ILA KIRIT SHELAT vs UNION OF INDIA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
Reserved On : 06/08/2026
Pronounced On : 03/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16174 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16174 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16074 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16175 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16449 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16868 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16889 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16914 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16986 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16989 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17176 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17344 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17346 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17348 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17374 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17375 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17396 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17413 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17430 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17437 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17480 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17534 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1847 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1876 of 2025
Page 1 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2062 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2117 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2145 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6397 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9057 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=============================================
ILA KIRIT SHELAT & ORS.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
SCA No.16174 of 2024
MR MIHIR JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR RUTUL P
DESAI(6498) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
MS MAITHILI MEHTA with MR SANJAY UDHWANI AND
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
SCA No.16074 of 2024
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR ADITYA
PARIKH for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MS MAITHILI MEHTA with MR SANJAY UDHWANI AND
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
Page 2 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
SCA No.16175 of 2024
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR ADITYA
PARIKH for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MAITHILI MEHTA with MR SANJAY UDHWANI AND
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
SCA No.16449 of 2024
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR ADITYA
PARIKH for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2, 3
MS MAITHILI MEHTA with MR SANJAY UDHWANI AND
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
SCA No.16868 of 2024
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR ADITYA
PARIKH for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MS MAITHILI MEHTA with MR SANJAY UDHWANI AND
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
SCA No.16889 of 2024
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR ADITYA
PARIKH for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MAITHILI MEHTA with MR SANJAY UDHWANI AND
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
SCA No.16914 of 2024
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR ADITYA
PARIKH for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MS MAITHILI MEHTA with MR SANJAY UDHWANI AND
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
Page 3 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
SCA No.16986 of 2024
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR HARSH
PAREKH for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MAITHILI MEHTA with MR SANJAY UDHWANI AND
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
SCA No.16989 of 2024
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR ADITYA
PARIKH for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MAITHILI MEHTA with MR SANJAY UDHWANI AND
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
SCA No.17176 of 2024
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR ADITYA
PARIKH for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MAITHILI MEHTA with MR SANJAY UDHWANI AND
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
SCA No.17344 of 2024
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR ADITYA
PARIKH for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2, 3, 4
MS MAITHILI MEHTA with MR SANJAY UDHWANI AND
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
SCA No.17346 of 2024
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR ADITYA
PARIKH for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MS MAITHILI MEHTA with MR SANJAY UDHWANI AND
MS.HETAL PATEL , ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for
the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
Page 4 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
SCA No.17348 of 2024
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR ADITYA
PARIKH for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MAITHILI MEHTA with MR SANJAY UDHWANI AND
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
SCA No.17374 of 2024
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR ADITYA
PARIKH for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MAITHILI MEHTA with MR SANJAY UDHWANI AND
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
SCA No.17375 of 2024
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR HARSH
PAREKH for the Petitioner(s) No. 1, 2
MS MAITHILI MEHTA with MR SANJAY UDHWANI AND
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
SCA No.17396 of 2024
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR HARSH
PAREKH for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MAITHILI MEHTA with MR SANJAY UDHWANI AND
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
SCA No.17413 of 2024
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR ADITYA
PARIKH for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MS MAITHILI MEHTA with MR SANJAY UDHWANI AND
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
Page 5 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
SCA No.17430 of 2024
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR ADITYA
PARIKH for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
MS MAITHILI MEHTA with MR SANJAY UDHWANI AND
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
SCA No.17437 of 2024
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR ADITYA
PARIKH for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MS MAITHILI MEHTA with MR SANJAY UDHWANI AND
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
SCA No.17480 of 2024
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR ADITYA
PARIKH for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MS MAITHILI MEHTA with MR SANJAY UDHWANI AND
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
SCA No.17534 of 2024
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR ADITYA
PARIKH for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MAITHILI MEHTA with MR SANJAY UDHWANI AND
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
SCA No.1847 of 2025
MR JAYESH A KOTECHA for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MAITHILI MEHTA with MR SANJAY UDHWANI AND
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
Page 6 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
SCA No.1876 of 2025
MR JAYESH A KOTECHA for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MS MAITHILI MEHTA with MR SANJAY UDHWANI AND
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
Respondent(s) No. 3
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
SCA No.2062 of 2025
MR JAYESH A KOTECHA for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MAITHILI MEHTA with MR SANJAY UDHWANI AND
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
SCA No.2117 of 2025
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR ADITYA
PARIKH for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4, 5, 6
MS MAITHILI MEHTA with MR SANJAY UDHWANI AND
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
SCA No.2145 of 2025
MR JAYESH A KOTECHA for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MAITHILI MEHTA with MR SANJAY UDHWANI AND
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
SCA No.6397 of 2025
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR ADITYA
PARIKH for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MAITHILI MEHTA with MR SANJAY UDHWANI AND
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
SCA No.9057 of 2025
MR DIGANT POPAT, WITH MR.DILIP L. KANOJIYA for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MAITHILI MEHTA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
Page 7 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. For the convenience of readers, the judgment is divided
into parts as indicated in the table of contents, given
hereinbelow :-
Table of contents
Sr.
Subject Page
No.
No.
1. Preface 8
2.
Petitioners’ Objection under Section 20D of the
10
Act’ 1989
3. Objections Re:Publication of notification under
55
Section 2(37A) of the Act’ 1989
68
4. Analysis and Conclusion
68
(I) Non-availability of details of the Land in Acquisition
Notification under Section 20A.
70
(II) Validity of the Notification under Section 2(37A) of
the Act’ 1989.
(III) Non-adherence to the provisions of Section 20D of
111
the Act’ 1989.
1. PREFACE:-
2. The present set of writ petitions have been filed
challenging the notification dated 02.02.2023 issued under
Section 2 (37A) of the Railway Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act’
1989”); as also the notification dated 12.10.2023 under
Page 8 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
Section 20A of the said Act and dated 08.10.2026 issued
under Section 20E of the Act; respectively, for acquisition of
the lands of the petitioners herein for Railway Projects.
3. Besides the above, the petitioners are also challenging
the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the respondent No.2,
namely the competent authority and Special Land Acquisition
Officer, disallowing the objections filed by the petitioners
under Section 20D of the Act’ 1989 against the notification
dated 12.10.2023 issued under Section 20A of the Act’ 1989.
4. In essence, the challenge is to the entire acquisition
process beginning from the issuance of the notification dated
02.02.2023 issued under Section 2 (37A) of the Railway Act,
1989.
5. Brief facts of the case relevant to decide the controversy
at hands are that two (in number) notifications dated
02.02.2023 being S.O. 544(E) and S.O. 545(E) have been
issued under the signature of the Chief Project Manager
(Construction) under the authority of the Western Railways,
Ministry of Railways, notifying the projects of 5 intersections
between Geratpur – Sanand and Botad – Ahmedabad (16.51
th
kms) and 4 line between Geratpur (Barejadi Nandej) -
Sanand (38.20 km), as Special railway projects for providing
national infrastructure for public purpose under Section
2(37A) of the Act’ 1989.
6. The Ministry of Railways (Western Railway) had
published the notification dated 11.10.2023 for the project of
5 intersections at a length of 16.51 km; and the notification
th
dated 12.10.2023 for the project of 4 line at a length of 38.20
Page 9 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
kms, under Section 20A(1) of the Act’ 1989 declaring its
intention to acquire the lands briefly described therein.
2. Petitioners’ Objection under Section 20D of the
Act’ 1989:-
7. Since all the writ petitions raise similar legal issues for
consideration, they have been heard together with the
consent of the learned counsels for the parties and are being
decided by this common judgment.
8. For the sake of brevity and clarity in dealing with the
case of the petitioners, we only refer to the facts and
circumstances of the case from the record of the leading writ
petition being Special Civil Application No.16174 of 2024.
9. Since the lands of the petitioners (non-agricultural
multipurpose) were notified under the above-noted acquisition
notifications, they raised objections on dated 31.10.2023,
demanding information from the competent authority
necessary to formulate their detailed objections, namely, the
proposal, files and notings and minutes of the meeting for
treating the project as Special railway project, information
regarding rejection of prior projects from treating as Special
railway project, feasibility /survey report, the basis for
requirement of land, consultation with affected land owners
and relevant reports of the Collector etc.
10. As there was no response, the petitioners reiterated
their demand vide communication dated 29.11.2023. The
competent authority scheduled the hearing of objections on
Page 10 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
th
02.01.2024 (for the project of 4 line of 38.20 kms) and
29.12.2023 (for the project of 5 intersections of 16.51 km) and
also communicated the petitioners’ demand for gathering
information from the requisitioning authority, namely the
Deputy Chief Engineer, Western Railway.
11. On 12.12.2023, the petitioners reiterated their demand
and requested for adjournment of hearing until the
information was provided. The scheduled hearings were,
hence, adjourned to 30.01.2024. On 08.01.2024, the acquiring
body, namely the Western Railway, responded to the
competent authority with regard to the objections pertaining
th
to the notification for the project of 4 line of 38.20 km.
12. The response of the Railways on the information
demanded by the petitioners, as detailed in a table in the
communication dated 08.01.2024, is relevant to be extracted
hereinunder:-
Sr.
No.
INFORMATION DEMANDED REPLY
9.i The proposal for considering the
subject project as a Special
Railway Project.
Enclosed
9.ii The entire file along with the
noting thereon in relation to the
above proposal.
Not warranted to be enclosed.
Page 11 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
9.iii The feasibility Report if any in
relation to the proposal in
reference
The existing railway lines
through Ahmedabad Railway
station have become crowded
resulting severe congestion of
Railway trains. Trains between
Geratpur and Sabarmati took
lot of extra time due to
congestion, which affects not
only the railway system
adversely, but also affect the
passengers in the form of
wastage of their valuable time.
So 4th line is to be laid
between GERATPUR &
Sabarmati but it is not
possible to lay 4th line along
the existing track due to land
constraint. Hence this
alignment has been decided
considering various technical
and economical factors. The
proposed route is not only
shorter but also will provide
path to all directions (i.e.
Bhavnagar, Saurashtra, Kutch
& Northern India) bypassing
the Ahmedabad Junction. It
will save the revenue in the
form of assets, time, men
power, fuel, etc. etc.
Considering the importance
and urgency of the project, the
proposal being submitted to
Railway's competent authority
to declare it as special Railway
project and the authority
decides itself on the merits of
the project. There is no any
meeting being organized for
this process.
9.iv The minutes of meeting of the
concerned Competent Authority
wherein the decision was taken
to treat the project as a Special
Railway Project.
9.v The note recording satisfaction
regarding requirement of the
land for the purpose of the
It is a New BG line. The land
to be acquired has been taken
least minimum required to
Page 12 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
projects in reference and all
documents considered.
execute the project smoothly
and satisfactory along with all
technical considerations.
9.vi The list of all projects in the year
2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24
which have been considered to
be Special Railway Project.
Not warranted with regard to
the subject project.
9.vii The list of all projects in the year
2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24
which have been considered to
be Special Railway Project, and
have been considered as Regular
Railways Project.
Not warranted with regard to
the subject project.
9.viii The survey report if any
undertaken.
Not warranted. The project
has been decided considering
various technical and
economical aspects. The same
is explained in detail in the
reply of Item no. 12-vi below.
9.ix The documents provided to the
consultant appointed by the
railways for preparing the map
and undertaking any work in
relation to the railway line
referred to in the Notification.
Not warranted.
9.x The report regarding consultant
with the land owners who would
be affected by the acquisition.
This is according to Railway
Act, 1989. There is no such
provision for consultation with
land owners in Railway Act,
1989.
9.xi The opinion submitted by the
office of the Collector
Ahmedabad regarding the
viability of the proposed
acquisition.
No opinion received by this
office from the office of the
Collector Ahmedabad
regarding the viability of the
proposed acquisition.
Moreover, there is no such
provision in the Railway Act,
1989.
9.xii The objections, if any, raised by
the Collector, Ahmedabad and/or
the State Government
No objections raised by
collector, Ahmedabad and/or
the State Government.
Moreover, there is no such
provision in the Railway Act,
1989.
Page 13 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
9.xiii The order of the competent
authority by which your good-
self is appointed as the
competent authority and all
correspondence in relation
thereto.
The CALA is appointed by
Revenue deptt. of the state
govt. vide letter dt.14.07.2023
(Enclosed)
9.xiv
Additional Information:-
The existing railway lines through Ahmedabad Railway station
have become crowded resulting severe congestion of Railway
trains. Trains between Geratpur and Sabarmati took lot of extra
time due to congestion, which affects not only the railway system
adversely, but also affect the passengers in the form of wastage of
their valuable time. So 4th line is to be laid between GERATPUR
& Sabarmati but it is not possible to lay 4th line along the existing
track due to land constraint. Hence this alignment has been
decided considering various technical and economical factors.
The proposed route is not only shorter but also will provide path
to all directions (i.e. Bhavnagar, Saurashtra, Kutch & Northern
India) bypassing the Ahmedabad Junction. It will save the revenue
in the form of assets, time, men power, fuel, etc. etc.
1.
2.
The work is sanctioned by Railway Board.
After considering various technical aspects the alignment is
finalized.
3.
[
4.
Bare Minimum required land is proposed for acquisition.
No land, other than as decided in notification as well as JMS is
required to Railway for current project at present.
5.
Total 35 No. Bridges for rain water disposal will be provided.
6.
At the location of existing road crossings, 44 Nos. of
ROB/RUB/Railway flyovers will be provided.
7.
For cable/pipe line crossings, suitable technical solution will be
made at the time of execution.
8.
Page 14 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
For agriculture land/N.A. Land/Plot- the highest compensation
will be given as per latest rules & regulations.
9.
Apart from land for existing structures like buildings, boundary
walls, bore wells, tube wells, tree etc - the suitable compensation
will be given as per latest rules & regulations of land acquisition.
10
13. The objections raised by about 187 landowners including
th
the petitioners herein for the project of 4 line are, further,
responded by the Railways to the competent authority in the
following manner:-
Sr.No INFORMATION DEMANDED REPLY
1. The land owner paid a huge
amount to convert agriculture
land into non-agriculture /
multipurpose land so there is
not only loss of land but also all
amount deposited in the State
government.
Sufficient
compensation, as per
latest rules will be
disbursed.
The proposed land
acquisition is in the
national interest and this
project is for national
infrastructure
development. Moreover,
sufficient compensation
as per latest rules will be
disbursed.
2. One side the state government
giving permission for non
agriculture land and other side
central government/Ministry of
Railway is starting acquisition
of land. So there is unbearable
and priceless loss to the owner
of the land.
3. Our locality is 10 to 12 kms
from city and a peaceful,
healthy and concentrated area.
The Railway line is passing in
between the our locality which
will disturb the peace and
prosperity of the locality.
As per '2' in above.
4. Gulmohar greens gold and
country club is SELF
SUSTAINABLE MODEL like
ECO SYSTEM means self
sustaining system is possible,
for which endless inspiration
As per '2' in above.
Page 15 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
has been given.
5. Tree has been planted more
than 25 years ago, the greenery
can be seen from Google map.
There are number of birds
living there creating a eco
sensitive zone. Due to cutting of
tree, global warming will be
there.
As per '2' in above.
6. There will be two part of the
property and there will be no
approach to the Road and due
to provision of Railway track
there is possibility of water
logging in our land.
(i) As per '2' in above.
(ii) Proper technical
solution will be applied
for solution of drainage
system for such
problems.
7. In east direction and west
direction there is agriculture
land without construction which
can be used by Railway.
Railway alignment has
been decided
considering various
technical aspects
including curvature of
track which finally
decides the maximum
speed of trains.
Considering technical
aspects, all possible
efforts have been made
to reduce the
structures in the
alignment.
8. Drone survey is done without
consulting the property owners.
No such provision in
Railway act.
9. Survey done by which means
and at which time. Give
information.
DGPS survey done on
August, 2019 and also
on May, 2023.
10. Indian oil corporation line is
going underground at said
locations.
Necessary technical
solution will be made in
consultation with IOCL.
11. Due to provision of Railway
there will be huge financial loss
in shifting of cable, electric high
tension line, gutter etc. passing
For cable/pipe line
crossings, suitable
technical solution will
be made at the time of
Page 16 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
below the ground. After
acquisition of land, on both side
from Railway limit in 30 meters
land permission of construction
is not given.
execution.
Necessary approval
from the Railway
authority is required
for any construction
within 30 meters from
Railway limit and NOC
is being given by
Railway for the same.
12. In Addition to above details of
some topics is required.
-
a. Information about the future
demand of Railway and trains.
Not related to this
project.
b. What are other options to meet
the increase demand.
Technical solution will
be done as per
requirement.
c. Whether TECHNO ECOMOMIC
SURVEY OR FEASILLITY
SURVEY REPORT is there?
The existing railway
lines through
Ahmedabad Railway
station have become
crowded resulting
severe congestion of
Railway trains. Trains
between Geratpur and
Sabarmati took lot of
extra time due to
congestion, which
affects not only the
railway system
adversely, but also
affect the passengers in
the form of wastage of
their valuable time. So
4th line is to be laid
between GERATPUR &
Sabarmati but it is not
possible to lay 4th line
along the existing track
due to land constraint.
Hence this alignment
(for 4th line & 05
intersections) has been
decided considering
various technical and
Page 17 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
economical factors. The
propose route is not only
shorter but will also
provide path to all
directions (i.e.
Bhavnager, Saurashtra,
Kutch & Northern India)
bypassing the
Ahmedabad Junction. It
will save the revenue in
the form of assets, time,
men power, fuel, etc.
etc.
d. Economic analysis As per '12(c)' above.
e. Financial Appraisal As per '12(c)' above.
f. Preliminary survey As per '12(c)' above.
27 Nos. limited height
subway (LHS) will be
provided for traffic
movement.
g. Whether the Increasing
problem of vehicular traffic
from newly established
h. Whether a survey in currently
established lines.
Not related to this
project.
i. Contoured Maps, alternate
route.
As per '12(c)' above.
j. Survey sheet, measurement
sheet.
It will be finalized
during the JMS.
k. Maps of survey of India, forest
survey
As per '12(c)' above.
l. Gradient and curvature Already taken care of.
m. Marshy ground, climatic
conditions.
Already taken care of.
n. Eco System and global
warming.
Already taken care of.
o. Field survey. As per '12(c)' above.
p. Co-ordinates survey. It will be covered
during JMS.
q. Physical verification. It will be covered
during JMS.
r. Merit and de-merit. Enough compensation
with maximum award
as per latest rules.
s. DGPS survey. As per '9' in above.
Page 18 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
t. Earth quake, flood. Soil-study is under
progress. All technical
aspects will be taken
care of during the
execution of
construction work.
u. Water level. As per '12(t)' above.
v. Demolition of Structure. It will be
finalized/decided
during the JMS.
w. Detail project Report. As per '12(c)' above.
13. Provide the Information. Enough Information is
given in above paras.
14. If not received, more objection
petition.
Enough Information is
given in above paras.
15. Affected people should be
heard.
Being heard by CALA &
Spl. LAO.
16. Market rate compensation. Sufficient
compensation with
maximum award as per
latest rules.
17. Detailed project report. As per '12(c)' above.
18. Personal Hearing. It is within the judicial
purview of Competent
authority and Spl. LAO.
14. It is submitted in the writ petition that on the eve of the
hearing scheduled on 30.01.2024, the petitioners received the
communication dated 19.01.2024 addressed by respondent
No.2, the competent authority, enclosing a communication
dated 08.01.2024 of the respondent No.3, namely the Deputy
Chief Engineer, Railways stating to be response to the
objections of the petitioners, which finds place at page ‘189’
of the paperbook. However, it is submitted that the
respondent No.2, namely the competent authority did not
provide the information sought for by asserting that it was not
warranted.
Page 19 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
15. The petitioners again reiterated their demand for
complete information on 29.01.2024. The hearing scheduled
on 30.01.2024, according to the petitioners, was not held and
the competent authority again communicated the petitioners'
demand and objections to the Western Railways vide
communication dated 30.01.2024.
