
landholders. Accordingly, the matter may be decided in
accordance with law.
20. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
21. The question which arises for consideration in these batch of
writ petitions is whether the order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the
Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Simga-cum-Land Acquisition
Officer, whereby the objections submitted by the
petitioners/landowners under Section 20-D of the Railways Act,
33
1989 have been rejected, calls for interference by this Court in
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and, consequently, whether the acquisition proceedings initiated
pursuant to the notification dated 16.06.2025 are liable to be
quashed or the competent authority is required to be directed to
reconsider the objections of the petitioners afresh.
22. At the outset, it is required to be noticed that the acquisition
in question is not an isolated acquisition of land for the benefit of a
private individual or private commercial establishment. The
material placed on record discloses that the acquisition forms part
of a Special Railway Project for providing linear railway
connectivity from Hathbandh Railway Station (East Cabin) to
Khaparadih Village in connection with the Gati Shakti Multi-Modal
Cargo Terminal. The project has been undertaken by the Railway
authorities pursuant to the policy decision of the Union
Government and the land is being acquired under the statutory
scheme contained in Chapter IV-A of the Railways Act, 1989.
23. It is true that respondent No.5-Shree Cement Limited is the
proposed terminal operator and that the proposed railway
connectivity would facilitate transportation of cement and other
goods from the terminal. However, the mere fact that a private
commercial entity would also derive an incidental or consequential
benefit from the railway infrastructure cannot, by itself, lead to the
34
conclusion that the acquisition ceases to be for a public purpose.
The relevant consideration is the nature and character of the
project for which the land is acquired and the manner in which the
acquired land and railway infrastructure are to be owned,
controlled and utilised.
24. In the present case, the specific stand of the Union of India
and the Railway authorities is that the land acquired under the
project would vest absolutely in the Central Government/Railways
and respondent No.5 would not acquire any independent right, title
or proprietary interest in the acquired land. Its role is confined to
the operation of the Multi-Modal Cargo Terminal in accordance
with the applicable Gati Shakti Multi-Modal Cargo Terminal Policy.
The petitioners have not been able to demonstrate from the
material available on record that the acquired land would vest in
respondent No.5 or that the Railway authorities have undertaken
the acquisition merely as an instrument to transfer the acquired
property to a private company.
25. The contention of the petitioners that the acquisition is not for
a public purpose, therefore, cannot be accepted merely because
the proposed railway line would facilitate transportation of the
products manufactured by respondent No.5. A railway connectivity
project intended to facilitate movement of goods through railway
infrastructure, undertaken pursuant to a duly approved
35
governmental policy, cannot be characterised as a private project
merely because a particular industry is one of its beneficiaries.
Public purpose has to be understood in a broad and realistic
manner, particularly when the project forms part of the railway
infrastructure and is intended to promote transportation through
the national railway network.
26. In this regard, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sooraram Pratap Reddy v. District Collector,
Ranga Reddy District , reported in (2008) 9 SCC 552 , assumes
significance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognised that a
project may have an element of private benefit without losing its
essential character of public purpose, provided the dominant
purpose and the nature of the project are genuinely public. The
question, therefore, is not whether respondent No.5 would obtain
any benefit, but whether the acquisition is fundamentally
undertaken for a public infrastructure project. On the material
placed before this Court, the answer is in the affirmative.
27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shree
Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs. Commissioner of Central
Excise And Another (2016) 3 SCC 643 has held as under:-
“29. It would be seen that Shri Aggarwal is on
firm ground because this Court has specifically
stated that rules or regulations which are in the
36
nature of subordinate legislation which are ultra
vires are bound to be ignored by the courts when
the question of their enforcement arises and the
mere fact that there is no specific relief sought for
to strike down or declare them ultra vires would
not stand in the court's way of not enforcing them.
We also feel that since this is a question of the
very jurisdiction to levy interest and is otherwise
covered by a Constitution Bench decision of this
Court, it would be a travesty of justice if we would
not allow Shri Aggarwal to make this submission.
30. On merits, the matter is no longer res integra.
A Constitution Bench decision of this Court in
V.V.S. Sugars v. State of A.P. [ V.V.S. Sugars v.