16. Meanwhile, the developer of the lands in question
proposed an alternative route for the projects by writing
representation dated 29.06.2024 to the Union Minister of
th th
Railways while submitting that the project proposed 4 and 5
intersections are passing through their residential projects,
where numerous plots of non-agricultural nature and houses,
first homes are being severely affected. The project
completely disrupts the infrastructure of a large complex,
affecting approximately 100+ stakeholders, whose lands will
be disturbed, affected or non-usable. Houses will be
demolished leaving many people without homes until suitable
alternative are provided. The residential complex where
people have been living for a long time, will have a railway
line running through its middle, making it cumbersome and
nearly impossible to reside there even for those not directly
affected by the proposed rail project.
17. It was contended that the residential project is a very old
project started in 1995 and spread across a large area. It
houses thousands of fully grown trees over 30 years old,
which are home to many different species of birds. The entire
community is being affected by this proposed rail project,
Page 20 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
which seem unfair, given that much of adjoining land is open
agricultural land belonging to big farmers. Some of this land
falling within the defined turning radius for the rail project is
owned by the developer and his family.
18. It is stated therein that if the agricultural lands (block
Nos.832, 833, 834, 835, 891, 912, 913, 930) is found suitable
for the rail project, he would be happy to offer them in
th th
exchange of the existing proposal of the 4 and 5 rail line. A
request was made therein to reconsider the alternative
suggestion by him.
19. The competent authority has rejected the objections of
the petitioners dated 31.10.2023 vide order dated 27.09.2024
which reads as under:
“
:- હુકમ :-
ભારતનારાજપત્રમાંતા . ૨ / ૨ / ૨૦૨૩નારોજપ્રસિધ્ધથયેલભારતસરકારશ્રી , રેલમંત્રાલય ,
નવીદિલ્હીનાવંચાણ -( ૧ ) દર્શાવેલનોટીફિકેશનથીરેલ્વેઅધિનિયમ , ૧૯૮૯નીકલમ - ૨નાક્લોઝ
th
( ૩૭ - એ ) નીજોગવાઇઓનીચેભારતસરકારશ્રીનારેલ્વેમંત્રાલયના 4 Line બીટવીનબારેજડી ,
નાંદેજ ( ગેરતપુર ) - સાણંદ ( ૩૮ . ૨૦કી . મી .) પ્રોજેક્ટનેસ્પેશીયલરેલ્વેપ્રોજેક્ટતરીકેજાહેરકરેલ
છે . ગુજરાતરાજ્યનાઅમદાવાદજિ લ્લામાંસદરહુસ્પેશીયલરેલ્વેપ્રોજેક્ટનાઅમલીકરણ , નિભાવ ,
વ્યવસ્થાપનઅનેસંચાલનના જાહેરહેતુમાટેભારતના રાજપત્રમાંતા . ૪ / ૮ / ૨૦૨૩ના રોજ
પ્રસિધ્ધથયેલભારતસરકારશ્રી , રેલ્વેમંત્રાલય , નવીદિલ્હીનાવંચાણ -( ૨ ) માંદર્શાવેલનોટીફીકેશનથી
રેલ્વેઅધિનિયમ , ૧૯૮૯ની કલમ - ૨ના ક્લોઝ ( ૭એ ) ની જોગવાઇઓનીચેઅત્રેનેસક્ષમ
સત્તાધિકારીતરીકેકાર્યોકરવામાટેઅધિકૃતકરવામાંઆવેલછે .
ભારતનારાજપત્રમાંતા . ૧૨ / ૧૦ / ૨૦૨૩નારોજપ્રસિધ્ધથયેલ . ભારતસરકારશ્રી , રેલ્વે
મંત્રાલય , નવીદિલ્હીનાવંચાણે - ( ૩ ) માંદર્શાવેલનોટીફિકેશનથીરેલ્વેઅધિનિયમ , ૧૯૮૯ની
કલમ - ૨૦ - એ ( ૧ ) નીજોગવાઇઓનીચેભારતસરકારશ્રીએ , અમદાવાદજિ લ્લાનાસાણંદતાલુકાના
th
ગામસનાથલનાસર્વેનંબર - ૮૯૨ / / સી ૧ ક્ષેત્રફળચો . મી . ૧૧૯૩૧ જમીન 4 Line બીટવીન
બારેજડી , નાંદેજ ( ગેરતપુર ) - સાણંદ ( ૩૮ . ૨૦કી . મી .) પ્રોજેક્ટનાજાહેરહેતુમાટેસંપાદનકરવાનો
ઇરાદોજાહેરકરેલછે . સદરહુતા . ૧૨ / ૧૦ / ૨૦૨૩નુંનોટીફિકેશનતા . ૨૧ / ૧૦ / ૨૦૨૩ના
રોજઅંગ્રેજીવર્તમાનપત્ર " ધઇન્ડિયનએક્ષપ્રેસ " અનેતા . ૨૧ / ૧૦ / ૨૦૨૩નારોજહિન્દી
વર્તમાનપત્ર " યંગલીડર " અનેતા . ૨૧ / ૧૦ / ૨૦૨૩નારોજગુજરાતીવર્તમાનપત્ર " સંદેશ " માં
પ્રસિધ્ધથયેલછે . આપ્રાથમિકજાહેરનામાસામેઅરજદારશ્રી Smt Ila K Shelat, Vrajesh
Kirit Shelat, mitul Kirit Shelat રહે .06, Manikamal Society Near
Page 21 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
Surdhara Circle Sal Hospital Road Thaltej Ahmedabad- 380054 નાએ
તેમના સર્વેનંબર - ૮૯૨ / / સી ૧ ની જમીનસંપાદનકરવા સામેલેખિતવાંધાઅરજીઅત્રેને
તા . ૩૧ / ૧૦ / ૨૦૨૩નારોજરજૂકરેલછે . રેલ્વેઅધિનિયમ , ૧૯૮૯નીકલમ - ૨૦ડીનીપેટા
કલમ ( ૧ ) નીજોગવાઇમુજબસદરહુવાંધાઅરજીનિયતસમયમર્યાદામાંરજૂથયેલહોઇને ,
અરજદારનેતા . ૨ / ૧ / ૨૦૨૪ના રોજરૂબરૂસુનાવણીની તકઆપવામાંઆવેલ . ત્યારબાદ
પુન : સુનાવણીતા . ૩૦ / ૦૧ / ૨૦૨૪ના રોજપણરૂબરૂસુનાવણીની તકઆપવામાઆવેલ .
સંપાદકસંસ્થાતરફેડેપ્યુટીચીફએન્જીનીયર , ડીઆરએમઓફીસ , અસારવા , અમદાવાદનાઅધિકૃત
પ્રતિનિધિશ્રીઓમુદતેઅત્રેહાજરરહેલઅનેઅરજદારનીસદરહુવાંધાઅરજીઅંગેવંચાણ - ( ૫ ) માં
દર્શાવેલલેખિતરજુઆતરજુકરેલછે . રૂબરૂસુનાવણીમાંઅરજદારેરૂબરૂ / વકીલમારફતેમુદતે
હાજરથઇનેવાંધાઓઅંગેકરેલલેખિત / માૈખિકરજુઆત / જવાબતેમજતેમનીવંચાણ -( ૪ ) માં
દર્શાવેલલેખિતવાંધાઅરજીઅનેવંચાણ -( પ ) માંદર્શાવેલસંપાદકસંસ્થાવેસ્ટર્નરેલ્વેનીલેખિત
રજુઆત / જવાબઅંગેયોગ્યવિચારણાનાઅંતેરેલ્વેઅધિનિયમ , ૧૯૮૯નીકલમ - ૨૦ડીનીપેટા
કલમ -( ૨ ) થીઅત્રેનેમળેલઅધિકારીઅન્વયે , સદરહુજાહેરહેતુમાટેઅરજદારશ્રીની જમીન
સંપાદનકરવામાટેનીઅરજદારશ્રીનીવાંધાઅરજીનીચેજણાવેલકારણોસરઅમાન્યકરીનામંજુર
કરવામાંઆવેછે .
કારણો :-
th
( ૧ ) રેલ્વેઅધિનિયમ , ૧૯૮૯થીજાહેરહેતુમાટેના 4 Line બીટવીનબારેજડી , નાંદેજ
( ગેરતપુર ) - સાણંદ ( ૩૮ . ૨૦કી . મી .) પ્રોજેક્ટમાટેભારતસરકારશ્રીનેસદરહુજમીનસંપાદન
કરવાનાઅધિકારો પ્રાપ્તથયેલછે .
( ૨ ) રેલ્વે ( સુધારા ) અધિનિયમ , ૨૦૦૮નીજોગવાઇમુજબ , રેલ્વેઅધિનિયમ , ૧૯૮૯નીકલમ -
૨૦ એ ( ૧ ) નીચેપ્રસિધ્ધથયેલસદરહુસ્પેશીયલરેલ્વેપ્રોજેક્ટમાટેનીજરૂરીજમીનોના
સંપાદનમાટેના પ્રાથમિકજાહેરનામાનીપ્રસિધ્ધિનીતારીખથી૩૦ ( ત્રીસ ) દિવસબાદરજૂ
થયેલકોઇપણપ્રક્રારના વાંધાકેપુરવણીવાંધાઅસ્વીકાર્યબનેછે . તદનુસારસદરહુકેસમાં
તા . ૨૦ / ૧૧ / ૨૦૨૩પછી ઉપસ્થિતકરાયેલનવોકોઇપણવાંધોવિચારણામાંલેવાનોથતોનથી .
( ૩ ) રેલ્વેઅધિનિયમ , ૧૯૮૯નીકલમ - ૨૦એ ( ૧ ) નીચેસદરહુંસ્પેશીયલરેલ્વેપ્રોજેક્ટમાટેસાણંદ
તાલુકાનાગામસનાથલનીજમીનોસંપાદનકરવામાટેતા . ૧૨ / ૧૦ / ૨૦૨૩નારોજભારતના
રાજપત્રમાંપ્રસિધ્ધથયેલજાહેરનામુતથાતેજાહેરનામાનીતા . ૨૧ / ૧૦ / ૨૦૨૩નારોજઅંગ્રેજી
વર્તમાનપત્ર " ધઇન્ડિયનએક્ષપ્રેસ " અનેતા . ૨૧ / ૧૦ / ૨૦૨૩ના રોજહિન્દીવર્તમાનપત્ર
" યંગલીડર " અનેતા . ૨૧ / ૧૦ / ૨૦૨૩ના રોજગુજરાતીવર્તમાનપત્ર " સંદેશ " માંવર્તમાન
પત્રોમાંથયેલપ્રસિધ્ધિનીકાર્યવાહીકાયદેસરઅનેબંધારણીયછે .
( ૪ ) રેલ્વેઅધિનિયમ , ૧૯૮૯નીકલમ - ૨૦એ ( ૧ ) નીચેનુંજાહેરનામુંએપ્રાથમિકજાહેરનામુછે . તે
સ્પેશીયલરેલ્વેપ્રોજેક્ટમાટેજમીનસંપાદનકરવાનોભારતસરકારશ્રીનોઇરાદોજાહેરકરેછે .
બાદમાંતેપ્રોજેક્ટમાટેજરૂરીજણાતીહોયતેટલીજમીનોમાટેજસંપાદનનીઆગળનીપ્રક્રિયા
હાથધરવાનીથાયછે .
( પ ) સદરહુજમીનસંપાદનની કાયદેસરની પ્રક્રિયા સામેઅનુમાનઆધારીતઉપસ્થિતકરાયેલ
વિગતોના વાંધાગ્રાહ્યરાખવાપાત્રથતાનથી . તેનાથીસંપાદનપ્રક્રિયામાંથીમુક્તિ મળીશકેનહી .
Page 22 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
( ૬ ) સદરહુસ્પેશીયલરેલ્વેપ્રોજેક્ટના અમલીકરણ , નિભાવ , વ્યવસ્થાપનઅનેસંચાલનના કામે
જાહેરહિતમાંપ્રોજેક્ટના એલાયનમેન્ટમાંજરૂરીસુધારા - વધારાઅનેફેરફારકરવાની કાર્યવાહી
કાયદેસરઅનેબંધારણીયછે .
( ૭ ) જમીનવળતરનીમાંગણી , જમીનસંપાદનકરવામાટેનાઆપ્રાથમિકજાહેરનામાનીપ્રસિધ્ધિના
તબક્કેઅપ્રસ્તુતછે .
( ૮ ) સદરહુજાહેરહેતુનાકામેરેલ્વેઅધિનિયમ , ૧૯૮૯નીકલમ - ૨૦ઇનીપેટાકલમ ( ૧ ) નીચે
ભારતસરકારશ્રીદ્વારાસદરહુજમીનસંપાદનકરવાનુંજાહેરનામુભારતનારાજપત્રમાંપ્રસિધ્ધથયા
બાદરેલ્વેઅધિનિયમ , ૧૯૮૯નીકલમ - ૨૦એફનીપેટાકલમ ( ૪ ) અને ( ૫ ) નીજોગવાઇમુજબ ,
સંપાદનહેઠળનીજમીનનુંવળતરનક્કીકરતાંપહેલાસંબંધિતજમીનમાંહિતધરાવતાપક્ષકારોને
વળતરનાદાવાનીલેખિતરજુઆતતથારૂબરૂસુનાવણીનીયોગ્યતકઆપવામાંઆવશે . ત્યારબાદજ
સંપાદિતજમીનનુંવળતરનક્કીકરવામાંઆવશે . તદનુસાર , તત્સમયેઆપનાદ્વારાવળતરનાદાવા
માટેઅત્રેનેઅરજીકરીશકાશે .
( ૯ ) સંપાદનહેઠળનીજમીનઅંગેનિયમાનુસારમળવાપાત્રથતુંજમીનનુંવળતર , નુકશાનીવળતર ,
સંપાદનહેઠળનીજમીનમાંઆવતામકાનો , કુવા , પાઇપલાઇન , વૃક્ષોવગેરેનુંવળતરતથાઇઝમેન્ટ
રાઇટએન્જોયમેન્ટરાઇટજોકાંઇહોયતોતેઅંગેમળવાપાત્રથતુંવળતરનક્કીકરીનેતેજમીનમાં
હિતધરાવતાપક્ષકારોનેચુકવવાનુંરહેછે . ત્યારબાદસંપાદિતજમીનનો કબજોશ્રી સરકારપક્ષે
સાંભળવાનોરહેછે .
th
( ૧૦ ) 4 Line બીટવીનબારેજડી , નાંદેજ ( ગેરતપુર ) - સાણંદ ( ૩૮ . ૨૦કી . મી .)
પ્રોજેક્ટના લાઇનના બાંધકામમાટે , યોગ્યજગાએવરસાદીપાણીના નિકાલમાટેગરનાળાની
વ્યવસ્થાતેમજરસ્તામાટેફાટકનીઅનેજ્યાંજરૂરીહોયત્યાંઓવરબ્રીજ - અન્ડરબ્રીજનીવ્યવસ્થા
કરવાનીરહેછે . આવ્યવસ્થાતમામનાગરિકોનાજનરલઉપયોગમાટેનીછે .
( ૧૧ ) જમીનસંપાદનનાનકશાનીનકલઅત્રેનીકચેરીએઉપલબ્ધરખાયેલછે . જરૂરજણાય
તોઅત્રેનીકચેરીનોસંપર્કકરીશકોછો .
( ૧૨ ) સદરહુસંપાદનથીઅસરપામતાઇસમોમાટેનોકરીનીમાંગણીતથાસંપાદનહેઠળની
જમીનસામે અન્યત્રતેટલીજમીનનીમાંગણીઅપ્રસ્તુતછે .
( ૧૩ ) સદરહુજાહેરહેતુના પ્રોજેક્ટમાટેએલાયનમેન્ટમાંઆવતીહોયતેટલીજમીનની
જરૂરીયાતછેઅનેતેટલીજજમીનનુંસંપાદનકરવામાંઆવીરહેલછે .
( ૧૪ ) જોઇન્ટમેજરમેન્ટમાટેઅલાયદીકાર્યવાહીકરવામાંઆવશે .
( ૧૫ ) સદરહુજમીનનુંસંપાદનઔદ્યોગિકહેતુમાટેનથીઅનેજાહેરહેતુસિવાયનોઅન્ય
કોઇહેતુનથી .
જેથીસદરહુજાહેરહેતુમાટેજમીનસંપાદનકરવાના કલમ - ૨૦ ( એ )( ૧ ) નીચેના સદરહુ
પ્રાથમિકજાહેરનામાસામેની આપની તા . ૩૧ / ૧૦ / ૨૦૨૩ની વાંધાઅરજીથીકરેલરજુઆત
અમાન્યકરીનામંજુરકરવામાંઆવેછે .
આજતારીખ૨૭માહેસપ્ટેમ્બરસને૨૦૨૪નારોજમારીસહીતથાસિક્કાસાથેહુકમ
કર્યો .
Page 23 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
SD/-
સક્ષમસત્તાધિકારીઅને
વધારાનાખાસજમીનસંપાદન
અધિકારી
અમદાવાદ
સ્થળ :- અમદાવાદ
તા . ૨૭સપ્ટેમ્બર૨૦૨૪
“
English Translation:-
“
-: ORDER :-
By the notification referred to at Reference-(1) above
issued by the Ministry of Railways, Government of India, New
Delhi and published in the Gazette of India on 02/02/2023,
th
the project of the 4 Line between Barejadi, Nandej
(Geratpur)–Sanand (38.20 k.m.) of the Ministry of Railways,
Government of India has been declared as a Special Railway
Project under the provisions of clause (37-A) of Section 2 of
the Railways Act, 1989. For the public purpose of
implementation, maintenance, management and operation of
the said Special Railway Project in Ahmedabad District of the
State of Gujarat, by the notification referred to at Reference-
(2) above issued by the Ministry of Railways, Government of
India, New Delhi and published in the Gazette of India on
04/08/2023, the undersigned has been authorized to perform
the functions as the Competent Authority under the
provisions of clause (7-A) of Section 2 of the Railways Act,
1989.
By the notification referred to at Reference-(3) above
issued by the Ministry of Railways, Government of India, New
Delhi and published in the Gazette of India on 12/10/2023,
the Government of India has declared its intention, under the
provisions of Section 20-A(1) of the Railways Act, 1989, to
acquire land bearing Survey No. 892/C/1, admeasuring
11,931 sq. mtrs., situated at Village-Sanathal, Taluka-Sanand,
District-Ahmedabad, for the public purpose of the 4th Line
between Barejadi, Nandej (Geratpur)–Sanand (38.20 k.m.)
Page 24 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
Project. The said notification dated 12/10/2023 was published
on 21/10/2023 in the English daily newspaper “The Indian
Express”, on 21/10/2023 in the Hindi daily newspaper “Young
Leader” and on 21/10/2023 in the Gujarati daily newspaper
“Sandesh”. Against the said preliminary notification, the
applicants, namely Smt. Ila K Shelat, Vrajesh Kirit Shelat and
Mitul Kirit Shelat, residing at 06, Manikamal Society, Near
Surdhara Circle, Sai Hospital Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad-
380054, submitted an objection application in writing to the
undersigned on 31/10/2023 against acquisition of their land
bearing Survey No. 892/C/1. Since the said objection
application was submitted within the prescribed period under
the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 20-D of the
Railways Act, 1989, an opportunity of personal hearing was
given to the applicants on 02/01/2024. Thereafter, an
opportunity of personal hearing was again given on
30/01/2024. The authorized representatives of the Deputy
Chief Engineer, DRM Office, Asarwa, Ahmedabad for the
acquiring authority, appeared on the dates of hearing and
submitted the written representation regarding the said
objection application of the applicants as referred to at
Reference-(5) above. During the personal hearing, the
applicants appeared in person/through their advocate on the
dates of hearing and made written/oral submissions/replies
regarding the objections. After duly considering the written
objection application referred to at Reference-(4) above and
the written representation/reply of the acquiring authority,
Western Railway referred to at Reference-(5) above and in
exercise of the powers conferred upon the undersigned under
sub-section (2) of Section 20-D of the Railways Act, 1989, the
objection application of the applicants against acquisition of
the land of the applicants for the said public purpose is
hereby held to be untenable and rejected for the grounds
stated below.
Grounds:-
(1) Under the Railways Act, 1989, the Government of India
has been vested with the powers to acquire the said land for
the 4th Line between Barejadi, Nandej (Geratpur)–Sanand
(38.20 K.M.) Project undertaken for a public purpose.
Page 25 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
(2) In accordance with the provisions of the Railways
(Amendment) Act, 2008, any objection or supplementary
objection submitted after 30 (thirty) days from the date of
publication of the preliminary notification for acquisition of
the lands required for the said Special Railway Project
published under Section 20-A(1) of the Railways Act, 1989
becomes inadmissible. Accordingly, in the present case, no
new objection raised after 20/11/2023 is required to be taken
into consideration.
(3) The notification published in the Gazette of India on
12/10/2023 under Section 20-A(1) of the Railways Act, 1989
for acquisition of the lands situated at Village-Sanathal,
Taluka-Sanand for the said Special Railway Project and the
procedure of publication of the said notification in the English
daily newspaper “The Indian Express” on 21/10/2023, in the
Hindi daily newspaper “Young Leader” on 21/10/2023 and in
the Gujarati daily newspaper “Sandesh” on 21/10/2023 are
legal and constitutional.
(4) The notification under Section 20-A(1) of the Railways
Act, 1989 is a preliminary notification. It declares the
intention of the Government of India to acquire land for the
Special Railway Project. Thereafter, further proceedings for
acquisition are required to be undertaken only in respect of
such lands as may be found necessary for the said project.
(5) Objections raised on the basis of assumptions regarding
the details against the lawful process of the said land
acquisition are not liable to be considered. The same cannot
result in exemption from the acquisition process.
(6) In the interest of the public, the process of making
necessary additions, alterations and modifications in the
alignment of the project for implementation, maintenance,
management and operation of the said Special Railway
Project is legal and constitutional.
(7) A demand for compensation for the land is irrelevant at
the stage of publication of this preliminary notification for
Page 26 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
acquisition of land.
(8) For the said public purpose, after publication in the
Gazette of India of the notification under sub-section (1) of
Section 20-E of the Railways Act, 1989 issued by the
Government of India declaring acquisition of the said land,
under the provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 20-
F of the Railways Act, 1989, before determining the
compensation for the land under acquisition, the persons
having an interest in the concerned land shall be given an
appropriate opportunity to submit their written claims for
compensation and an opportunity of personal hearing.
Thereafter, the compensation for the acquired land shall be
determined. Accordingly, at the relevant time, you may
submit an application to the undersigned for your claim for
compensation.
(9) The compensation for the land payable in accordance with
the rules in respect of the land under acquisition,
compensation for damages, compensation for the houses,
wells, pipelines, trees etc. situated on the land under
acquisition and compensation, if any, payable in respect of
easement rights/enjoyment rights shall be determined and
paid to the persons having an interest in the said land.
Thereafter, possession of the acquired land shall be taken
over by the Government.
(10) For construction of the 4th Line between Barejadi,
Nandej (Geratpur) – Sanand (38.20 K.M.) Project,
arrangements for culverts for drainage of rainwater at
appropriate places, railway crossings for roads and over-
bridges/ under-bridges wherever necessary are required to
be made. These arrangements are intended for general use
by all citizens.
(11) A copy of the land acquisition map has been kept
available in the office of the undersigned. If required, you
may contact this office.
(12) Demand for employment by the persons affected by the
said acquisition and demand for an equivalent extent of land
elsewhere in lieu of the land under acquisition are irrelevant.
(13) For the said public purpose project, only such extent of
Page 27 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
land which falls within the alignment is required and only
such extent of land is being acquired.
(14) Separate proceedings shall be undertaken for joint
measurement.
(15) Acquisition of the said land is not for an industrial
purpose and there is no purpose other than the public
purpose.
Therefore, the representation made by you through
your objection application dated 31/10/2023 against the said
preliminary notification under Section 20-A(1) for acquisition
of land for the said public purpose is hereby held to be
untenable and rejected.
Passed under my signature and seal today, on
27 September 2024.
Place: Ahmedabad Sd/-(illegible)
Date:27/09/2024 Competent Authority and
Additional Special Land
Acquisition Officer,
Ahmedabad
“
20. Subsequent thereto, the notification dated 08.10.2024
under Section 20E of the Act’ 1898 has been published
declaring the acquisition and vesting of lands in question for
38.20 kms project of 4th line and the notification dated
09.10.2024 for the 16.51 kms project of 5 intersections.
21. It is the case of the petitioners that the communication
addressed by respondent No.2, namely Deputy Chief
Engineer, Railways, did not provide the information as sought
for by the petitioners, as was essential for the purpose of
effectively submitting their objections to the impugned
acquisition. The hearing was not conducted on 30.01.2024
Page 28 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
and the competent authority, respondent No.2 after noticing
the non-compliance of the demand made by the petitioners,
addressed a communication dated 30.01.2024 to respondent
No.3 Railways, providing them the copy of objections dated
29.01.2024 and instructing to do the needful.
22. It is contended that neither any response in terms of the
communication dated 30.01.2024 was addressed by
respondent No.2, nor the information as sought by the
petitioners has been provided by the competent authority. No
hearing on the objections of the petitioners as required under
Section 20D, as such, was held.
23. In the meanwhile, the respondents laid marking stone,
indicating the proposed railway line across the lands within
the enclave. A notification dated 05.07.2024 has been
published in the Times of India newspaper dated 20.07.2024
notifying that the office of the competent authority
(respondent No.2) had considered and rejected 27 objections
received in response to the notification dated 12.10.2023 for
the 4th line and that certain survey numbers of land owners at
serial No.38 were not included in the notification.
24. The petitioners by way of communication dated
23.07.2024 requested the respondent No.2 to provide a copy
of its decision considering and rejecting the objections and
further requested to provide the decision regarding dropping
of land of the land owners at serial No.38 from the
acquisition. The petitioners also requested to provide any
Page 29 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
variation on provisions pursuant to the same. However, they
did not receive any response to the said communication.
25. The contention in the writ petition is that the petitioners
were under legitimate expectation that their objections would
be duly considered and alternative routes as proposed, would
be explored while deciding upon the objections submitted by
the petitioner.
26. It is contended that the petitioners had a reasonable
belief that the procedure as prescribed to deal with their
objections would be followed. However, the arbitrary rejection
of the petitioners' objections, without any consideration of the
alternatives on the feasibility of the project, violates not only
their legitimate expectation of procedural fairness, but also
the Constitutional mandate under Articles 14, 21 and 300A of
the Constitution of India.
27. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioners have
been informed by the developer that they had not received
any decision taken by respondent No.2 on the proposal of
alternative route. The petitioners had since not been called for
hearing on their objection under Section 20D after the
communication dated 30.01.2024. The order dated 27.09.2024
passed by the competent authority disallowing the objections
submitted by the petitioners does not refer to and / or
considere any of the objections raised by the land owners.
28. The order passed by the competent authority is
stereotype order making general statements unsupported by
any reasoning and is not a reasoned order. The impugned
Page 30 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
order dated 27.09.2024, thus, violates the statutory mandate
under Section 20D and the Constitutional mandate of Articles
14 and 300A of the Constitution of India.
29. The impugned order dated 27.09.2024 does not refer to
the communications dated 05.12.2023, 30.01.2024 and
17.09.2024 sent by the competent authority, namely
respondent No.2 to the Railways (respondent No.3) to
respond to the objections of the petitioners as well as the
proposal submitted by them for an alternative route. It is the
case of the petitioners that it was incumbent upon the
respondent No.2 to refer to the said communications and
draw a findings in respect of the contents of the same.
30. Mr.Mihir Joshi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioners would vehemently argue that no effective
hearing and, infact, no hearing at all has been afforded to the
petitioners. The matter was adjourned on various dates,
however, the documents demanded by the petitioners so as to
effectively participate in the hearing had not been supplied.
Inspite of the communications sent by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer to the respondent Railways providing the
copies of objections filed by the petitioners dated 29.01.2024
and instructing the respondent No.3, namely the Deputy Chief
Engineer, Western Railways to do the needful in deference to
the same including submitting their response and providing
the information asked for by the petitioners, no information
had been provided.
31. The submission is that the order of rejection of the
Page 31 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
objections of the petitioner is in utter violation of principles of
natural justice, inasmuch as, neither relevant documents were
supplied inspite of repeated asking nor any effective hearing
was afforded.
32. The submission is that the right to object conferred
under Section 20D of the Act' 1989 to any person interested in
any land, which has been notified under Section 20A of the
Act' 1989, needed or likely to be needed for the purpose of
acquisition, is the only protection available to the landowners
whose lands are sought to be acquired. The land acquisition
legislation (the Railways Act' 1989) being an ex-proprietary
legislation, its provision must be strictly construed. The
statutory opportunity to object must be real and effective, not
illusory. The competent authority performs a quasi-judicial
function and is mandated to independently apply its mind to
every objection. A reasoned order is a sine qua non . The
report consisting only of conclusions or generic references to
"public interest" is legally unsustainable. Seeking or
mechanically accepting the acquiring body's views amounts to
abdication of statutory duty.
33. It was argued that while dealing with the valuable
statutory right of objection of a landholder under Section 20D,
the competent authority is required to perform its quasi-
judicial function by providing all necessary documents
demanded, effective hearing to the landowners who
participated and to pass a reasoned order dealing with each
objection, specifically before submitting its report to the
Collector, which is required to be placed before the
appropriate Government together with the Collector's
Page 32 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
recommendations and record of the case.
34. It is submitted that it is only upon the receipt of the said
record that the Government can take a final decision about
acquisition. The declaration under Section 20E of the Act'
1989 can be made only upon the submission of a proper
report to the Central Government and the suggestion
recorded by the Central Government on consideration of the
said report, as is provided under sub-section (1) of Section
20E. A generic report consisting only of conclusions and no
reasons cannot be made basis for the decision of the Central
Government to notify the acquisition of land by publication of
the declaration under Section 20E. The report of the
competent authority, which is the basis of publication of
declaration, if submitted mechanically or a non-speaking
report will vitiate the whole acquisition process.
35. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in
Railway Corridor Virodh Kishan Sangh v. Union of India
[2013 SCC OnLine Guj 8648] , it was argued that under
Section 20D of the Act' 1989, the responsibility and the duty
of the competent Authority to hear and decide the objections
is of a very high degree as report under Section 3D would be
considered as final. The competent authority, thus, owes a
duty to give a meaningful hearing to the objectors and decide
the same in accordance with law.
36. It was argued that this Court in Railway Corridor
Virodh Kishan Sangh (supra) has taken exception to the
order under Section 20D(2) of the Act passed by the
competent authority, wherein the competent authority had
Page 33 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
solely relied on the remarks of the acquiring body and the
objection therein were rejected on the premise that the
acquiring body informed the competent authority that
acquisition of land was in public interest.
37. It was held by this Court therein upon reading of the
order passed by the competent authority that various
objections raised by the landowners were not considered by
the competent Authority by application of his own mind and
the manner in which the competent Authority acted solely on
the basis of communications at the end of the acquiring body,
it was a case of abdication of power. It was held that by no
stretch of imagination, it would be said that the competent
authority applied its mind and considered the objections
objectively without being influenced in any manner by the
remarks or suggestions of the acquiring body. it was noted by
the Division Bench of this Court therein that by now, it is well
settled that when the order is passed by the statutory
Authority, the same must be supported either by the reasons
stated therein or on the grounds available on record. The
statutory Authority cannot be permitted to support its order
relying on the statements made in the affidavit before the
Court dehors the order or for that matter dehors the records.
38. Heavily relying upon the decision of the Division Bench
of this Court in Railway Corridor Virodh Kishan Sangh
(supra) , it was argued that this Court, though has observed
therein that it is open for the competent authority to consider
the remarks made by the acquiring body but the act of the
competent authority in forwarding the objections to the
Page 34 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
acquiring body for their consideration and passing an order
under Section 20D(2) solely on the remark of the acquiring
body would make it clear that the competent authority was
not in a position to understand or appreciate the objection.
Consequently, while setting aside the order of the competent
authority passed under Section 20D and the consequent
notification published under Section 20E of the Act' 1989, the
matter was relegated to the competent authority to undertake
a fresh exercise to consider all the objections raised by the
landowners including the objections as regards the alignment
and pass a fresh reasoned order without being influenced by
any earlier communication made at the end of the acquiring
body.
39. The submission is that the present case falls squarely
within the four corners of the law laid down by the Division
Bench of this Court as to the scope of the objection under
Section 20D and the requirement of dealing with the
objections by the competent authority. It is submitted that in
view of the law laid down by this Court in Railway Corridor
Virodh Kishan Sangh (supra) , the order impugned herein
dated 27.09.2024 passed by the competent authority under
Section 20D cannot be sustained for the same being not
supported by any independent reasoning of the competent
authority on the specific objections raised by the petitioners,
and the matter is required to be relegated to the competent
authority for fresh consideration of the objections qua the
lands of the petitioners herein, by quashing the order passed
by it as well as declaration notification under Section 20E of
Page 35 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
the Railways Act’ 1989.
40. Further, a recent decision of the Apex Court in Kolkata
Municipal Corpn. v. Bimal Kumar Shah, [(2024) 10 SCC
533] has been placed before us to submit that the Apex Court
very succinctly has discussed therein the law dealing with the
intersecting rights, namely the right to property of individual
landowners protected under Article 300-A of the Constitution
of India and of compulsory acquisition by the appropriate
Government within the "power of eminent domain".
41. It has been held therein that the twin conditions of
acquisition being for a public purpose and subjecting the
divestiture to the payment of compensation in lieu of
acquisition have to be read in and inferred as necessary
conditions in the constitution, to afford protection to the
individuals who are being divested of their property. The
binary reading of the constitutional right to property must
give way to more meaningful renditions, where the larger
right to property is seen as comprising intersecting sub-rights,
each with a distinct character but interconnected to constitute
the whole. These sub-rights weave themselves into each other,
and as a consequence, State action or the legislation that
results in the deprivation of private property must be
measured against this constitutional net weaved under Article
300-A as a whole, and not just one or many of its strands.
42. These sub-rights or strands of constitutional fabric
constituting right to property can be identified, albeit non-
exhaustive as:-
Page 36 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
( i ) The duty of the State to inform the person that it intends
to acquire his property — the right to notice,
( ii ) The duty of the State to hear objections to the
acquisition — the right to be heard ,
( iii ) The duty of the State to inform the person of its
decision to acquire — the right to a reasoned decision,
( vi ) The duty of the State to demonstrate that the
acquisition is for public purpose — the duty to acquire only
for public purpose,
( v ) The duty of the State to restitute and rehabilitate — the
right of restitution or fair compensation,
( vi ) The duty of the State to conduct the process of
acquisition efficiently and within prescribed timelines of
the proceedings — the right to an efficient and expeditious
process , and
( vii ) The final conclusion of the proceedings leading to
vesting — the right of conclusion .
43. It was argued that the Apex Court in Kolkata
Municipal Corpn. (supra) has held that these seven rights
are foundational components of a law that is in tune with
Article 300-A, and the absence of one of these or some of
them would render the law susceptible to challenge. It was
held that some of these sub-rights though sound as
"procedural" but they do constitute the real content of the
right to property under Article 300-A and non-compliance of
these will amount to violation of the right, being without the
Page 37 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
authority of law.
44. It was held that the right to be heard against the
proposed acquisition provided under Section 5A of the Land
Acquisition Act' 1894 ( pari materia to Section 20D of the Act'
1989) must be meaningful and not a sham. The right to the
property-bearer to communicate his objections and concerns
to the authority acquiring the property is a valuable right
embodied in an ex-proprietary legislation would require
meaningful considerations of the objections of the
landowners. The inquiry in which the landowner would raise
his objection is not a mere formality. The authorities
considering the objections has to take an independent
decision supported by reasons and communicate the same to
the objector. The fact that the authorities have heard and
considered the objections is evidenced only through a
reasoned order.
45. The contention is that the decision of compulsory
acquisition of land is subject to judicial review and the Court
will examine and determine whether the acquisition is made
by adopting due process of law, strictly adhering to the
procedure prescribed under the land acquisition legislation
and the acquisition is related to public purpose. If the Court
arrives at a conclusion that there is no public purpose
involved in the acquisition, or the process is vitiated by non-
adherence to the strict rule of procedure, the entire process of
acquisition is to be set aside. It was argued that the
compulsory acquisition under the land acquisition legislation
being ex-proprietary legislation, each step in the process is to
Page 38 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
be completed in strict adherence to the mandatory procedure
prescribed by law. Any deviation from the strict rule of
procedure would vitiate the entire land acquisition process.
46. Mr. Shalin Mehta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioners in the connected Special Civil Application
No. 16175 of 2024 would candidly submit that the petitioners
though would not argue that the acquisition is not for a public
purpose, however, feasibility report about the objections of
the petitioners for changing the alignment was required to be
considered by the Railways on the objections of the
petitioners.
47. It was submitted that there are constructions existing on
the spot and the railway project would be passing through the
constructions, gardens, etc. and for this reason, the builder
had suggested change of alignment so that constructions can
be saved and open land may be used. The suggestions and
objections of the petitioners against the acquisition of their
lands for the project were required to be looked into by the
competent authority and objections could not have been
rejected without adjudication on the same.
48. It was vehemently argued that the right to object to
acquisition and hearing in the proceedings under Section 20D
is the only valuable right to the landholder whose land is
notified to be acquired. Any violation of Section 20D will have
the effect of vitiating the acquisition process as a whole.
Page 39 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
49. To substantiate these submissions, the decision of
Division Bench of this Court in Railway Corridor Virodh
Kishan Sangh (supra) has been pressed into service.
50. From the record of Special Civil Application No.16174 of
2024, we may note that in response, an affidavit-in-reply dated
10.02.2025 has been filed by the competent authority /
Special Land Acquisition Officer, stating therein that the
petitioners had submitted their objections on 31.10.2023 and
the same was forwarded for the comment of the Railways,
namely respondent No. 3 on 17.11.2023. Essentially, the
petitioners raised objections with regard to the acquisition of
their land which was towards the 4th line and 5th intersection
railway project. As the dispute is with regard to alignment
under both the projects and the prayer was to change the
same, the objections were forwarded to the Railways to
provide detailed remarks. Personal hearing was scheduled on
29.12.2023 and 02.01.2024 wherein both the petitioners and
respondent No. 3 were required to remain present.
51. The petitioners through their representative had
remained present and sought accommodation, accordingly,
hearing was adjourned to 30.01.2024 for both the project,
th th
namely 4 line and 5 intersection.
52. It is stated that the petitioners, while seeking
accommodation for 30.01.2024 had submitted written
objections and authorities while granting adjournment, had
given hearing to the petitioners on both dates, i.e. 29.12.2023
as well as 02.01.2024. The specific statement in the affidavit
Page 40 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
of the Special Land Acquisition Officer or the competent
authority is that the representative of the petitioner was duly
heard and the hearing was subsequently deferred to
30.01.2024 for furnishing relevant details which were called
from respondent No. 3 Railways, who was also present on
both the aforesaid dates. The contention, thus, is that the
adjournment given to the petitioners up to 30.01.2024 was
only to furnish them the necessary information as called for
from the respondent No. 3, namely Railways.
53. In reply to paragraph ‘2.11’ to ‘2.15’ of the writ petition,
it is submitted in paragraph ‘6.7’ of the affidavit that:
“ 6.7 I say and submit that with reference to para 2.11 to 2.15
on duly considering the objections of the petitioner,
acquisition over the land of the petitioner covering the 5
Intersection Railway Line has been dropped. Thus,
acquisition of the petitioner's land for the 4th Railway Line
Project continues after considering the objections raised by
the petitioner.”
54. Further, it is categorically stated that the petitioners had
demanded certain information from the respondent
authorities which were provided by respondent No. 3 vide
communication dated 08.01.2024, which was given to the
petitioners on 19.01.2024. Again, on 19.01.2024 itself, the
respondent No.3 had provided certain more information which
were not provided to the petitioners in the first
communication dated 19.01.2024, and hence the said details
were personally handed over to the petitioner on 30.01.2024.
55. It is categorically stated that further information was
provided by respondent No. 3 on 25.01.2024 as well as on
09.02.2024 which were sent to the petitioners on 26.02.2024.
Page 41 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
It is the stand of the competent authority that, in so far as the
information demanded by the petitioner pertaining to
technicalities of the ‘Special Railway Project’ as well as
administration of respondent No.3, the competent authority
had no power or authority to express its opinion and was
acting as a messenger for collecting information from
respondent No. 3 and providing the same to the petitioners.