State of A.P. , (1999) 4 SCC 192] has held,
following two earlier judgments of this Court, as
follows : (SCC p. 195, para 6)
“ 6 . This Court in India Carbon Ltd. v. State
of Assam [ India Carbon Ltd. v. State of
Assam , (1997) 6 SCC 479] has held, after
analysing the Constitution Bench
judgment in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CTO
[ J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CTO , (1994) 4
SCC 276] that interest can be levied and
charged on delayed payment of tax only if
the statute that levies and charges the tax
makes a substantive provision in this
behalf. There being no substantive
provision in the Act for the levy of interest
on arrears of tax that applied to purchases
37
of sugarcane made subsequent to the
date of commencement of the amending
Act, no interest thereon could be so
levied, based on the application of the
said Rule 45 or otherwise.”
31. Applying the Constitution Bench decision
[ V.V.S. Sugars v. State of A.P. , (1999) 4 SCC 192]
stated above, it will have to be declared that since
Section 3-A, which provides for a separate
scheme for availing facilities under a compound
levy scheme, does not itself provide for the
levying of interest, Rules 96-ZO, 96-ZP and 96-
ZQ cannot do so and therefore on this ground the
appellant in Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills
has to succeed. On this ground alone therefore
the impugned judgment [ Shree Bhagwati Steel
Rolling Mills v. CCE , 2006 SCC OnLine P&H
1434 : (2007) 2 RCR (Civil) 241] is set aside. That
none of the other provisions of the Central Excise
Act can come to the aid of the Revenue in cases
like these has been laid down by this Court in
Hans Steel Rolling Mill v. CCE [ Hans Steel
Rolling Mill v. CCE , (2011) 3 SCC 748] as
follows : (SCC p. 751, para 13)
“ 13 . On going through the records it is
clearly established that the appellants are
availing the facilities under the compound
levy scheme, which they themselves
opted for and filed declarations furnishing
details about the annual capacity of
38
production and duty payable on such
capacity of production. It has to be taken
into consideration that the compounded
levy scheme for collection of duty based
on annual capacity of production under
Section 3 of the Act and the 1997 Rules is
a separate scheme from the normal
scheme for collection of Central excise
duty on goods manufactured in the
country. Under the same, Rule 96-ZP of
the Central Excise Rules stipulates the
method of payment and Rule 96-ZP
contains detailed provision regarding time
and manner of payment and it also
contains provisions relating to payment of
interest and penalty in the event of delay
in payment or non-payment of dues. Thus,
this is a comprehensive scheme in itself
and general provisions in the Act and the
Rules are excluded.”
28. Also, in the matter of V.V.S. Sugars vs. Govt. of A.P. and
Others (1999) 4 SCC 192 , it has been held as under:-
“6. This Court in India Carbon Ltd. v. State of Assam
[(1997) 6 SCC 479] has held, after analysing the
Constitution Bench judgment in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v.
CTO [(1994) 4 SCC 276] that interest can be levied and
charged on delayed payment of tax only if the statute
that levies and charges the tax makes a substantive
provision in this behalf. There being no substantive
39
provision in the Act for the levy of interest on arrears of
tax that applied to purchases of sugarcane made
subsequent to the date of commencement of the
amending Act, no interest thereon could be so levied,
based on the application of the said Rule 45 or
otherwise.”
29. The principal grievance of the petitioners, however, is that
their objections under Section 20-D of the Railways Act were not
properly considered and that the order dated 27.01.2026 is cryptic
and non-speaking. It is necessary, therefore, to examine the
statutory procedure followed by the competent authority.
30. The record demonstrates that pursuant to the notification
issued under Section 20-A of the Railways Act, the petitioners had
submitted objections disputing the proposed acquisition, the
alignment, the necessity of acquisition and the alleged benefit to
respondent No.5. On an earlier occasion, this Court, while
considering the grievance of the petitioners in W.P.(C)
Nos.5079/2025, 5083/2025, 5069/2025 and connected matters,
directed the competent authority to consider and decide the
objections in accordance with law. The said direction was brought
to the notice of the competent authority. Thereafter, notices were
issued, the petitioners were afforded an opportunity of hearing and
the Railway authorities submitted their response to the objections.
31. Thus, the earlier defect complained of by the petitioners,
40
namely, that their objections were not being considered before
proceeding further with the acquisition, stood specifically noticed
by this Court and the competent authority was directed to
undertake the exercise contemplated under Section 20-D of the
Act. The material on record thereafter indicates that the competent
authority did undertake such exercise and passed the order dated
27.01.2026 rejecting the objections.