56. The stand of the competent authority, thus, is that
personal hearing was afforded to the representatives of the
petitioner on 29.12.2023 and 02.01.2024 and the written
objections of the petitioners were also filed by the said
representatives. The hearing was adjourned on 30.01.2024 for
furnishing information from the respondent No. 3 as required
by the petitioners.
57. It is categorically stated that on due consideration of the
objections of the petitioners, the acquisition over the land of
the petitioners covering 5 intersection railway project has
been dropped. However, the acquisition of the petitioners'
th
land for the 4 railway line project continues after
considering the objections raised by the petitioners.
58. The respondent Railways in its affidavit dated
27.12.2024 would submit that as the existing railway lines to
Ahmedabad Railway Station have become crowded, resulting
into severe congestion of railway trains, the trains between
Geratpur and Sabarmati took lot of extra time affecting the
railway system adversely as well as affecting the passengers
badly. To smoothen the traffic and avoid congestion, it was
Page 42 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
th
proposed to lay down 4 line between Barejadi - Nandej
(Geratpur) and Sanand; For easing out the capacity constraint
from Sanand - Sabarmati - Ahmedabad - Geratpur section and
achieving overall operational efficiency on existing railway
infrastructure system, the construction of Barejadi Nandej -
th
Sanand 4 line bypassing Ahmedabad has become most
th
essential. As laying down of 4 line was not possible along the
railway tracks, a feasibility survey of the area was conducted
by the experts of Railways. The project of 5 intersections is
proposed to provide path in all directions to the trains passing
th
through Barejadi - Nandej (Geratpur) - Sanand 4 line, i.e.
Barejadi to Botad, Barejadi to Gandhigram, Botad to Sanand,
Botad to Barejadi Nandej, Sanand to Botad, Sanand to
Gandhigram, Gandhigram to Barejadi Nandej, Gandhigram to
Sanand, and Sanand / Gandhigram to Mehsana bypassing
Sabarmati Railway Station, for smoothing the freight train
movement in all directions as mentioned above.
th
59. It is submitted that after laying of 4 line with 5
numbers intersections, the goods trains will have a bypass
route without entering into Ahmedabad and Sabarmati
railway stations which will smoothen the movements of
railway passenger trains at Ahmedabad and Sabarmati
Railway Stations. Thus, the project is planned keeping in view
the larger public interest. It is further contended that as
alternative route of alignment explored by the Railways
involved more land acquisition resulting into more financial
th
burden, present alignment was finalized for laying down 4
line with new broad gauge line intersection (5 numbers).
Page 43 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
60. With regard to the objections of the petitioners dated
31.10.2023, it is submitted that the respondent No. 3, namely
the competent authority vide letter dated 05.12.2023,
informed the answering respondent No. 3 about the
document/information sought by the petitioners, which are as
under :-
“(i) The proposal for considering the subject project as a
Special Railway Project.
(ii) The entire file along with the noting thereon in relation to
the proposal.
(iii) The feasibility Report if any in relation to the proposal in
reference.
(iv) The minutes of meeting of the concerned Competent
Authority wherein the decision was taken to treat the project
as a Special Railway Project.
(v) The note recording satisfaction regarding requirement of
the land for the purpose of the projects in reference and all
documents considered.
(vi) The list of all projects in the year 2021-2022, 2022-2023
and 2023-2024, which have been considered to be Special
Railway Project.
(vii) The list of all projects in the year 2021-2022, 2022-2023
and 2023-2024, which have not been considered to be Special
Railway Project.
(viii) The Survey report if any undertaken.
(ix) The documents provided to the consultant appointed by
the railways for preparing the map and under taking any
work in relation to the railway line referred to in the
Notification.
(x) The report regarding consultation with the land owners
who would be affected by the acquisition.
(xi) The opinion submitted by the office of the Collector,
Ahmedabad regarding the viability of the proposed
acquisition.
Page 44 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
(xii) The objections, if any, raised by the Collector,
Ahmedabad and/or the State Government.
(xiii) The order of the Competent Authority by which your
good-self is appointed as the Competent Authority and all
correspondence in relation thereto.”
61. On personal hearing, it is submitted that hearing of
objections raised pursuant to Project 1, viz. 5 intersections
railway line project was held on 29.12.2023. Most of the
objectors have remained present for the hearing scheduled
and all the objectors present, entered and gathered in the
room wherein hearing was held. Shri Alpesh Parekh, the
Manager Director of Gulmohar Greens, the Golf & Country
Club Ltd. represented all the objectors present during the
hearing and made his submission in line of the objections.
62. The main objection was with regard to the alignment of
tracks. After making oral submissions against the land
acquisition, Shri Alpesh Parekh had demanded the documents
mentioned in the objections – cum – demand application dated
31.10.2023. The advocate of the petitioners was also present
and the hearing was rescheduled on 30.01.2024.
63. Similarly, on hearing of objections for Project No.2, for
th
4 line, on 02.01.2024, the petitioners were represented
through their advocate who was present in the hearing and
their representative Shri Alpesh Parikh had also attended the
hearing. Both of them had made their submissions in line of
the objections and demanded certain more documents.
64. The submissions for demand of documents made during
the course of hearing was noted by the competent authority
Page 45 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
with the endorsement of the advocate and the representative
of the petitioners. Hearing was adjourned to 30.01.2024 and
the Railways was required to provide information before that.
Necessary information / documents were provided by the
Railways Authority vide letters dated 08.01.2024 and
19.01.2024 along with relevant documents, which were duly
provided to the petitioners.
65. The objections for land acquisition had been heard by
the competent authority and after giving thoughtful
consideration to the objections vis-a-vis the purpose of land
acquisition, the orders disallowing the objections against both
the projects had been sent to the petitioners and all objectors
through Regd. Post A.D. from the office of the respondent
No.2. Subsequently reports were submitted by the competent
authority to the Central Government.
66. In a detailed affidavit dated 24.02.2025, it is submitted
that the petitioners had submitted two different objections
vide applications dated 31.10.2023 for both the projects. The
information sought by the petitioners pertaining to the
feasibility report and other technical aspects in the objection
applications dated 31.10.2023 and 29.11.2023 were called for
by the respondent No.2 from the office of the deponent vide
letters dated 04.12.2023 and 05.12.2023, which was duly
provided by the answering respondent Railways to respondent
no.2 vide letters dated 08.01.2024 and 02.01.2024.
67. It is submitted that both the projects create a totally new
infrastructure enhancing existing capacities of running trains.
Page 46 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
For effective operation and convenience, the tracks are to be
interlinked, but that itself does not brand a project as an
additional line. It is not merely an additional line to existing
railway line, as contended by the petitioners.
68. The projects are essentially for public purposes, as they
shorten the route of goods trains, and after commissioning of
these projects, once they become operational, traffic of
passenger trains at Ahmedabad and Sabarmati Railway
stations would smoothen up, saving a lot of time and energy of
the public at large.
69. It is submitted that most of the information demanded by
the petitioners available with the office of the answering
Respondent Railways, was provided to them. The gist of the
information demanded by the petitioners as noted
hereinbefore, according to the respondent Railways, has been
duly answered and provided to the petitioners by them. The
contention is that the developer, namely Shri Alpesh Parekh,
the representative of the petitioners who participated in the
hearing on behalf of all the objectors, had submitted a
proposal offering an alternative route for the proposed railway
line, which fact clearly indicates that neither the petitioners
nor the developer Alpesh Parekh had any objection against
the land acquisition. Their objections are only for acquisition
of 3 kms. area out of total length of the route of 38.20 kms. of
th
4 line and 3.7 kms. of area of total length of the route of
16.51 kms. of 5 intersections.
Page 47 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
70. It is categorically stated in paragraph ‘25’ of the said
affidavit that alternative route offered by the developer
changes the alignment, which is not feasible, as multiple
complications will arise from newly affected land owners as
well as technical issues.
71. The contention is that present alignment is finalized
considering various aspects, including curvature of track,
which finally decides the maximum speed of trains, and
considering technical aspects as well, the present alignment
has resulted into lesser acquisition of land or structure.
72. The final alignment has been decided after considering
all technical aspects and feasibility of all possibilities. A
necessary exercise had been taken prior to publication of the
notifications.
73. The route and alignment is finalized by the technical
experts, who also assessed the impact of acquisition and
further there is no provision under the Act to interact with the
land owners for the purpose of finalization of alignment.
74. It is further submitted that as per the
instructions/guidelines of the Railway Board dated
17.12.2009, the alignment is finalized in such a manner that
minimum structures are affected and during the course of
hearing, the drawing of alignment was shown to the land
owners, but most of the land owners objected to the
alignment. The order disallowing the objection was passed
after considering/analyzing technical and feasible aspects vis-
Page 48 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
a-vis land acquisition in the objections raised by the
petitioners. Proposed alignment is the best alignment in view
of technicality and feasibility.
75. Before finalizing present alignment, alternative routes
were explored, considering the track length and the
acquisition of lands required for the project, present route has
been finalized to shorten the track length and minimum
acquisition of private land. It is categorically stated that there
is no question of re-survey of the subject land as the
alignment is already finalized and there is no possibility of re-
alignment.
76. The Dedicated Freight Corridor serves a different
purpose and the proposed project will serve different purpose
in view of connectivity, travel time, feasibility, etc., with
larger interest of public at large.
77. The objections of the petitioners qua alignment is
technically and financially not viable. The petitioners have
been given reasonable opportunity of hearing and the decision
has been taken applying rule of procedural fairness.
78. In rejoinder to the affidavit of the competent authority, it
is submitted that the representative of the petitioner had
attended the hearing on 29.12.2023 and 02.01.2024 only for
the purpose of seeking time in terms of the applications filed
on 12.12.2023 since no documents were provided till then. To
the best of knowledge of the petitioners, the grant of
adjournment was also recorded in the minutes by respondent
Page 49 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
No. 2, and it is incorrect to state that the representatives of
the petitioners were heard on the merits of the acquisition.
Hearing was simply adjourned, and no effective hearing at all,
as alleged, took place on 29.11.2023 as well as 02.01.2024.
79. It is submitted that the statement of the respondent that
after consideration of objections of the petitioners, acquisition
of land of petitioners under 5 – intersections have been
dropped, is incorrect, inasmuch as, 5 intersection railway line
was never passing through the lands of petitioners (of Special
Civil Application No. 16174 of 2024), as per the original
alignment. Necessary information as called for had not been
provided by respondent No. 3 Railways and withholding all
material information by the Railways seriously prejudiced the
rights of the petitioners.
80. The contention is that the petitioners have been
provided with the communications dated 08.01.2024 and
19.01.2024 addressed by Railways (respondent No.3) to the
competent authority (Respondent No. 2) and it was denied
that the petitioners had been sent any such information on
26.02.2024, as alleged.
81. The contention is that the hearing scheduled on
30.01.2024 was adjourned and the petitioners did not receive
any further communication until receipt of the impugned
order dated 27.09.2024 passed under Section 20D, rejecting
their objections. The Respondent No. 2, exercising statutory
jurisdiction of hearing of objections, was required to act
independently and not as a messenger, and while adjudicating
Page 50 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
the objections, it has the authority, jurisdiction, and obligation
to call for all information and records as is necessary for the
purposes of the inquiry.
82. As this has not been done, the entire proceeding is
vitiated, for the order dated 27.09.2024 being in non-
compliance with the demand made by the petitioners for
supply of documents, withholding all information which was
material and essential for enabling the petitioners to
effectively submit their objections, and denial of hearing in
respect of the objections filed by the petitioners.
83. In an additional affidavit dated 28.11.2025, the
petitioners would submit that the documents which were
sought by the petitioners and which the competent authority
had required the respondent Railways to respond, which were
never provided in the proceedings before the competent
authority, are more particularly :-
“(a) The proposal for considering the subject project as a
Special Railway Project;
(b) The feasibility report as is required to be prepared in
respect of every such project;
(c) The survey report in respect of the project;
(d) The report regarding consultation with the land owners
who would be affected by the project.”
84. It was further urged that the Indian Railway
Construction Manual is an officially issued Code covering
planning, land acquisition, DPR – feasibility, contract and
procurement, execution, quality control, etc. The Manual has
prescribed certain procedures and actions that are to be
Page 51 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
taken by the concerned officers of Indian Railways while
declaring and executing any railway projects.
85. The Manual contains chapters titled as Alignment and
Survey, Feasibility Study, Project Assessment of Existing and
Future Needs, Project Formulation and Investigation, Final
Details for Alignment, Preparation of Feasibility Reports, Final
Location Survey, Detailed Project Report.
86. The contention is that till date, the respondent
authorities have failed to furnish the Feasibility study report
as well as the Detailed project report to the petitioners,
despite repeated request made since November 2023. Non-
production of these documents demonstrates that the
foundational prerequisites essential for any declaration of the
project being a Special Railway Project, have not been
complied with.
87. Essentially, the objection in the additional affidavit is
about the project being declared as Special Railway Projects
without complying with the explicit and mandatory procedure
prescribed under the Railway Manual, which the respondent
authorities are legally bound to follow.
88. The contention is that the declaration of the project
being Special Railway Project is in direct contravention of the
statutory procedure prescribed under the Manual and is
consequently ex facie illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable.
89. In the additional affidavit of the respondent Railways
dated 15.12.2025, it is stated that after approval of feasibility
Page 52 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
study, final location survey, and Detailed Project Report (DPR)
prepared as per the rules, the Railway Board had sanctioned
the project. The instructions provided in the Railway
Construction Manual are duly followed while implementing
the project. Since compilation of reports consists hundreds of
pages, the same are not placed on record. However, in case of
necessity, the answering respondent will produce the same
before the court for perusal.
90. It is further stated that, insofar as, the feasibility study
report as well as DPR report, they are important for approval
and sanction by the competent authority. However, the said
reports do not have any relevance for the hearing provided by
respondent No.2 Competent Authority, as per the provisions
of Section 20D of the Railways Act, 1989.
91. Ms. Archana U. Amin, learned advocate appearing for
the respondent Railways, refuting the submissions of the
learned Senior Counsels for the petitioners that the Railways
has not provided necessary documents demanded by the
petitioners and no response to their objections, such as
feasibility reports, etc., would submit that there is no reason
for the petitioners to doubt the decision of the competent
authority of Railways in finalization of the projects, which has
been prepared by the technical experts on consideration of
various aspects of alignment and assessment of the impact of
acquisition.
92. The aspects such as feasibility study, the detailed project
report prepared after assessment of existing and future needs,
Page 53 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
project formulation and investigation, and field survey are not
subject matter of deliberations at the stage of objections
under Section 20D of the Railways Act. The alignment was
finalized considering technical aspects of the project, and a
subject as complex as preparation of feasibility study report,
detailed project report, as technical as alignment should rest
within the domain of the acquiring body, assisted by experts
in the field.
93. Unless the decision is shown to be ex facie untenable or
tainted by mala fides , the decision of the competent authority
finalizing the project based on relevant aspects of the matter
cannot be touched upon. It would not be possible for this
Court within the limited scope of judicial review to interfere
with the decision of the acquiring body based on the expert
report about the alignment of the railway track on the
premise that the suggested alignment would be more feasible
or because it would save the petitioners’ property.
94. The submission is that it would not be possible for the
Railways to change alignment of a portion of approximately 3
kms. in a project of 38.20 kms. In any case, in absence of any
allegations of mala fide , decision of the Railways not to agree
to the proposal of the petitioners to change the alignment
forwarded by the competent authority cannot be said to suffer
from any error of law and the entire project cannot be stalled
on the plea of the petitioners herein.
95. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court in Patel Pasabhai Amabhai Vs. Union
Page 54 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
of India and Ors. [Special Civil Application No.12438 of
2012 delivered on 21/22.09.2017 : 2017 Supreme(Guj)
1789] to substantiate the said submission.
3. Publication of Notification under Section 2(37A)
of the Railways Act, 1989 .
96. In the second limb of arguments, challenging the whole
acquisition process, it was vehemently argued by the learned
Senior Counsel that the projection of both the projects in
th
question for 4 Railway line and 5 intersections as a Special
Railway Project by publication of the notification under
Section 2(37A), is farce. A bare reading of Section 2(37A) of
the Act, 1989 indicates that declaration / notification of a
project as "Special Railway Project" within the meaning of the
said provision is with the object of providing national
infrastructure for a public purpose.
97. Twin requirements for declaration of a project as
‘Special Railway Project’, as is specified in the definition
clause under Section 2(37A), are:-
a. For providing national infrastructure for a public
purpose covering one or more States or Union Territory;
b. For providing such infrastructure in a specified time
frame.
98. The notification under Section 2(37A) for notifying a
project as ‘Special Railway Project’ is with the aim and
purpose to ensure faster execution of critical railway
infrastructure by expediting land acquisition and for the
Page 55 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
infrastructure which can be said to be national infrastructure
covering one or more States or Union Territories.
99. The submission is that in the instant case, both the
projects are merely for increasing the capacity of an existing
line by adding railway tracks and cannot be said to be a
Special Railways Project as it creates no new infrastructure.
Geratpur and Sanand are existing stations on an already
operational line and are only addition to the said line and
cannot be said to be even termini of a new corridor. Treating
such projects as "National Infrastructure" would amount to
substituting that statutory phrase with "all railway projects".
100. The submission is that for notifying any project of
railways as a ‘Special Railway Project’, it must meet the twin
requirements of the definition clause and only upon fulfillment
thereof, a notification under Section 2(37A) can be issued.
101. In furtherance thereof, it is submitted that from no
angle, the projects in question can be said to be a ‘Special
Railway Project’, the reason being that terminal points of both
the projects are within the State of Gujarat and they are not
cutting across even the neighboring states. Moreover, there is
nothing on record which would indicate that the projects were
conceived with the idea of providing infrastructure in a
specified time frame.
102. The satisfaction of the Central Government on two
aspects, namely the project being a national infrastructure
and to be completed in a specified time frame is necessary
Page 56 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
before publication of the notification under Section 2(37A),
and no material has been brought on record of the present set
of writ petitions to establish recording of such satisfaction.
103. In other words, no material has been shown to establish
that the Central Government was satisfied from such material
before it that the projects in question had fulfilled twin
requirements of notifying the same as ‘Special Railway
Projects’.
104. It was further argued that the decision to notify a
railway project as a ‘Special Railway Project’ under Section
2(37A) shall have to be of the Central Government only. The
Act, 1989 does not authorize any officer of the Railways to
take such a decision.
105. The impugned notifications dated 02.02.2023 published
by the Chief Project Manager/Construction-1 in the Gazette
notification of the Ministry of Railways (Western Railway)
cannot be said to be the notification issued by the Central
Government within the meaning of Section 2(37A), and hence
the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed on this
ground alone.
106. It was submitted that as per own case of the Railways, as
disclosed in their affidavit dated 23.02.2025, it is clear that
the notification dated 02.02.2023 had been published with the
approval of the General Manager, Headquarter, Western
Railways. The Railway Board had delegated the power to issue
notification in the Gazette under Section 2(37A) of the
Railways Act, 1989 (as amended in 2008) to the General
Page 57 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
Managers of all Zonal Railways. The contention is that the
mere fact that approval was accorded by the General
Manager, Western Railways about two projects being ‘Special
Railway Projects’ to proceed with the acquisition, is sufficient
to reach at the conclusion that there is no decision of the
Central Government to notify the projects in question as
Special Railway Projects.
107. It was submitted that there is no express power to
delegate the decision making exercise for notification of a
railway project as a Special Railway Project. Essential
functions of decision making of such magnitude, cannot be
delegated on the premise of an implied power of delegation.
108. By placing Section 20A contained in Chapter IVA,
(inserted by the Amendment Act 11 of 2008), it was submitted
that the language employed therein, "where the Central
Government is satisfied that for a public purpose, any land is
required for execution of a Special Railway Project, it may, by
notification, declare its intention to acquire such land”, makes
it clear that there is a requirement of recording satisfaction by
the Central Government at the stage of publication of the
notification declaring its intention to acquire any land for a
public purpose for execution of a Special Railway Project.
109. The submission is that Section 20A providing for
satisfaction of the Central Government at the stage of
declaration of its intention to acquire any land under Section
20A is a departure from other land acquisition provisions,
where satisfaction is to be recorded only at the stage of
Page 58 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
publication of the declaration that any particular land is
needed for a public purpose, as may be seen from the
language of Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, “the 2013 Act”).
110. Placing a comparison of the language of Section 11 of
2013 Act along side the language of Section 20A of the
Railways Act, 1989 it was submitted that under the scheme of
2013 Act, the proposal for acquisition is published under
Section 11, which only requires a notification of the
appropriate government intimating that land in any area is
required or likely to be required for any public purpose.
111. The publication of preliminary notification under Section
11 of the 2013 Act, thus, is the publication of only the
proposal of the acquiring body, and the decision of the
appropriate government to record satisfaction that the
notified land likely to be acquired, is needed for a public
purpose, is only on the satisfaction recorded after considering
the report prepared by the Collector after hearing of the
objections of land owners / persons interested.
112. However, in a departure from the said scheme of 2013
Act, under Chapter IVA of the Railways Act, 1989, satisfaction
is to be recorded by the Central Government about the project
being for a public purpose and for execution of a Special
Railway Project even before declaring its intention under
Section 20A. The delegation of such a decision-making power
to record satisfaction about the declaration of the project as
Page 59 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
‘Special Railway Project’, in the absence of any express or
implied delegation within the scheme of the Act, is
impermissible.
113. The submission is that the requirement of recording
satisfaction as to the nature of the project being Special
Railway Project and also for a public purpose as provided in
Section 20A is to be read into Section 2(37A) which empowers
only the Central Government to notify a project as a Special
Railway Project.
114. The submission is that in order to see as to whether the
decision to declare a project as a Special Railway Project has
been taken by the Central Government by application of its
mind to record its satisfaction, both the provisions of Section
2(37A) and Section 20A of the Railways Act will have to be
read together.
115. As admitted in the facts of the present case, the decision
making power to declare the two projects in question as
Special Railway Projects had been delegated to the General
Manager of the Railways without any express or implied
power under the Act for delegation of such power by the
Railway Board, the notification dated 02.02.2023 published
under Section 2(37A) is, thus, to be held as vitiated having
been issued with the approval of the General Manager,
Western Railways, without any authority of law.
116. Moreover, there is no material to show as to what were
the factors that had been taken into consideration for the
Page 60 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
declaration of the projects in question as Special Railway
Projects, and in any case, General Manager was not
competent to take such decisions.
117. It was vehemently argued by the Mr.Mihir Joshi, the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the importance
of Section 2(37A) can be understood by taking note of the
simple fact that the Act does not contemplate all railway
projects to be Special Railway Projects so as to invoke
expeditious mechanism of acquisition prescribed under
Chapter IVA of the Railways Act. It requires notification by the
Central Government to declare a project as a Special Railway
Project as and when it is conceived.
118. There is, thus, a need to apply mind on the importance of
each project fulfilling twin requirements of providing national
infrastructure for a public purpose and in a specified time
frame covering more than one states or Union Territories.
There cannot be any generic decision for declaration of all
railway projects as Special Railway Projects and moreover, no
such decision has been placed before the Court.
119. The question is as to who can declare a project as a
Special Railway Project and how?
120. The submission is that the twin requirements provided in
clause (37A) of Section 2 of the Railways Act are to be
satisfied on objective considerations of the material before the
Central Government. Statutory factors are to be taken into
account for arriving at such a decision, and in case of non-
Page 61 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
compliance of the statutory provisions or contravention of the
statutory requirement, the decision to notify any project under
Section 2(37A) is to be held as vitiated.
121. Placing the judgment of the Apex Court in Bhikhubhai
Vithlabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat [(2008) 4 SCC 144] ,
it was argued that the courts can examine as to whether there
existed relevant material, whether there was genuine
application of mind, and whether the opinion was formed for
the purposes of the statute. In absence of these three
conditions being fulfilled, the action of the decision making
authority would be vitiated.
122. Placing the judgment of the Apex Court in Sidhartha
Sarawgi v. Kolkata Port [(2014) 16 SCC 248] , it was
asserted that the decision must be of the primary delegate (in
case of delegation of power) and performance of ministerial
task can only be performed by the subordinate authorities.
123. Relying upon K.N. Shukla v. Navnit Lal Manilal
Bhatt [1966 SCC OnLine SC 72] , it was argued that the
Railway Board is a statutory authority distinct from the
Central Government and it exercises only such powers as are
delegated to it under Section 2 of the Indian Railway Board
Act, 1905. The Railway Board, being a separate body which
derives powers and authority because of the delegation by the
Central Government, cannot further sub-delegate the decision
making power of approval.
Page 62 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
124. The contention is that this submission is made as an
alternative argument with a caveat that even the Railway
Board has no jurisdiction to take a decision as to whether a
project is to be declared as a Special Railway Project of
national importance to be provided for a public purpose in a
specified time frame. Such a decision has to be necessarily
that of the Central Government only and no other delegated
authority, even the Railway Board.
125. With the aid of the decision of Apex Court in
Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India
[(2009) 16 SCC 569] , it was argued that the validity of a
notification issued by the Central Government in exercise of
its power under a statute, when questioned, even if the
provision is directory in nature, substantial compliance
therewith must be shown to have been made. The statutory
authority must apply its mind.
126. The submission is that even in exercise of its limited
power of judicial review, the court cannot adopt a hands-off
approach and must see as to whether any of the relevant
factors specified for statutory exercise of powers had been
ignored in the decision making process or the decision itself.
127. The submission is that substantial compliance to the
statutory requirement must be shown to have been made for
exercise of statutory function and, in case, where there is a
contravention of the statutory requirement, the courts are not
powerless. Rather, it becomes the duty of the Court to see
that any decision made in the wrong exercise of power be not
Page 63 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
allowed to sustain and the court must declare the same as
illegal for non-consideration of relevant statutory factors.
128. The decision of the Apex Court in Amarendra Kumar
Pandey v. Union of India [(2024) 15 SCC 401] has been
placed before us to elaborate on the scope of judicial review
of an action based on subjective opinion or satisfaction. It was
submitted that where an Act or statutory rule framed left an
action dependent upon the opinion of the authority concerned,
by some expression such as "is satisfied" or "is of the opinion"
or "if it has reason to believe" or "if it considered necessary",
the opinion of the authority is conclusive only if:
(i) the procedure prescribed by the Act or rules for
formation of such opinion was duly followed;
(ii) if the authority acted bona fide ;
(iii) if the authority itself formed the opinion and did not
borrow the opinion of somebody else; and
(iv) if the authority did not proceed on a fundamental
misconception of the law and the matter in regard to which
the opinion had to be formed.
129. It was submitted that though ordinarily the Court will
not inquire into the correctness or otherwise of the decision,
but it is well within the power of judicial review that the Court
makes an inquiry to find out the existence of the facts or
circumstances on the basis of which the authority is stated to
have formed the opinion. Where there are no reasonable
grounds for the formation of authority's opinion, judicial
review in such a case is permissible.
Page 64 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
130. The existence of circumstances is a condition precedent
to form an opinion by such authority. The Court can only
inquire whether the facts and circumstances so found to exist
have a reasonable nexus with the purpose to which the power
is to be exercised. The Court can also interfere if the
constitutional or statutory term essential for the exercise of
power has either been misapplied or misinterpreted, if the
power is exercised for improper purpose and has not been
validly exercised. Where there are no reasonable grounds for
formation of the authority's opinion, judicial review in such a
case is permissible.
131. In a case where a finding is based on no evidence or
there is no evidence to support a particular decision, the
authority taking such decision would be deemed to have not
applied its mind or did not honestly form its opinion and an
opinion based on irrelevant matter would also meet the same
fate.
132. It was, thus, argued that within the scope of judicial
review of exercise of power by the Central Government to
notify the projects in question as Special Railway Projects
under Section 2(37A) of the Railways Act, this Court may
make an inquiry as to whether there exist any justification for
taking decision to notify the projects as Special Railway
Projects and that whether there is any satisfaction recorded
by the competent authority based on relevant statutory
factors to arrive at the conclusion of the projects in question
being a Special Railway Project for a public purpose within
the meaning of Section 2(37A) read with Section 20A of the
Page 65 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
Railways Act, 1989 contained in Chapter IVA inserted by
Amendment Act 11 of 2008.
133. It was submitted that even the decision of the Division
Bench of the High Court in Patel Pasabhai
Amabhai(supra) , relied upon by the learned counsel for the
respondent Railways supports the case of the petitioners,
where this Court found that there was evidence of the
decision having been taken by the Central Government, which
is absent in the present case.
134. Reliance is further placed on the decisions in Jilubhai
Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat [1995 Supp (1) SCC
596] and Delhi Admn. v. Gurdip Singh Uban [(2000) 7
SCC 296] , to submit that the decision of the appropriate
government / Central Government herein to acquire land for a
public purpose is not immune from judicial review and if the
satisfaction of the Government is challenged, the Court can
look into the material upon which the Government acted and
review whether the satisfaction is justified.
135. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur
Chenai [(2005) 7 SCC 627] , it was argued that in case of
ex-proprietory legislation, the provisions of the statute should
be strictly construed, as it deprives a person of his land
without his consent.
136. The State is not the sole judge and its decisions are
subject to judicial review. As and when a person aggrieved
Page 66 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
challenges the decision making process, the Court in order to
satisfy itself, may call upon the records to see as to whether
the procedure prescribed is adopted by the State or not.
137. Lastly, in a feeble submission, it was argued that even
the notification under Section 20A of the Railways Act, 1989 is
invalid as it does not comply with the requirement of giving
specification of the lands sought to be acquired, which
directly prejudices the right of the petitioners to object to
acquisition and the purpose mentioned in sub-section (1) of
Section 20A, by invoking Section 20D of the Railways Act.
138. It was argued that even no map was provided nor any
detail has been given and a categorical statement in this
regard has been made in paragraph ‘2.6’ of the writ petition.
However, in paragraph ‘2.7’, it is urged that the notification
under Section 20A contains only brief particulars of the land
to be covered under the project, i.e. the land to be acquired.
The contention is that a mere statement of the name of the
project and survey numbers of the affected lands disclosed
therein does not comply with the mandate of Section 20A of
the Railways Act.
139. In this regard, in the affidavit of respondent Railways, it
is submitted that the notification under Section 20A provided
only brief description of the land by mentioning Taluka name,
Village name, survey number, numbers, type of lands, nature
of land and the area proposed to be acquired, whereas actual
area of land required to be acquired for execution of the
project became clear only after the joint measurement survey
Page 67 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
conducted as per Section 20B of the Act. There is no provision
under the Act to provide any map of the area of land notified
under Section 20A as the actual area of land required for
acquisition was not clear at that stage.
4. Analysis and Conclusion:-
(I) Non-availability of details of the Land in Acquisition
Notification under Section 20A:-
140. To deal with the abovenoted last argument first, suffice
it to record that the notification dated 12.10.2023 published
under Section 20A(1) of the Railways Act, 1989, subject
matter of challenge herein, reads that:-
“MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
[Western Railway (Construction Organization)]
NOTIFICATION
Mumbai, the 12th October, 2023
CORRIGENDUM NOTIFICATION
This notification supersedes the Notification S.O. 4376(E),
published on 05/10/2023
S.O. 4493(E).-- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-
section(I) of section 20A of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989)
(hereinafter referred in as the said act), the Central Government
after being satisfied that for the public purpose, the land, the
brief description of which has given in the schedule annexed
hereto, is required for execution of the special Railway Project,
namely, 4th LINE BETWEEN BAREJADI NANDEJ (GERATPUR) -
SANAND (38.20KM) IN DISTRICT AHMEDABAD in the state of
Gujarat, hereby declares its intention to acquired such land;
Any person interested in the said land may, within a period of
thirty days from the date of publication of this notification in the
Official Gazette, raise objection to the acquisition and use of
such land for the aforesaid purpose under sub-section(I) of
section 20D of the said Act;
Page 68 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
Every such objection shall be made to the Competent Authority,
and Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, First Floor,
Disaster Management building, Mahesul Bhavan, Collector
Office, Near Subhash bridge circle, Ahmedabad, in writing and
shall set out the grounds thereof and the Competent Authority
shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard, either in
person or by legal practitioner and may after hearing all such
objections and after objections; making such further enquiry, if
any as the competent authority thinks necessary, by order,
either allow or disallow the objections;
Any order made by the competent authority under sub-section
(II) of section 20(D) of the said act shall be final.
The land plans and other details of the land covered under
this notification are available and can be inspected by the
interested person at the aforesaid office of the competent
authority.
SCHEDULE
Brief description of the land to be acquired with or without
structure for the Special Railway Project: 4th line between
Barejadi Nandej (GERATPUR) - SANAND (38.20Km) in the state
of Gujarat.
District: Ahmedabad”
141. Further, a perusal of the provisions of Section 20A,
specifically sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) thereof shows
that the requirement is to give a brief description of the land
and of the Special Railway Project for which the land is
intended to be acquired. Whereas the details of the land
records are to be provided by the State Government or the
Union Territory, as the case may be, to the competent
authority, whenever required.
142. Further, Section 20B provides that upon issuance of a
notification under sub-section (1) of Section 20A, inspection,
survey, measurement, valuation or inquiry into the land
Page 69 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
proposed to be acquired may be made by any person
authorized by the competent authority in this behalf.
143. As extracted hereinabove, the notification dated
12.10.2023 under Section 20A(1) while giving a brief
description of the land to be acquired with or without
th
structure for Special Railway Project, namely 4 line between
Barejadi-Nandej (Geratpur-Sanand) (38.20 km in the State of
Gujarat), categorically records that “the land plans and other
details of the land covered under the said notification are
available at the office of the competent authority and can be
inspected by the interested persons”.
144. For this fact alone, the ground agitated to assail the
notification under Section 20A(1) that no map was provided
by the office of the competent authority, and the notification
does not comply with the mandate of Section 20A, cannot be
appreciated.
145. The challenge to the notification under Section 20A on
the premise that it did not give the detailed description of the
lands to be acquired and the map was not available, which
caused prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to object
under Section 20D, is liable to be rejected at the threshold
being misconceived.
(II) Validity of the Notification under Section 2(37A) of
the Act’ 1989:-
146. Now dealing with the challenge to the notification dated
02.02.2023 issued under Section 2(37A) of the Railways Act,
Page 70 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
which triggered the entire acquisition proceedings conducted
under Chapter IVA of the Railways Act, at the outset, we may
set out the provisions of the Act relevant for our purpose.
147. Section 2(37A), Sections 20A, 20B, 20D, 20E and 20F
contained in Chapter IVA inserted by Act No. 11 of 2008,
Railways (Amendment) Act No. 11 of 2008 in the Railways
Act, 1989 are extracted hereunder:
“2. Definitions:-
(37A) “special railway project” means a project, notified as such by
the Central Government from time to time, for providing national
infrastructure for a public purpose in a specified time frame, covering
one or more States or the Union Territories.
20A. Power to acquire land, etc.—
(1) Where the Central Government is satisfied that for a public
purpose any land is required for execution of a special railway project,
it may, by notification, declare its intention to acquire such land.
(2) Every notification under sub-section (1), shall give a brief
description of the land and of the special railway project for which the
land is intended to be acquired.
(3) The State Government or the Union territory, as the case may be,
shall for the purposes of this section, provide the details of the land
records to the competent authority, whenever required.
(4) The competent authority shall cause the substance of the
notification to be published in two local newspapers, one of which
shall be in a vernacular language.
20B. Power to enter for survey, etc.—
On the issue of a notification under sub-section (1) of section 20A, it
shall be lawful for any person, authorised by the competent authority
in this behalf, to—
(a) make any inspection, survey, measurement, valuation or enquiry;
(b) take levels;
(c) dig or bore into sub-soil;
(d) set out boundaries and intended lines of work;
Page 71 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
(e) mark such levels, boundaries and lines placing marks and cutting
trenches; or
(f) do such other acts or things as may be considered necessary by the
competent authority.
20D. Hearing of objections, etc.—
(1) Any person interested in the land may, within a period of thirty
days from the date of publication of the notification under sub-section
(1) of section 20A, object to the acquisition of land for the purpose
mentioned in that sub-section.
(2) Every objection under sub-section, (1), shall be made to the
competent authority in writing, and shall set out the grounds thereof
and the competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of
being heard, either in person or by a legal practitioner, and may, after
hearing all such objections and after making such further enquiry, if
any, as the competent authority thinks necessary, by order, either
allow or disallow the objections.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, “legal practitioner”
has the same meaning as in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of
the Advocates Act, 1961(25 of 1961).
(3) Any order made by the competent authority under sub-section (2)
shall be final.
20E. Declaration of acquisition.—
(1) Where no objection under sub-section (1) of section 20D has been
made to the competent authority within the period specified therein or
where the competent authority has disallowed the objections under
sub-section (2) of that section, the competent authority shall, as soon
as may be, submit a report accordingly to the Central Government and
on receipt of such report, the Central Government shall declare, by
notification, that the land should be acquired for the purpose
mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 20A.
(2) On the publication of the declaration under sub-section (1), the
land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all
encumbrances.
(3) Where in respect of any land, a notification has been published
under sub-section (1) of section 20A for its acquisition, but no
declaration under sub-section (1) of this section has been published
within a period of one year from the date of publication of that
notification, the said notification shall cease to have any effect:
Provided that in computing the said period of one year, the period
during which any action or proceedings to be taken in pursuance of
Page 72 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
the notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 20A is stayed
by an order of a court shall be excluded.
(4) A declaration made by the Central Government under sub-section
(1) shall not be called in question in any court or by any other
authority.
20F. Determination of amount payable as compensation.—
(1) Where any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an
amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent
authority.
(2) The competent authority shall make an award under this section
within a period of one year from the date of the publication of the
declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire
proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse:
Provided that the competent authority may, after the expiry of the
period of limitation, if he is satisfied that the delay has been caused
due to unavoidable circumstances, and for the reasons to be recorded
in writing, he may make the award within an extended period of six
months:
Provided further that where an award is made within the extended
period, the entitled person shall, in the interest of justice, be paid an
additional compensation for the delay in making of the award, every
month for the period so extended, at the rate of not less than five per
cent. of the value of the award, for each month of such delay.
(3) Where the right of user or any right in the nature of an easement
on, any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount
to the owner and any other person whose right of enjoyment in that
land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such
acquisition, an amount calculated at ten per cent. of the amount
determined under sub-section (1), for that land.
(4) Before proceeding to determine the amount under sub-section (1)
or sub-section (3), as the case may be, the competent authority shall
give a public notice published in two local newspapers, one of which
shall be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all persons
interested in the land to be acquired.
(5) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land and shall require
all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent
or by a legal practitioner referred to in sub-section (2) of section 20D,
before the competent authority, at a time and place and to state the
nature of their respective interest in such land.
(6) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-
section (1) or as the case may be, sub-section (3) is not acceptable to
either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of
Page 73 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the
Central Government in such manner as may be prescribed.
(7) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to
every arbitration under this Act.
(8) The competent authority or the arbitrator while determining the
amount of compensation under sub-section (1) or sub-section (6), as
the case may be, shall take into consideration—
(a) the market value of the land on the date of publication of the
notification under section 20A;
(b) the damage, if any sustained by the person interested at the
time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the severing of
such land from other land;
(c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the
time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition
injuriously affecting his other immovable property in any manner,
or his earnings;
(d) if, in consequences of the acquisition of the land, the person
interested is compelled to change his residence or place of
business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such
change.
(9) In addition to the market-value of the land as above provided, the
competent authority or the arbitrator, as the case may be, shall in
every case award a sum of sixty per centum on such market-value, in
consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.”
148. Before proceeding further, we may record that the
Railways Act, 1989 was enacted to replace the Indian
Railways Act, 1890 and to consolidate and amend the law
relating to railways, namely for administration of railway
system. By the Railways (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act No. 11
of 2008) enforced with effect from 31.01.2008, amendments
have been brought in the definition clause under Section 2
and Chapter IVA providing for procedure of land acquisition
for a Special Railway Project was inserted.
Page 74 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
149. The introduction of Chapter IVA enabled the Central
Government to notify special projects aimed at building
critical national infrastructure for public purposes within fixed
timeline. It has created provisions to appoint designated
competent authorities to manage measurements,
compensation and declarations.