32. Section 20-D of the Railways Act undoubtedly confers a
statutory right upon the interested persons to object to the
acquisition. Such right cannot be reduced to an empty formality.
The competent authority is required to consider the objections
objectively and to take a decision in accordance with law. At the
same time, the existence of such a right does not mean that every
objection raised by a landowner must necessarily be accepted or
that the competent authority is required to agree with the
landowner's assessment regarding the necessity, alignment or
technical feasibility of the project.
33. The scope of consideration under Section 20-D is to ensure
that the objections are heard and considered by the competent
authority before the acquisition proceeds to the next statutory
stage. The provision does not confer upon the landowners a veto
over a duly sanctioned railway project. Once the objections have
been considered, an adverse decision by itself would not
41
constitute a violation of Section 20-D.
34. In the present case, the petitioners were admittedly heard.
Their objections concerning the public purpose of the project, the
alleged benefit to Shree Cement Limited, availability of an
alternative alignment, use of the existing railway infrastructure,
impact upon agricultural lands and other allied issues were before
the competent authority. The competent authority, after considering
the objections and the material placed by the Railway authorities,
rejected the objections and permitted the acquisition to proceed.
35. The petitioners have strongly relied upon the fact that,
according to them, the proposed railway line could have been
aligned along the existing railway corridor serving UltraTech
Cement and that sufficient land was available alongside the
existing railway track. This Court is unable to accept the
submission that such a dispute regarding the preferred alignment
by itself furnishes a ground for interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
36. Selection of railway alignment involves technical, engineering
and administrative considerations. The Railway authorities have
specifically explained that the alternative alignment suggested by
the petitioners would involve passing through
reservoir/waterlogged areas and would require construction of a
42
long-span bridge, apart from other technical difficulties. Whether
one particular alignment is more convenient or economically
preferable than another is essentially a matter for the competent
technical authorities. In the absence of demonstrable mala fides,
arbitrariness, colourable exercise of power or violation of a
mandatory statutory provision, this Court cannot substitute its own
opinion for that of the expert authorities.
37. The petitioners have also relied upon the fact that respondent
No.5 has already developed certain railway infrastructure and has
privately acquired land in the vicinity. Even assuming such facts,
they do not establish that the present acquisition is a colourable
exercise of statutory power. The Railway authorities have placed
on record the policy framework under which the proposed
connectivity is to be developed and have asserted that the
acquired land and railway infrastructure shall remain under the
control and ownership of the Railways.
38. The submission that the project should be abandoned merely
because some of the landowners are unwilling to part with their
land cannot also be accepted. Acquisition necessarily involves
deprivation of private property, and such deprivation may cause
hardship to the individual landowner. However, Article 300-A of the
Constitution protects property from deprivation except by authority
of law; it does not confer an absolute right upon a landowner to
43
prevent acquisition undertaken in accordance with law for a
genuine public purpose.
39. The record further shows that the present project extends
over a substantial area, covering several villages and affecting a
large number of landowners. A substantial number of landowners
have either consented to the acquisition or have accepted the
compensation determined in accordance with law. The fact that
some landowners continue to oppose the acquisition cannot, by
itself, invalidate the project as a whole. The rights of individual
landowners are required to be protected by ensuring lawful
acquisition and payment of just compensation, but the Court
cannot ordinarily bring to a standstill an integrated public
infrastructure project merely because a few landowners remain
dissatisfied with the acquisition.
40. The reliance placed by the respondents upon the decision of
this Court in Surendra Mohan Bist v. State of Chhattisgarh , W.P.(C)
No.562 of 2013, decided on 25.10.2024, is also of relevance
insofar as it recognises the limited scope of interference with an
acquisition which forms part of a larger railway project. The Court,
while exercising judicial review, is not concerned with determining
whether another alignment or another parcel of land would have
been more suitable, unless the decision-making process itself is
shown to be vitiated by illegality, arbitrariness, mala fides or
44
colourable exercise of power.
41. The judgment relied upon by the petitioners in Nareshbhai
Bhagubhai and Others v. Union of India and Others , reported in
(2019) 15 SCC 1 , does not advance their case to the extent
contended. The principle that statutory safeguards relating to
acquisition must be complied with is beyond dispute. However, the
said principle does not mean that an acquisition is liable to be
annulled even after the competent authority has afforded
opportunity of hearing and considered the objections, merely
because the decision rendered is adverse to the landowners.