150. The Statement of Objects and Reasons (SOR) of the
Railways (Amendment) Act enacted on 28.03.2008 replacing
the Railways (Amendment) Ordinance, 2008, reads that:
“STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
Provision of critical basic infrastructure is essential in order
to have sustainable economic growth and development of our
country. Important projects relating to basic infrastructure
require acquisition of land. The only instrument available for
acquisition of land for public purpose is the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. The existing provisions under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 are insufficient for completion of such projects on
expeditious basis in a time schedule manner due to excessive
time taken under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. There is a need to provide for land acquisition provisions in
the Railways Act, 1989 to empower the Central Government
in the Ministry of Railways for land acquisition on fast track
basis for the special railway projects on the lines of the land
acquisition provisions available in the National Highways Act,
1956.
3. It has been the experience that a large number of disputes
relating to compensation amount for land acquisition are
brought before the courts of law. Often, these cases are
pending for a long period of time in the courts and add to the
work-load of the courts. Therefore, an expeditious mechanism
of arbitration process is provided to resolve the dispute
relating to amount of compensation.
Page 75 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
4. In order to safeguard the interests of person affected by
land acquisition for special railway projects, it is provided in
proposed section 20-O of the Bill that the provisions of the
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007 shall apply.
5. The amendments in the Railways Act, 1989 shall empower
the Central Government in the Ministry of Railways (Railway
Administration) for land acquisition for the public purpose by
striking a balance between creation of basic critical
infrastructure in the country and protecting the interest of
the persons whose land is acquired.
6. As Parliament was not in session, and to give impetus to
the critical infrastructure projects, it was considered
necessary to take immediate action for making suitable
provisions in the Railways Act, 1989 by promulgation of the
Railways (Amendment) Ordinance, 2008 on the 31st January,
2008.”
151. From a careful reading of the SOR of the Railways
(Amendment) Act, 2008 with the provisions incorporated in
Chapter IVA read with Section 2(37A) in the definition clause,
it may be noted that the land acquisition provisions in the
Railways Act, 1989 have been incorporated to empower the
Central Government, i.e. the Ministry of Railways, for land
acquisition on a fast-track basis for Special Railway Projects
on the lines of the land acquisition provisions available in the
National Highways Act, 1956.
152. The main object of the Amendment Act’ 2008 is to
expedite the process of land acquisition by avoiding inordinate
delay therein. The object is to empower the Central
Government in the Ministry of Railways (Railway
Administration) for land acquisition for the public purpose by
striking a balance between creation of basic critical
Page 76 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
infrastructure in the Country and protecting the interest of
persons whose land is acquired.
153. It was felt that there was a requirement to provide a
scheme different from that contained in the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 and in a departure from the said enactment, the
project notified by the Central Government as "Special
Railway Project" from time to time shall be covered for
acquisition of land under Chapter IVA of the Railways Act.
154. In other words, the provisions of Chapter IVA providing
procedure for land acquisition for a ‘Special railway project’
will be triggered only upon a notification of the Central
Government notifying a project as a Special Railway Project.
The issuance of the notification under Section 2(37A), thus,
confers power upon the Central Government to further notify
its intention to acquire any land for a public purpose, which is
required for execution of a Special Railway Project within the
scheme of Chapter IVA of the Railways Act’ 1989.
155. With the declaration under Section 20E, upon following
the procedure prescribed under Section 20D of the Railways
Act published in the Official Gazette, the vesting takes place,
divesting the landowners of its title into the acquired land.
156. The compensation determined under Section 20F can be
challenged by either of the parties (including the acquiring
body) by invoking sub-section (6) of Section 20F seeking
appointment of arbitrator by the Central Government as
against the scheme of the then Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
Page 77 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
where compensation determined by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer was an offer.
157. Keeping in mind the objective of bringing the
Amendment Act No. 11 of 2008 empowering the Central
Government in the Ministry of Railways for land acquisition on
a fast-track basis, we would proceed to examine the
submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
about the action of the Ministry of Railways, Railway Board,
and the General Manager, Western Railways behind issuance
of the notifications dated 02.02.2023 under Section 2(37A)
th
notifying the two projects of 4 line and 5 intersections as
Special Railway Projects.
158. The sequence of events brought on record leading to the
publication of the notification dated 02.02.2023 under Section
2(37A) of the Railways Act are:-
I. A communication of the Railway Board dated 08.04.2010
addressed to the General Managers, all Zonal Railways,
reference of which is found in the communication dated
19.12.2026 (at page ‘426’ of the paper book), has been
placed before us by Ms. Archana U. Amin, learned
advocate for the respondents Railways to demonstrate
that it was notified by the Railway Board therein that the
Ministry of Railways has granted approval for
notification of all railway projects which involve land
acquisition as Special Railway Projects under clause
(37A) of Section 2 of the Railways (Amendment) Act,
2008.
Page 78 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
II. It was also intimated therein that the General Managers
of Zonal Railways and the Chief Administrative Officers
of the concerned project have been authorized to
exercise all powers of the Central Government, except
clause (37A) of Section 2 of the Railways (Amendment)
Act, 2008 vide Railway Board letter number 2008 /
LML / 12 / 2 dated 13.02.2008.
III. It is noteworthy that the aforesaid communication dated
08.04.2010 was issued by the Railway Board with
reference to the Railway Board letter dated 13.02.2008.
The content of the letter dated 08.04.2010 of the
Railway Board, supplied to us during the course of
arguments by the learned counsel for the Railways, is
relevant to be extracted hereinunder:
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
RAILWAY BOARD
No. 2008/LML/12/8 New Delhi date 8-4-2010
The General Managers,
All Zonal Railways
General Manager (Const),
NF Railway
Sub: Notification of Special Railway Projects under the
Railways (Amendment) Act, 2008 for Land Acquisition.
Ref: Railway Board letter No. 2008/LML/12/2 dated 13-
2-2008.
1 In order to expedite the acquisition of land for
railway projects, the Railways (Amendment) Act, 2008
has been enacted by Parliament which empowers the
Page 79 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
Central Government to acquire land in a time bound
manner by notifying these projects as Special Railway
Projects.
2 Under the provisions of the Railways (Amendment)
Act-2008, there are four notifications required to be
issued by the Central Government-
(a) notification of special railway project under clause
(37A) of section 2;
(b) notification of competent authority under clause
(7A) of section 2;
(c) notification of intention to acquire land under sub-
section (1) of section 20A; and
(d) notification of declaration of acquisition of land
under sub-section (1) of section 20E.
3 General Managers of the Zonal Railways and Chief
Administrative Officers of the concerned Project have
been authorized to exercise all powers of Central
Government except Clause 37A of section 2 of the
Railways (Amendment) Act-2008 vide Railway Board
letter No. 2008/LML/12/2 dated 13-2-2008.
4 In order to expedite the process of land acquisition,
Ministry of Railways has granted approval for
notification of all Railway projects which involve land
acquisition as Special Railway Projects under Clause
37A of Section 2 of the Railways (Amendment) Act
2008. All railways are advised to take necessary action
for notification of the projects involving acquisition of
land as Special Railway Projects with the approval of
respective Board Member through the concerned
Directorates in the Board.
Please acknowledge receipt.
(J.S. Lakra)
Director (Land & Amenities)
Railway Board
Page 80 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
IV. We may also reproduce the Railway Board
communication dated 13.02.2008, which reads as under:
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
( RAILWAY BOARD )
No.2008/LML/12/2 New Delhi, Dated 13/02/2008
The General Managers,
All Indian Railways.
Sub: Delegation of Power to GMs and CAOs under
Railway (Amendment) Ordinance, 2008.
Consequent upon the promulgation of 'The Railways
(Amendment) Ordinance, 2008 (copy enclosed for ready
reference), Ministry of Railways, Railway Board has
decided to authorise General Managers of the
concerned Zonal Railways and Chief Administrative
Officers of the concerned project for exercising all
powers of Central Government except clause 37A of
section 2 under the Railways (Amendment) Ordinance,
2008.
2. This has the approval of the President.
(Mathew John)
Secretary/Railway Board
V. We may now have a look to the documents appended as
Annexure-1 to the affidavit dated 13.02.2025 of the
respondent No.3 Railways.
VI. The Annexure ‘1’ at page ‘426’ of the paper book is the
communication dated 19.12.2014 addressed to the
General Managers, all Zonal railways, whereby the
Railway Board intimated the decision of the Ministry to
expedite the process of notification of railway projects
Page 81 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
(projects appearing in ‘pink book’ / funded by Railways
as a ‘Special Railway Project’) to authorize the
concerned Chief Administrative Officer / C / CE / C /
Coordination to issue notification in the Gazette under
Section 2(37A) with the approval of the General
Manager of the Zonal Railways. The content of the
communication dated 19.12.2014 is extracted
hereinunder:-
“GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(RAILWAY BOARD)
No.2010/LML/12/8 New Delhi, dated: 19.12.2014
General Managers
All Zonal Railways
General Manager (Const)
N. F. Railway
Sub:- Notification of Special Railway Projects under
the Railways Amendment Act, 2008 for Land
Acquisition.
Ref - Railway Board's letter No. 2008/LML/12/8 dated
08.04.2010.
In continuation of above referred Railway Board's
letter, Ministry of Railways has decided that to expedite
the process of notification of Railway projects (Projects
appearing in Pink Book/ funded by Railways) as Special
Railway Projects, concerned CAO/C/ CE/C/ Coord. are
now been authorized to issue notification in the gazette
under clause 37 A of Section 2 of the Railways
Amendment Act, 2008 with the approval of General
Manager of the Zonal Railway.
Receipt of this letter may please be acknowledged.
Page 82 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
(Ramesh Kumar)
Director/ Land & Amenities
Railway Board
VII. Another communication of the Railway Board dated
22.11.2017 on the Subject: “pertaining to acquisition of
land for railway infrastructure projects for public
purpose” appended at page ‘427’ (Annexure-2) (to the
aforesaid affidavit of Railways) reads that:-
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(RAILWAY BOARD)
No. 2010/LML/12/8 New Delhi, dated 22.11.2017
The General Managers,
All Indian Railways.
Sub: Acquisition of land for Railway Infrastructure
Projects for public purpose.
Ref: Railway Board's letter of even number dated
19.12.2014 & 08.04.2010.
It has been found as per procedure laid down in the
Railway Act, 1989, it takes only 27 months for
acquisition of land against 47-50 months as per "The
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013". As such, it is desired for all such railway
infrastructure projects which have assured funding and
to be completed in a specified time frame, the land
should invariably be acquired through the provisions of
Railway Act, 1989 by declaring them "Special Railway
Projects". This is within the competence of the Zonal
Railways as per Railway Board's letter of even number
dated 19.12.2014.
Page 83 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
(S. Banerjee)
Dy. Director/ LML-II
Railway Board.
VIII. A copy of the communication dated 05.02.2020 issued by
the Railway Board to all the General Managers, India
Railways at page ‘428’ of the paper book, further reads
as under:-
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(RAILWAY BOARD)
No. 2018/W-1/Genl./Land Acquisition
New Delhi, Dt. 05.02.2020
The General Managers,
All Indian Railways.
Sub: Execution of new Line Projects - Policy regarding.
Ref: (i) Board's letter no. 2017/W-1/Genl./Budget dated
08-01-2018,
(ii) Board's letter no. 2017/W-1/Genl./Misc. dated
29-06-2018.
Reference above, instructions were issued to Zonal
Railways vide letter under reference (ii) stipulating that
"payment for establishment charges and joint
measurement charges for land acquisition may be made
to State Government on their demand & that payment
for land acquisition should be made only after
finalization of award by the State Government".
Consequent to above, a large number of construction
projects became stalled because aforesaid instructions
were not in line with the provisions of section 19 of
land acquisition act 2013 and Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition;
Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Gujarat) Rules 2017.
Page 84 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
The matter has been examined in consultation with
L&A Directorate and accordingly to streamline the
issue of land acquisition in Railway projects, it has been
decided by Railway Board (ME & FC) that:
(1) All Doubling & Gauge Conversion & only
important New Line projects should be declared as
Special Railway Projects & land acquisition should be
done as per Railway Amendment Act, 2008 by opening
a joint account. However, authority to declare any
project as Special Railway Project still vests with
General Manager of Zonal Railway as communicated
vide Board's letter No. 2010/LML/12/8 dated
22.11.2017.
(2) Board's letter No. 2017/W-1/Genl./Misc. dated
29.06.2018 stands withdrawn with immediate effect.
(Hari Mohan Gupta)
Executive Director Works
Railway Board
IX. In supersession of the Railway Board letter dated
22.11.2017, another communication dated 21.02.2020 at
page ‘429’ of the paper book further provides as under:
“GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(RAILWAY BOARD)
No. 2010/LML/12/8 New Delhi, dated 21.02.2020
The General Managers,
All Indian Railways.
Sub: Acquisition of land for Railway Infrastructure Projects
for public purpose.
Ref: Railway Board's letter of even number dated
22.11.2017.
Page 85 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
In supersession of Railway Board's letter of even number
dated 22.11.2017, following instructions are issued:-
It has been found as per procedure laid down in the Railway
Act, 1989, it takes only 27 months for acquisition of land
against 47-50 months as per "The Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013". As such, it is desired for all such
railway infrastructure projects which have to be completed in
a specified time frame, the land should invariably be acquired
through the provisions of Railway Act, 1989 by declaring
them "Special Railway Projects". This is within the
competence of the Zonal Railways as per Railway Board's
letter of even number dated 19.12.2014.
This issues with the approval of Board (ME).
(Ajay Sharma)
Executive Director/L&A-I
Railway Board.
X. From a conjoint reading of the aforesaid communications
beginning from 2008 to 2020 issued by the Railway
Board, it seems that:-
i. Consequent upon promulgation of the Railways
(Amendment) Act 2008, the Ministry of Railways,
Railway Board has decided to authorize General
Managers of the concerned Zonal Railways and Chief
Administrative Officers of the concerned projects for
exercising all powers of Central Government, except
Section 2(37A) under the Railways (Amendment)
Ordinance, 2008.
ii. In order to expedite the process, the Ministry of
Railways has granted approval for notification of all
Page 86 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
railway projects, which involve land acquisition as
Special Railway Projects under Section 2(37A) of the
Railways (Amendment) Act, 2008.
iii.It was initially directed that notifications of the
projects involving acquisition of land as Special
Railway Projects shall be issued with the approval of
respective Board members through the concerned
directorates in the Board.
iv. However, in view of the decision of the Ministry of
Railways, the Railway Board further authorized the
Chief Administrative Officers of the concerned
projects to issue notification in the Gazette under
Section 2(37A) with the approval of the General
Manager of the Zonal Railway.
v. It was further decided by the Railway Board that
for all such railway projects which have assured
funding and are to be completed in a specified time
frame, the land should invariably be acquired through
the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 by declaring
them "Special Railway Projects" and the said decision
is within the competence of the Zonal Railways as per
the Railway Board letter dated 19.12.2014.
vi. A policy decision has been taken by the Railway
Board in consultation with the Land Acquisition
Directorate and in order to streamline the issue of
land acquisition in railway projects, wherein it was
Page 87 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
decided that all Doubling and Gauge Conversion and
only Important line projects shall be declared as
Special Railway Projects and land acquisition for such
projects shall be done as per the Railways
(Amendment) Act, 2008 by opening a joint account. It
was clarified that the authority to declare any project
as Special Railway Project still rests with the General
Manager of Zonal Railways as communicated by the
Board's letter dated 22.11.2017.
vii. In supersession of the Railway Board letter
dated 22.11.2017, instructions were issued by
communication dated 21.02.2020 to the effect that all
such railway infrastructure project which have to be
completed in a specified time frame, the land should
invariably be acquired through the provisions of the
Railways Act, 1989 by declaring them "Special
Railway Project". This, however, is within the
competence of the Zonal Railways as per the Railway
Board's letter dated 19.12.2014.
XI. The effect is that a decision-in-principle has been taken
by the Ministry of Railways granting approval for
notification of all railway infrastructure projects which
have to be completed in a specified time frame involving
land acquisition as Special Railway Projects under
Section 2(37A) of the Railways (Amendment) Act, 2008.
XII. Initially, the notification of the projects involving
acquisition of land as Special Railway Projects was to be
Page 88 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
issued with the approval of the respective Board
member. But, in the year 2014, it was decided by the
Ministry that such notification be issued by the
concerned Chief Administrative Officers with the
approval for specific project by the General Manager of
Zonal Railways.
XIII. Initially, it was clarified that only such projects which
have assured funding and are to be completed in a
specified time frame would be declared as Special
Railway Project within the competence of the Zonal
Railways, however, later it was modified to state that all
such railway infrastructure projects which have to be
completed in a specified time frame should immediately
be declared as Special Railway Projects for acquisition of
lands through the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989.
XIV. The Railway Board has decided in 2020 that all Doubling
and Gauge Conversion and Important line projects shall
be declared as Special Railway Projects. Consequently, it
is evident that in principle decision has been taken by
the Central Government to notify all railway
infrastructure projects involving land acquisition as
Special Railway Projects under Section 2(37A) and the
Railway Board had been authorized to approve
individual projects, whereas later, the Railway Board
further authorized the General Managers of all Zonal
Railways to grant approval for individual projects as
Special Railway Projects falling within the scope of the
Page 89 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
decision of the Ministry of Railways as well as the
Railway Railway Board.
XV. The approval granted by the General Manager under
authorization of the Railway Board after evaluation of
the individual project as to whether it is falling within
the line of the approval granted by the Ministry of
Railways (Railway Board), in our considered opinion, is
in furtherance of the decision of the Central Government
to declare all Railways infrastructure projects involving
land acquisition as ‘Special Railway Projects’.
XVI. The decision of the Railway Board authorizing General
Managers to grant approval of individual projects for
notification to be issued by the Chief Administrative
Officers concerned under Section 2(37A) is in conformity
with the decision of the Ministry of Railways and the
Railway Board, which have granted approval to land
acquisition projects pertaining to railway infrastructure
as Special Railway Projects.
XVII. The exercise for approval of individual project as a
Special Railway Project at the ends of the General
Manager of the Zonal Railways, in our considered
opinion, cannot be said to be an independent exercise of
taking decision by the General Manager, rather the
General Manager has been authorized merely to execute
the decision of the Ministry of Railways and the Railway
Board by evaluating individual projects so as to see as to
whether they are falling in the line of the decision taken
Page 90 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
by the Ministry and the Railway Board and whether they
are fit to be declared as Special Railway Projects.
XVIII. The authorization of the General Managers of the
Railways by the Railway Board is in conformity with the
decision of the Ministry of Railways with a view to
expedite the process of land acquisition and considering
that a large number of infrastructure projects had been
delayed or stalled, which were earlier notified under the
general land acquisition laws, namely the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 or the Right To Fair Compensation
And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
And Resettlement Act, 2013.
XIX. Essentially, the decision has been taken that all such
infrastructure projects of Railways, which are important
infrastructure projects such as Doubling and Gauge
Conversion and Important line projects are to be
declared as Special Railway Projects so as to complete
the process of land acquisition under the Railways
(Amendment) Act, 2008. This decision taken by the
Ministry of Railways and the Railway Board was
communicated to the General Managers of all Zonal
Railways authorizing them to issue notification after
evaluation and approval of the individual projects.
159. Taking note of the above when we look through the
th
nature of the projects in question, the project of 4 line has
been proposed to smoothen the traffic and avoid congestion,
to ease the traffic over the existing railway lines between
Page 91 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
Geratpur and Sabarmati. The object is to ease out the capacity
constraint on a section of Railway line namely, Sanand –
Sabarmati – Ahmedabad – Geratpur and for achieving overall
operational efficiency of the existing railway infrastructure
system.
th
160. It is clarified by the Railways that laying of 4 line was
not possible along the existing railway tracks as per the report
of the experts because of the land constraint and a feasibility
survey of the area was conducted by the experts of Railways.
Considering the nature of the project, we find that the project
th
of 4 line is squarely covered by the in-principle decision
taken by the Ministry of Railways and the Railway Board to
approve the railway projects of Important new line projects,
which involve land acquisition as Special Railway Projects
under Section 2(37A) of the Railways (Amendment) Act, 2008.
161. As regards the second project of 5 intersections, it is
conceived to provide path in all directions proposed to the
trains passing through Barejadi – Nandej (Geratpur) – Sanand,
to bypass the Ahmedabad city and Sabarmati Railway Stations
for smooth movement of freight trains between Viramgam –
Mehsana and Vadodara – Botad.
162. Both the projects are intertwined and have been
conceived with the purpose that the Freight trains may pass
through a bypass route without entering into Ahmedabad and
Sabarmati Railway Stations, to smoothen the movements of
passenger trains at Ahmedabad and Sabarmati Railway
Stations.
Page 92 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
163. These projects of the Railways conceived keeping in
view the larger public interest, are found to be in conformity
with the decision of the Ministry of Railways and the Railway
Board.
164. It may be noteworthy, at this stage, to record that none
of the learned Senior counsels appearing for the petitioners
would successfully argue that the projects in question do not
fulfill the requirement of providing national infrastructure for
a public purpose.
165. In a feeble submission, only argument made by Mr.
Mihir Joshi, the learned Senior counsel for the appellant about
non-fulfillment of the twin requirement is that there is a
substantial delay on the part of the Railway itself and there is
no material on record so as to demonstrate that any specific
time frame has been fixed by the Railways, considered by the
Central Government to notify this project as a Special Railway
Project within the meaning of Section 2(37A) of the Railways
Act, 1989.
166. The main ground of challenge to the notification dated
02.02.2023, however, is the approval granted by the General
Manager, which is sought to be asserted with the plea that
there was no power with the Central Government to delegate
its functions of notifying a Special Railway Project under
Section 2(37A) of the Railways (Amendment) Act, 2008, and
further upon the Railway Board to sub-delegate the said
power to the General Managers of all Zonal Railways. The
challenge is on the ground that General Managers of the
Page 93 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
Railway Boards cannot be said to be competent authority to
take a decision as to whether a particular project is to be
declared as a Special Railway Project under Section 2(37A).
167. It was vehemently argued by the learned Senior counsel
for the petitioners that, in any eventuality, the decision to
declare individual project as Special Railway Railway Project
has to be necessarily of the Central Government, namely
Ministry of Railways, and neither the Railway Board nor the
General Managers of Zonal Railways could have been
delegated such powers.
168. In light of this submission, the requirement would be
that in each individual projects, file has to travel up to the
level of the Ministry of Railways and only after satisfaction of
the said Ministry, a notification under Section 2(37A) could
have been issued It was urged that in the present case as
there is absolutely no application of mind by the Central
Government, both the notifications dated 02.02.2023 cannot
be allowed to stand.
169. It was further argued that the powers of the Central
Government under Section 2(37A) are administrative in
nature, and in view of language employed in Section 20A,
satisfaction as to whether the land is required for execution of
a ‘Special railway project’ has to be recorded by the Central
Government only. Such an essential decision making power
cannot be delegated.
Page 94 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
170. It was submitted by Mr.Shalin Mehta, the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners that the only provision which
prescribed for delegation of powers by the Central
Government is Section 28, which is contained in Chapter V of
the Railways Act, 1989 and the said provision contemplates
the delegation of power or functions of the Central
Government under the said Chapter only, except the power of
making rule in respect of the matters in the said Chapter
under Section 29.
171. The submission is that once the legislature has decided
not to incorporate any express provision for delegation of
power of the Central Government under Chapter-IVA, implied
delegation cannot be conceived in the eye of law.
172. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in
Sidhartha Sarawgi v. Kolkata Port, (2014) 16 SCC 248 ,
to submit that there is a subtle distinction between delegation
of legislative powers and delegation of non-legislative /
administrative powers. The essential legislative function,
which consists in the determination of choosing of the
legislative policy and formally enacting that policy into a
binding rule of conduct cannot be delegated.
173. It was placed that regarding delegation of non-legislative
/ administrative powers, it was held therein that so long as the
essential function of decision making is performed by the
delegate of legislature, the burden of performing ancillary and
clerical task need not be shouldered by the primary delegate.
It is not necessary that the primary delegate himself should
Page 95 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
perform the ministerial acts as well. In furtherance or
implementation of the decision already taken by the primary
delegate, as per the delegation, ministerial, clerical task may
be performed by authorized officer.
174. The submission is that only the ministerial or clerical
task of issuance of notification could have been delegated to
the Railway Authorities, but it was not permissible for the
Central Government to delegate its powers and functions for
approval of an individual project as a ‘Special Railway
Project’.
175. Placing Patel Pasabhai Amabhai (supra), the Division
Bench judgment of this Court relied by Ms.Archana Amin, the
learned counsel for the Railways, it was submitted by
Mr.Mihir Joshi the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
that for the facts of the said case, it was noted that the
decision for proposing and thereafter deciding the acquisition
of lands therein was that of the Ministry of Railways and
merely, the notifications carried the title “Ministry of
Railways (Railway Board)” which would not vitiate the entire
process. The power vest in the Central Government having
been exercised by the concerned Ministry, namely the Railway
Ministry, mere authentication or publication of the notification
by the Railway Board, would not be in exercise of delegated
power of the Central Ministry to record satisfaction that the
lands should be acquired for public purpose.
176. The submission is that, in the instant case, the situation
is otherwise, inasmuch as, there is no question of any
Page 96 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
satisfaction of the Central Ministry, inasmuch as, the power to
grant approval to issue notification under Section 2(37A) of
the Railways Act, 1989 has been delegated to the General
Managers of the Zonal Railways by the Railway Board who
was initially delegated the power to issue such notification by
the Central Ministry. The submission is that the present case
is not merely of delegation, but sub-delegation of power by an
authority, namely the Railway Board, which itself does not
have power to take a decision as to the issuance of the
notification under Section 2(37A) of the Railways Act, 1989.
177. The submission, thus, is that for want of proper decision-
making at the level of Ministry, the entire exercise must fail.
178. Dealing with the said submissions about delegation of
power and the manner in which the notification under Section
2(37A) had been issued in the present case with the approval
of the General Manager, we may revert to the language of
Section 2(37A) defining "Special Railway Project" inserted by
Act No.11 of 2008 and the scheme of land acquisition for a
Special Railway Project incorporated under Chapter IVA,
noticing that the provisions contained in Chapter IVA for
acquisition of land for a Special Railway Project would trigger
only upon a notification under Section 2(37A) issued by the
Central Government.
179. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners upon the words "by the Central
Government from time to time" to submit that the definition
clause itself provides that it is the Central Government which
Page 97 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
could only notify individual projects as Special Railway Project
and any decision to notify such projects to trigger action
under Chapter IVA cannot be issued by the Railway
authorities, including the Railway Board.
180. The submission is that it is the Central Government
which is empowered to take a decision as to whether a
particular project may be notified as ‘Special Railway Project’
by recording satisfaction about twin requirements, namely
"for providing national infrastructure for a public purpose"
and "in a specified time frame covering one or more States or
Union territories”.
181. By a conjoint reading of Section 2(37A) and Section 20A
as contained in Chapter IVA, it was vehemently submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioners that the Central
Government has to record its satisfaction with respect to
individual projects as to whether they satisfy the twin
requirement of Section 2(37A) to notify it as a ‘Special
Railway Project’, which would trigger the expeditious process
of land acquisition under Chapter IVA in a departure to the
general acquisition provisions in the Land Acquisition Act of
1894 or 2013.
182. Laying much emphasis on a portion of the first sentence
of sub-section (1) of Section 20A, "where the Central
Government is satisfied that for a public purpose, any land is
required for execution of a railway project", it was argued that
in view of the said language, it is clear that in the scheme of
Chapter IVA of the Railways Act, satisfaction is to be recorded
Page 98 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
both for a public purpose and that the land is required for
execution of a ‘Special Railway Project’. It was contended that
such an important decision to trigger action for acquisition
under Chapter IVA, bypassing the general provisions of the
land acquisition, being solely within the domain of the Central
Government, could not have been delegated to the Railway
authorities or the Railway Board. For this reason alone, the
entire acquisition proceedings are to be declared as vitiated
by law.
183. Dealing with the above, we may reiterate the facts in
brief from the sequence of events brought on record leading
to the publication of the notification dated 02.02.2023 under
Section 2(37A) of the Railways Act, as noted in the foregoing
paragraphs of this judgment.
184. From the aforesaid, it is evident that a decision-in-
principle has been taken by the Ministry of Railways,
Government of India, narrated in the communication dated
08.04.2010 (extracted hereinbefore), that "in order to
expedite the process of land acquisition, the Ministry of
Railways has granted approval for notification of all Railway
projects which would involve acquisition as ‘Special Railway
Projects’ under Clause (37A) of Section 2 of the Railways
(Amendment) Act, 2008."
185. In light of the said decision intimated vide
communication dated 08.04.2010, the Railway Board had
directed all Railways to take necessary action for notification
of the projects involving acquisition of land as ‘Special
Page 99 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
Railway Projects’ with the approval of the respective Board
Members through the concerned Directorates in the Railway
Board.
186. In continuation of the said communication dated
08.04.2010, another communication dated 19.12.2014 has
been issued by the Railway Board (extracted hereinbefore)
intimating that the Ministry of Railways has decided to
expedite the process of notification of Railway projects
(projects appearing in Pink Book / funded by Railways) as
‘Special Railway Projects’, while communicating that the
concerned Chief Administrative Officer / C / CE / C / Co-ord.
have been authorized to issue notification in the Gazette
under Clause (37A) of Section 2 of the Railways Act, 2008
with the approval of the General Manager of the Zonal
Railways.
187. Another decision of the Ministry was communicated by
the Railway Board vide communication dated 22.11.2017 in
continuation of the previous communications dated
08.04.2010 and 19.12.2014 addressed to the General
Managers, all Indian Railways, that in view of the delay
caused in the land acquisition process conducted under the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as
compared to the procedure laid down in the Railways Act,
1989, it is desired that all such railway infrastructure projects
which have assured funding and to be completed in a
specified time frame, the land should invariably be acquired
through the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 by declaring
Page 100 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
them "Special Railway Projects" and the same is within the
competence of the Zonal Railways as per the Railway Board's
letter dated 19.12.2014.
188. By another communication dated 05.02.2020, it was
intimated to the General Managers, all Indian Railways by the
Railway Board that in order to streamline the issue of land
acquisition in Railway projects, it has been decided by the
Railway Board (Ministry of Railways) that all Doubling and
Gauge Conversion and only Important new line projects
should be declared as Special Railway projects and land
acquisition should be made as per Railways (Amendment) Act,
2008.
189. It was reiterated in this communication that the
notifications in the Gazette under Clause (37A) of Section 2 of
the Railways Act, 1989 is still within the competence of the
Zonal Railways as per the Railway Board's letter dated
19.12.2014.
190. Pertinent is to note that all these communications have
been issued by the Ministry of Railways, Government of India
(Railway Board) and it is clear from the language of the
aforesaid communications that a policy decision has been
taken by the Ministry of Railways, through the Railway Board
in consultation with the Land Acquisition Directorate that for
all such Railway infrastructure projects which are for
Doubling and Gauge Conversion and Important line projects
shall be declared as Special Railway projects, in order to
streamline the issue of land acquisition in Railway projects by
Page 101 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
avoiding delay in execution of such projects, when notified
under the general provisions of Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013.
191. It is evident that the Railway Board has communicated
the decision of Ministry of Railways taken in-principle to the
General Managers of Zonal Railways for notifying individual
projects as Special Railway projects within the meaning of
Section 2(37A) of the Railways Act, 1989. The approval
granted by the General Manager for individual projects is
under a policy decision taken by the Ministry of Railways
(Railway Board) that a particular nature of infrastructural
project of Railways shall be notified as ‘Special Railway
Projects’.
192. Once this decision has been taken at the level of the
Ministry of Railways (as communicated by the Railway Board
by the communications issued by the Ministry of Railways
(Railway Board), Government of India), it cannot be accepted
that the approval for individual projects being notified as
‘Special Railway Projects’ under Section 2(37A) by the
General Managers of Zonal Railways would be a decision
taken in exercise of delegation of the power of decision-
making.
193. It is a case of mere authorization given to the General
Managers of Zonal Railways to approve individual projects as
per the decision of the Ministry of Railways, which has
decided the nature of projects to be declared as ‘Special
Page 102 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
Railway projects’ while leaving the exercise of issuance of
notification at the level of the General Manager, Zonal
Railways.
194. From the decision of the Division Bench in Patel
Pasabhai Amabhai (Supra) relied upon by the counsels for
both sides, we may simply note the facts recorded in
paragraphs ‘13’ to ‘17’ therein, with regard to the
Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961
framed by the President of India in exercise of powers under
clause (3) of Article 77 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch
as, there is no dispute with regard to the said facts:-
“ 13 . The first limb of the contention of the counsel for the
petitioners was that such notifications were issued by the
Railway Board and not the Ministry of Railways and therefore
not valid. In this context, as pointed out by the respondents in
the affidavit dated 20.12.2012 and the documents accompanying
such affidavit, the President of India has framed rules for
allocation of business for the Government of India in which the
Ministry of Railways is allocated the subject pertaining to
government railways and non government railways as inducted
in the Schedule to the Railways Act and the Ministry of Railways
conveys this decision through the authorised officers. It is
further pointed out that the Ministry of Railways was thus acting
through the Railway Board.
14. The President of India in exercise of powers under Clause
(3) of the Article 77 of the Constitution of India promulgated
rules called the Government of India (Allocation of Business)
Rules, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Allocation of Business
Rules’). As per Rule (2) of these rules, the business of the
Government of India would be transacted in the Ministries,
Departments, Secretariats and Offices specified in the first
schedule to the Rules. Rule (3) of the Allocation of Business
Rules pertains to distribution of subjects. Sub-rule (1) thereof
provides that the distribution of subjects among the
Page 103 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
departments shall be as specified in the second schedule to the
Rules and shall include all attached and subordinate offices or
other organisations including public sector undertakings
concerned with its subjects and sub-rules (2), (3) and (4) of the
Allocation of Business Rules.
15. First Schedule to the said Rules includes Ministry of
Railways at Item No. 28. The second Schedule pertaining to
distribution of subjects among the Departments, in connection
with the Ministry of Railways provides as under:
Ministry of Railways
(Rail Mantralaya)
Railway Board
(Rail Board)
1. Government Railways - All matters, including those relating to
Railway revenues and expenditure, but excluding Railway
Inspectorate and Railway Audit.
2. Non-Government Railways - Matters in so far as provision for
control by the Ministry of Railways, Railway Board as provided in
the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989) or in the contracts between
the Government and Railways, or in any other statutory
enactments, namely, regulations in respect of safety, maximum and
minimum rates and fares, etc. excluding the item of work allocated
to the Department of Urban Development.
3. Parliament questions/matters regarding offences relating to
pilferage of railway property and offences relating to crime on
Government Railways and non-Government Railways.
4. Administration of pension rules applicable to Railway
employees.”
16. In exercise of powers conferred by Clause (2) of Article 77 of
the Constitution of India, the President of India had promulgated
the Authentication (Orders and other Instruments) Rules, 2002
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Authentication Rules’). These
rules provide that all orders and other instruments made and
executed in the name of the President shall be authenticated by
the different officers of the Government of India mentioned in
various clauses contained therein. Clause (38) thereof which is
relevant for our purpose read with Rule 2 provides as under:-
“(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication
in the official gazette. All Orders and other instruments made
Page 104 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
and executed in the name of the President shall be
authenticated -
(38) in the case of orders and other instruments relating to the
Ministry of Railways, by a Secretary, an Additional Secretary, a
Joint Secretary, a Deputy Secretary or an Under Secretary to,
or by a/an Additional Member, Advisor, Executive Director,
Director, Joint Director, or a Deputy Director of the Railway
Board; or”
17. Combined reading of the said Rules would show that under
the Allocation of Business Rules, the Railway Ministry has been
assigned certain tasks and as per the Authentication Rules, all
orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of
the President in case of the Railway Ministry, would be by the
officers mentioned in Clause (38) which includes Additional
Member, Advisor, Executive Director, Director, Joint Director or
a Deputy Director of the Railway Board. The issuance of the said
two notifications under sub- section (1) of Section 20A and sub-
section (1) of Section 20E of the Act by the Railway Board,
therefore, need not be seen as exercise of the delegated powers.
If the Railway Board was professing to exercise such delegated
powers, of course, it would be necessary for the respondents to
show such delegation. Essentially, the powers vest in the
Central Government. By Allocation of Business Rules, such
powers would be exercised by the concerned Ministry i.e. in the
present case the Railway Ministry. By virtue of the
Authentication Rules, any order or other instruments executed
in the name of the President could be authenticated by the
member of the Railway Board or its Director, Joint Director etc.
Therefore, the decision for proposing and thereafter deciding
the acquisition of lands in question was that of the Ministry of
Railways. Merely because the notifications in question carry the
title “Ministry of Railways (Railway Board)” would not vitiate the
entire process. Both the notifications, as noted, carry a
recitation that it was the Government of India which was
satisfied that the land should be acquired for the said public
purpose. In a sense, therefore, mere authentication or
publication of notification by the Railway Board, would not be in
the capacity of exercising delegated powers. In that view of the
matter, it is not necessary to trace the delegation of such
powers by the Ministry on to the Railway Board.”
Page 105 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
195. As noted therein, under the Allocation of Business Rules,
the Railway Ministry has been assigned certain tasks and as
per the Authentication Rules, all orders and other instruments
made and executed in the name of the President in case of the
Railway Ministry would be by the officers mentioned in clause
38, which includes Deputy Director of the Railway Board.
196. As noted hereinbefore, all the letters communicating the
decision of the Railway Ministry in relation to the notification
under Section 2(37A) for acquisition of land for railway
infrastructure projects as ‘Special Railway Projects’, issued by
the officers of the Railway Board, carried a title as under:
“Government of India, Ministry of Railways,
Railway Board.”
197. From the above, it seems to us that that looking to the
mammoth task of identification of each individual project as
‘Special Railway Project’, authorization has been given to the
General Manager of Zonal Railways so as to avoid the time-
consuming exercise of each file traveling up to the Ministry of
Railways. The act of empowering the General Manager of
Zonal Railways to do so, cannot be said to be delegation of
power of the Ministry of Railways to decide as to which nature
of project of Railways should be notified as ‘Special Railway
project’. In each of the communication as noted hereinabove,
the decision of the Ministry of Railways to declare railway
infrastructure projects involving land acquisition as ‘Special
Railway Projects’ has been communicated to the General
Managers and they have been authorized only to approve for
Page 106 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
issuance of notification in the Gazette under Clause (37A) of
Section 2 through the concerned CAO / C / CE / C / Co-ord.
198. Considering the above, we do not find substance in the
submissions of the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the
petitioners on the delegation of power to notify individual
project as ‘Special Railway Project under Section 2(37A) of
the Railways Act, 1989, to the General Managers of Zonal
Railways.
199. As regards the submission of the learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioners about reading of word "satisfaction" as
occurring in Section 20A contained in Chapter IVA into the
definition clause of Section 2(37A), we are afraid to reject the
said submission outrightly for the simple reason that the
legislature in its own wisdom has not incorporated the word
"where the Central Government is satisfied" in clause (37A)
and instead used the phrase "notified as such by the Central
Government from time to time". Any such attempt by us would
amount to legislation and not interpretation of the provision in
the statute book beyond the scope of power of judicial review
of the Court.
200. Moreover, the language of two provisions, namely
Section 2(37A) and Section 20A, are not interchangeable,
inasmuch as, they are invoked at different stages of land
acquisition. Section 2(37A) is a definition clause defining what
would mean by the phrase "Special Railway Project", and
provide for a notification notifying a particular project as
Special Railway Project which would trigger the process
Page 107 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
under Chapter IVA. Whereas Section 20A contained in
Chapter IVA is invoked at a subsequent stage after a railway
project is notified as a ‘Special Railway Project’, to record
satisfaction of the Central Government for execution of a
‘Special Railway Project’, for a public purpose, and that the
land notified is required for such public purpose, before
issuance of the notification under the said section.
201. The declaration of intention of the Central Government
to acquire such land for execution of a Special Railway
Project, would require recording of satisfaction of the Central
Government that the land is “required for a public purpose".
202. In the instant case, there is no dispute about the
issuance of notification under Section 20A dated 11.10.2023,
which has been issued by the Ministry of Railway, Western
Railway (Construction Organization) under the signature of
the Chief Project Manager / Construction-I.