42. Similarly, the principles governing judicial review of
administrative action, including the requirement of application of
mind and recording of reasons, are well settled. The Court has
examined the impugned order in the context of the material
available on record and the subsequent proceedings. Though the
order may not deal with every objection in the elaborate manner in
which the petitioners have argued the matter before this Court, the
substance of the objections was before the competent authority
and the authority has recorded its conclusion after considering the
objections and the stand of the Railway authorities.
43. The Court is also conscious of the fact that the present
challenge cannot be examined in isolation from the subsequent
45
development in the acquisition proceedings. The declaration under
Section 20-E of the Railways Act has already been issued. The
statutory scheme contemplates that upon publication of the
declaration under Section 20-E, the land vests in the Central
Government in the manner provided by the Act. The petitioners
cannot, therefore, seek to unsettle the entire statutory acquisition
process merely by asserting that their objections ought to have
been answered in greater detail, when the record establishes that
the objections were in fact invited, heard and considered.
44. The contention raised by the petitioners that the entire
acquisition should be quashed on the ground that the project
would benefit respondent No.5 is also not sustainable. The
Railways are entitled to undertake infrastructure projects which
facilitate transportation of goods and promote connectivity with
industrial establishments. The fact that the transportation of
cement manufactured by respondent No.5 would be facilitated
cannot convert the railway project into a private acquisition. The
benefit to an industry is incidental to the larger railway
infrastructure and does not, in the facts of the present case,
establish that the statutory power of acquisition has been
exercised for a collateral or private purpose.
45. The Court cannot lose sight of the larger public interest
involved in the implementation of infrastructure projects.
46
Development projects, particularly projects relating to railway
connectivity, inevitably involve acquisition of private land and may
cause inconvenience or hardship to individual landowners. Such
hardship, however, has to be addressed through the statutory
mechanism of compensation and rehabilitation, wherever
applicable; it cannot by itself furnish a ground for invalidating an
otherwise lawful project.
46. In Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra , reported in
(1997) 1 SCC 134 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasised
the need for the Court to balance individual rights against larger
public interest while examining challenges to acquisition
proceedings. The Court must remain conscious that infrastructure
projects are undertaken for the benefit of the society at large and
that interference at an advanced stage of acquisition can have
consequences extending beyond the individual dispute.
47. The contention of the petitioners that the competent authority
was bound to conduct a fresh detailed enquiry or spot inspection in
respect of every objection also cannot be accepted as an absolute
proposition. Section 20-D does not prescribe that in every case the
competent authority must necessarily undertake a physical spot
inspection or conduct an enquiry of the nature of a civil trial. The
nature and extent of enquiry depends upon the objections raised
and the material necessary for taking an informed decision. In the
47
present case, the competent authority had before it the project
material, the objections of the landowners and the response of the
Railway authorities.
48. So far as the challenge in W.P.(C) No.6592/2025 is
concerned, the petitioners have raised additional objections
regarding the impact of the project upon village pond, school,
playground, common utility properties and agricultural holdings.
These concerns undoubtedly deserve consideration by the
competent authorities while implementing the project. However,
the material on record does not establish that such objections
were completely ignored or that the acquisition was undertaken
without statutory authority. The Panchayat itself, through its
counsel, has submitted that it has no objection to the project in
public interest, subject to protection of village common resources
and lawful interests of the villagers. Such concerns can be
addressed by the competent authorities during implementation
without invalidating the acquisition itself.
49. Likewise, in W.P.(C) No.987/2026, the petitioners have relied
upon the earlier proceedings concerning the Greenfield Private
Freight Terminal and the judgment passed in W.P.(C)
No.2989/2021. The earlier judgment, however, related to the in-
principle approval then granted and directed consideration of the
proposal after affording due opportunity to the concerned party. It
48
does not follow that any subsequent railway project undertaken
under a separate statutory scheme automatically becomes invalid.
The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the present
acquisition notification has been issued without jurisdiction or in
direct violation of the binding directions contained in the earlier
judgment.
50. The Court is also unable to accept the contention that the
entire acquisition proceeding is liable to be quashed merely
because the petitioners have raised a dispute regarding the
ultimate beneficiary of the railway connectivity. The relevant test is
whether the statutory authority has exercised its power for the
purpose for which such power has been conferred. In the present
case, the project is a notified Special Railway Project, the
acquisition is undertaken under Chapter IV-A of the Railways Act,
and the acquired land is to vest in the Central
Government/Railways. No material has been placed before this
Court which would establish that the statutory power has been
exercised for a collateral or colourable purpose.
51. It is also significant that the petitioners do not allege that the
competent authority lacked jurisdiction to initiate the acquisition.
Their principal grievance is with the manner in which their
objections were considered and with the conclusion reached by
the authority. Once it is found that the petitioners were afforded an
49
opportunity of hearing, their objections were placed before the
competent authority and a decision was thereafter taken, the
scope of interference under Article 226 becomes limited. This
Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the decision of the
competent authority in respect of technical alignment, feasibility or
desirability of a railway project.
52. The Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the
petitioners have failed to establish any violation of the mandatory
procedure prescribed under Section 20-D of the Railways Act,
1989. The record does not disclose that the objections were
rejected behind the back of the petitioners or without affording
them an opportunity of hearing. On the contrary, the earlier
grievance of the petitioners was considered by this Court and
appropriate directions were issued, pursuant to which the
competent authority undertook the exercise of considering the
objections and thereafter passed the order dated 27.01.2026.
53. Merely because the competent authority has rejected the
objections, it cannot be said that the statutory right under Section
20-D has been denied. The right is to object and to have the
objection considered in accordance with law; it is not a right to
have the objection accepted. The petitioners have been unable to
demonstrate that the decision-making process was vitiated by
mala fides, arbitrariness, lack of jurisdiction, colourable exercise of
50
power or violation of any mandatory statutory requirement.
54. The Court is also conscious that the project has proceeded
substantially beyond the initial stage and the declaration under
Section 20-E has already been issued. At this stage, quashing the
entire acquisition proceedings would have the effect of bringing to
a standstill a large-scale railway infrastructure project affecting
several villages and a large number of landowners, despite there
being no established jurisdictional or statutory infirmity in the
acquisition process. Such an order would not be justified merely
on the basis of the individual objections raised by the petitioners.
55. The grievance of the petitioners regarding deprivation of their
agricultural lands and the consequential hardship cannot be
ignored. However, the constitutional protection under Article 300-A
is satisfied when deprivation of property is by authority of law. The
Railways Act, 1989 provides the statutory authority for acquisition
and also provides for determination and payment of compensation.
The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to avail the remedies
available to them under the statutory scheme in respect of
compensation or any other matter for which a statutory remedy is
provided.
56. The additional judgment relied upon by learned Senior
Counsel for respondent No.5, namely, Smt. Ayyamma v.
51
Government of India & Others , W.P. Nos.203560 and 200328 of
2025, decided by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi
Bench, on 17.07.2026, also supports the broad proposition that a
Special Railway Project undertaken under Chapter IV-A of the
Railways Act for connectivity to a Gati Shakti Multi-Modal Cargo
Terminal does not cease to be a public-purpose project merely
because a private terminal operator would derive benefit from such
connectivity. Though the said decision is not binding upon this
Court, the reasoning contained therein is consistent with the
principles applicable to the present case.
57. Having considered the entire material on record, this Court
finds that the competent authority has acted within the statutory
framework of the Railways Act, 1989; the petitioners were afforded
an opportunity of hearing; their objections were considered; and
the order dated 27.01.2026 was thereafter passed rejecting the
objections. The petitioners have not been able to establish any
such illegality or procedural infirmity which would warrant exercise
of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution.
58. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that
neither the order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue), Simga-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, nor the
acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to the notification dated
52
16.06.2025 warrant interference. The prayer for directing the
competent authority to undertake a fresh exercise under Section
20-D of the Railways Act also cannot be granted, as such an
exercise has already been undertaken pursuant to the earlier
directions of this Court.
59. Accordingly, the petitioners have failed to make out a case
for grant of any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
All the writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed . The interim order, if
any, operating in any of the petitions, shall stand vacated. It is,
however, made clear that dismissal of these writ petitions shall not
preclude the petitioners from availing such statutory remedy as
may be available to them in respect of determination,
enhancement or payment of compensation, or any other remedy
expressly provided under the Railways Act, 1989.
60. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Vishakha