203. It is no one’s case that the decision to notify the
intention of the Central Government to acquire the notified
th
lands for a public purpose of laying of 4 line and 5
intersections had not been taken after satisfaction of the
Ministry of Railways. The notifications carry a recitation that
the Central Government after being satisfied for the public
purpose, that the land, a brief description of which has been
given in the Schedule annexed thereto, is required for
execution of the Special Railway Project, namely 4th line and
5 intersections.
Page 108 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
204. It is clear that the nature of exercise of power of the
Central Government, while notifying its intention under
Section 20A in Chapter IVA to acquire the notified land for a
public purpose required for execution of a ‘Special Railway
Project’ is different from that of Section 2(37A) notifying
"Special Railway Projects", and further both the powers are to
be exercised at different stages of the proceedings for
different purposes. We, therefore, find it difficult to accept the
submission of the learned Senior Counsels for the petitioners
that satisfaction as to the nature of the project, “being a
Special Railway Project”, has to be recorded by the Central
Government also at the stage of issuance of the notification
under Section 2(37A) of the Act and such satisfaction shall
have to be demonstrably gathered from the application of
mind by the Central Government for each project on the files
brought before it.
205. Even otherwise, in exercise of the power of judicial
review, it would not be possible for us to make an inquiry as
to the nature of the project being declared as ‘Special Railway
Project’, on the premise as to whether the notified project
fulfilled the twin requirement of providing national
infrastructure for a public purpose and its execution in a
specified time frame covering one or more States.
206. Such an inquiry by the Court, if made, would result in
traversing outside the scope of judicial review, to enter into
an arena of pure policy decision which is in the exclusive
domain of the Central Government, Ministry of Railways.
Identification of a particular nature(s) of project(s) to be
Page 109 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
notified as ‘Special Railway Project’ required considerations
of various factors relating to development of Railway
infrastructure at the level of the Ministry of Railways, which
has been demonstrably done in the instant case. Going behind
each individual notification issued under Section 2(37A)
requiring the Ministry of Railway or the Railway Board to
produce material before the Court, demonstrating fulfillment
of the twin requirement of Section 2(37A) would be excessive
exercise of Court’s power beyond the scope of judicial review.
This issue, in our considered opinion, is a non-justiciable
issue.
207. Above all, in the facts and circumstances of the present
case, looking to the nature of the projects at hand, for the
reasons given in the notification of such projects as ‘Special
Railway projects’, it could not be successfully argued nor we
th
can say that the project of 4 line and 5 intersections are the
projects which do not fulfill the twin requirements of Section
2(37A), being for providing national infrastructure for a public
purpose in a specified time frame, covering areas within the
State of Gujarat.
208. Further, a perusal of the original record produced by the
Railways would show that the notifications dated 02.02.2023
were published by the Chief Project Manager / Construction –
1 after seeking approval of the General Manager, Western
th
Railways to declare the projects of 4 line (38.20 kms) and 5
intersections (16.51 kms) as ‘Special Railway Projects’.
Page 110 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
209. From all angles, the submissions made by the learned
Senior Counsels for the petitioners to challenge the validity of
two notifications dated 02.02.2023 under Section 2(37A) of
the Railways Act, 1989 (as amended by Act No. 11 of 2008),
cannot be sustained.
210. The first limb of arguments to challenge to the
acquisition of the lands in question, therefore, stands rejected.
(III) Non-adherence to the provisions of Section 20D of
the Act’ 1989:-
211. Coming to the second submissions with regard to non-
adherence to the provisions of Section 20D of the Railways
Act, 1989, at the outset, we may be note that it is fairly
admitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
that the petitioners do not contend that the purpose of
acquisition is not a public purpose within the meaning of
Section 20A of Railways Act, 1989.
212. From the information demanded by the petitioners from
the Railways in their representations, it may be noted that the
objections of the petitioners to the acquisition are mainly on
the decision of the competent authority to treat the project as
a ‘Special Railway Project’. The petitioners sought information
from the competent authority about the proposal for
considering the subject project as a ‘Special Railway Project’
and the entire file along with the noting thereon in relation to
the said proposal. They have asked for the feasibility report in
relation to the proposal of considering the subject project as a
‘Special Railway Project’. The petitioners have also sought for
Page 111 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
the minutes of the meeting of the concerned competent
authority to demonstrate the decision taken to treat the
project as a ‘Special Railway Project’.
213. All these issues have been answered by the respondent
Railways in their reply dated 08.01.2024, copy whereof has
been provided to the petitioners, extract of which has been
noted in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment.
214. As regards the proposal for considering the project as a
‘Special Railway Project’, the feasibility report, the entire file
noting and the minutes of meeting of the concerned authority,
as demanded by the petitioners, the original record has been
produced by the Railways and the decision of the Ministry of
Railway to treat Important line projects as ‘Special Railway
Projects’ has already been discussed hereinabove.
215. In light of the same, the stand of the petitioners that
relevant documents have not been provided by the respondent
Railways in that regard is neither here nor there.
216. Other information sought by the petitioners from the
Railways are the “Note regarding satisfaction for requirement
of land for the purpose of the project; the survey report, if
any, undertaken; the documents provided to the Consultant
appointed by the Railways for preparing the map and
undertaking any work in addition to the railway line referred
to in the notification; the report of the Consultant with regard
to the landowner who would be affected by the acquisition;
the opinion of the Collector regarding viability of the proposed
Page 112 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
acquisition; the objection, if any, raised by the Collector
and/or State Government; the order of appointment of the
Competent authority”.
217. From the information sought by the petitioners and the
objections raised by them, as aforesaid, admittedly the
petitioners have taken no objection as to the acquisition of
their lands being for a public purpose, rather the objections
are with regard to the process of taking decision, satisfaction
regarding requirement of the land for the purpose of the
project under Section 2(37A) which has already been dealt
with.
218. The only argument pressed into service by the learned
counsels for the petitioners on Section 20D was that the
objections have not been decided by adhering to the
principles of natural justice and that the suggestion given by
the builder, the representative of the petitioners for alternate
route, leaving the lands in question, had not been considered.
219. As regards the objection as to the alignment / alternative
routes suggested by the representative of the petitioners,
having noted the content of the order dated 27.09.2024
passed by the competent authority of rejection of the
representation of the petitioners, it may be recorded that the
objections raised after 20.11.2023 in the representation of the
builder, which was submitted after a period of 30 days, were
not dealt with by the Competent Authority being beyond time.
Moreover, the objections regarding the alignment has been
answered in the order impugned with the statement that for
Page 113 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
the public purpose project, only such extent of land which
falls within the alignment is required and only such extent of
land is being acquired.
th
220. It is noted therein that for construction of the 4 line
project, arrangements for culverts for drainage of rainwater
at appropriate places, railway crossings for roads and over
bridges / under bridges wherever necessary are required to
be made and these arrangements are intended for general use
by all citizens. In the interest of public, the process of making
necessary additions, alterations and modifications in the
alignment of the project for implementation, maintenance,
management and operation of the project (Special Railway
Project) is legal.
221. As regards the availability of the land acquisition map, it
is categorically mentioned in the order impugned that a copy
of the land acquisition map had been kept and was available
in the office of the competent authority and if required, a
landowner may contact the said office.
222. In light of the objections raised by the petitioners and
the queries made from the Railways under the communication
of the competent authority and also the admitted fact that on
the dates fixed by the competent authority for hearing of the
objections of landowners for both the projects, the petitioners'
advocate and representative had appeared, it cannot be
accepted that the petitioners were not given due opportunity
of hearing or the objection of the petitioners qua alignment
was not considered by the competent authority.
Page 114 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
223. It is the specific case of the competent authority that
personal hearing on objections raised pursuant to Project 1,
viz. 5 Intersections Railway Line Project, was held on
29.12.2023. Most of the objectors had remained present and
the representative of the petitioners, namely Mr.Alpesh
Parikh, had represented all the objectors present during the
course of hearing and the advocate of the petitioners was also
th
present. Hearing of the objections for Project No.2 for 4 Line
was held on 02.01.2024, where the petitioners were
represented through their advocate who was present in the
hearing, as also the representative Mr.Alpesh Parikh had
made their submissions. None of these specific assertion
could be disputed and only this much is stated in the rejoinder
that on the said date only the next date was fixed as
30.01.2024 and hearing was not conducted.
224. It may also be noted that it is the stand of the Competent
Authority that during the course of hearing, the demands of
documents made by the petitioners was noted and
endorsement of the objectors and their representatives was
also taken. The original record containing 15 files each (total
30 in Number) of disposal of the objections filed by the
petitioners in this set of writ petitions with regard to two
th
projects, namely 4 Line and 5 Intersections Projects, has
been produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader
from the office of the Competent Authority, which has been
perused by us.
225. A perusal of the original record indicates that the gist of
the objections taken by the petitioners herein was noted at the
Page 115 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
backside of the representation dated 30.01.2024 submitted by
Mr. Alpesh Parikh, Managing Director, Gulmohar Greens Golf
& Country Club. A communication dated 30.01.2024 sent by
the builder, the representative of the petitioner filed in receipt
of the communication dated 19.01.2024 sent by the
Competent Authority enclosing therewith the communication
dated 19.01.2024 addressed by the Deputy Chief Engineer / C-
II, Nirman Bhavan, DRM Office, Asarwa, Ahmedabad is on
record. It is stated therein that since the Railway Authorities
had not provided documents sought by the petitioners in their
objections submitted on 02.01.2024, the hearing of the
objections fixed on 30.01.2024 be adjourned and fresh date be
fixed. The information sought therein, as stated to have not
been provided has already been noted hereinbefore. At the
backside of the said communication, while noticing the date of
personal hearing as 30.01.2024, objections of the landholders
were noted for both the projects and an endorsement dated
30.01.2024 at 1:40 PM therein reads that " kindly give
sufficient time ." The said documents contain signatures of the
land owners mentioning their plot numbers.
226. From a list containing names of the applicants /
objectors prepared by Dy.CE (C) II-ADI, available in the
original record, it may be noted that the name of Mr. Alpesh
Trilokbhai Parikh has been mentioned therein at various serial
numbers against different plots with the signatures in the next
horizontal column, same as for other applicants; and an
endorsement “that the applicants who have signed during the
Page 116 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
hearing on dated 30.01.2024 before the Competent Authority
have received their reply in person”.
227. One of the 30 (thirty) original files of disposal of
objections of the petitioners when perused carefully, we could
find that the proceedings of hearing of objections was
conducted on 30.01.2024 with respect to various plots
wherein landholders (34 in number) had participated. Similar
order sheet / Rojnama can be found of the hearing date, i.e.
30.01.2024 in the files of disposal of objections of the
petitioners herein.
228. A further perusal of the representations made by Mr.
Alpesh Parikh, the Managing Director, Gulmohar Greens on
record indicates that he had represented the cause of various
landholders for both the projects, namely 4th Line and 5
Intersections, and was present during the course of hearing
before the Competent Authority. The notices issued by the
Competent Authority intimating the date fixed for personal
hearing of the objectors are also on record.
229. One more communication dated 30.01.2024 of the
Competent Authority addressed to Dy.CE (C) II-ADI, Nirman
Bhavan, DRM Office, Asarwa, Ahmedabad is on record, which
reads as under:-
" રજી . પો . એ . ડી .
નં . એલ . એ . ક્યુ / રેલ્વેપ્રોજેક્ટ / ગેરતપુર - બોટાદ - અમદાવાદઇન્ટરસેક્શન ( પનં . )/ વશી - ૧ / ૨૦૨૪
વધારાનાખાસજમીનસંપાદનઅધિકારીનીકચેરી ,
ડીઝાસ્ટરમેનેજમેન્ટબિલ્ડીંગ , પ્રથમમાળે ,
જિ લ્લાસેવાસદન , કલેક્ટરકચેરીકમ્પાઉન્ડ ,
સુભાષબ્રીજસર્કલપાસે , અમદાવાદ - ૨૭ ,
Page 117 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
તા . ૩૦ / ૦૧ / ૨૦૨૪
પ્રતિ ,
શ્રીઆર . કે . ગુપ્તા ,
ડેપ્યુટીસી . ઇ ., (C), I I – A D I ,
નિર્માણભવન , ડી . આર . એમ . ઓફીસપાસે ,
સી - વીંગ , અસારવા , અમદાવાદ .
વિષય :- ભારતસરકારશ્રીનારેલ્વેમંત્રાલયનાન્યુ . બ્રોડગેઝલાઇનઇન્ટરસેક્શન૦૫ ( નંબર )
બીટવીનગેરતપુર - સાણંદઅનેબોટાદ - અમદાવાદ ( . ૧૬ ૫૧કિ . .) મી પ્રોજેક્ટમાટેજમીનસંપાદન
દરખાસ્તબાબતેસમાવિષ્ટગામોપૈકીસનાથલગામનાસર્વેનંબરોપૈકીતા . / ૩૦ / ૦૧ ૨૦૨૪ના
રોજરાખવામાંઆવેલરૂબરૂસુનાવણીસમયેરજુકરેલવાંધાઅરજીબાબત .
સુજ્ઞમહોદયશ્રી ,
ઉપરોક્તવિષયતથાસંદર્ભદર્શિતઅન્વયેશ્રીઅલ્પેશભાઇપરીખ , રહે . રહે . કદંબબંગલો ,
એસ . જી . હાઇવેસામે , મોહમ્મદપુરાગામરોડ , મોહમ્મદપુરા , અમદાવાદનીઆજરોજરૂબરૂ
સુનાવણીરાખવામાંઆવેલજેસુનાવણીદરમ્યાનતેઓશ્રીએરજૂકરેલતા . ૩૦ / ૦૧ / ૨૦૨૪ની
વાંધાઅરજીનીનકલઆસાથેસામેલરાખેલછે . જેવાંધાઅરજીઓનીવિગતેધ્યાનેલઇઆપની
કક્ષાએથીનિયમોનુસારનીઘટતીકાર્યવાહીકરીઅરજદારશ્રીનેયોગ્યમાહિતી / પ્રત્યુતરતાત્કાલિક
પાઠવીઅત્રેજાણકરવાવિનંતીછે .
બિડાણ :- ઉપરમુજબ
SD/-
સક્ષમસત્તાધિકારીઅનેવધારાના
ખાસજમીનસંપાદનઅધિકારી ,
અમદાવાદ
નકલસવિનયરવાના :-
શ્રીઅલ્પેશભાઇપરીખ , રહે . રહે . કદંબબંગલો , એસ . જી . હાઇવેસામે , મોહમ્મદપુરાગામરોડ ,
મોહમ્મદપુરા , અમદાવાદતરફઆપનીતા . ૩૦ / ૦૧ / ૨૦૨૪નીવાંધાઅરજીઓઅન્વયેજાણ
સારૂં .”
English Translation:-
“R.P.A.D.
No. L.A.Q. / Railway Project / Geratpur-Botad-Ahmedabad
Intersection (5 No.) / Vashi-1/2024
Office of the Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Disaster Management Building, First Floor,
District Seva Sadan, Collector Office Compound,
Near Subhashbridge Circle, Ahmedabad-27.
Date: 30/01/2024
To,
Shri R. K. Gupta,
Page 118 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
Deputy C.E. (C), II-ADI,
Nirman Bhavan, Near D.R.M. Office,
Asarwa, Ahmedabad.
Subject: Regarding the objection application
submitted during the personal hearing held on Date:
30/01/2024 in respect of survey numbers of Sanathal
village out of the villages included in the land
acquisition proposal for the New Broad Gauge Line
Intersection 05 (Number) between Geratpur-Sanand
and Botad-Ahmedabad (16.51 km) Project of the
Ministry of Railways, Government of India.
R espected Sir,
With reference to the subject cited above, a personal hearing
was held today in respect of Mr. Alpeshbhai Parikh, Residing at:
Kadamb Bungalow, Opposite S.G. Highway, Mohammadpura
Village Road, Mohammadpura, Ahmedabad. A copy of the objection
application dated 30/01/2024 submitted by him during the said
hearing is annexed herewith. Taking into consideration the details
of the said objection application, it is requested to take necessary
action as per rules at your level and provide appropriate
information/reply immediately to the applicant, and inform this
office accordingly.
Enclosure:
Sign/illegible
As above
30/01/2024
Competent Authority and Additional
Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Ahmedabad.
Copy respectfully forwarded to:--
Mr. Alpeshbhai Parikh, Residing at: Kadamb Bungalow, Opposite
S.G. Highway, Mohammadpura Village Road, Mohammadpura,
Ahmedabad, for information pursuant to your objection
applications dated 30/01/2024.”
230. The copy of the registry receipt dated 02.02.2024 could
also be found on the record, which would indicate that the
response received from the Railway to the aforesaid
communication, was duly sent to Mr.Alpesh Parikh, the
representative of the petitioners / builders, on 02.02.2024
itself.
Page 119 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
231. Thus, from the record, it is evident that the landholders /
objectors were provided due opportunity of hearing and they
have submitted their objections on the dates fixed by the
Competent Authority. After the hearing was rescheduled on
30.01.2024, adjournment was sought by Mr.Alpesh Parikh, the
representative of the petitioner, by moving an application
before the Competent Authority on the premise that several
relevant documents had not been provided by the Railways.
This fact has not been disclosed by the petitioners in the writ
petition. The record further indicates that hearing scheduled
on 30.01.2024 had been held and several objectors had
remained present. The fact that Mr. Alpesh Parikh, the
representative of the petitioner sought further time on the
date fixed, i.e. 30.01.2024 would not amount to denial of
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and their
representative so as to reach at the conclusion that the orders
dated 27.09.2024 of rejection of the objections of the
petitioner suffer from vice of principles of natural justice.
232. As noted hereinabove, the information sought by the
petitioner were duly replied by the Railway and was
forwarded to them by the Competent Authority. Some of the
information was not even warranted to be enclosed and the
same was clarified in the reply itself. The communication
dated 08.01.2024 contained a table of the information
demanded and the reply, which has been extracted in the
foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, which shows that all
relevant information has been provided to the petitioner, and
for irrelevant questions, it was clarified that either there is no
such provision under the Railways Act, 1989 or the
Page 120 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
information as sought for is either not related to the project or
not warranted to be enclosed.
233. Having noted the response of the Railways in both the
communications dated 08.01.1994 and 19.01.1994 supplied to
the petitioners, the contention of the petitioners that relevant
information had not been provided to them so as to grant
effective hearing under Section 20D of the Railways Act,
1989, cannot be accepted.
234. Coming to the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989,
reading sub-section (1) of Section 20D, it seems to us that the
objection under Section 20D is limited to the acquisition of
land for the purpose mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section
20A, i.e., an objector can raise objection to the purpose for
which acquisition is made. Meaning thereby, he can argue
that the land in question is not needed for a public purpose as
stated in the notification under Section 20A.
235. It is noted by the Apex Court in Nareshbhai
Bhagubhai v. Union of India [(2019) 15 SCC 1] , that the
right to file objections under Section 20D of the Railways Act,
1989 is in pari materia to Section 5A of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. However, a reading of the said statutory provision
shows that the landowner or person interested has been
granted a limited right of the objection to the purpose for
which the acquisition is made. It is not a general right to file
objections as provided under Section 5A of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894.
Page 121 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
236. A reading of sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 indicates that any person interested in
any land notified under Section 4(1) of the said Act had a right
to object to the acquisition of the land, whereas Section 20D
limits “the right to file objection to the acquisition of land for
the purpose mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 20A",
which is missing in Section 5A.
237. Further, a conjoint reading of sub-section (1) of Section
20A and sub-section (1) of Section 20D would reveal that a
landowner whose land is acquired under Chapter IVA of the
Railways Act, 1989 can raise two-fold objections, namely:
(i) The purpose for which the land is notified for acquisition
is not a public purpose;
(ii) The land is not required for execution of a ‘Special
Railway Project’.
238. The objections to the acquisition cannot be expanded to
include the objections as to the alignment of the railway line,
which is within the domain of the technical expert. Moreover,
in the instant case, Railway has duly responded to all the
queries of the landowner and as regards the suggestion of the
builder, their representative to change the alignment, suffice
it to say that for a project of having length of 38.20 km for 4th
line, it would not be feasible to change the alignment for a
section of 3 km covering the lands of petitioners herein.
239. It is placed before us by Ms. Archana U. Amin, learned
advocate appearing for the respondent Railways, that for the
Page 122 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
new line project of 4th line (38.20 kms.), the lands of three
villages have been acquired for a total area of 1,36,062 sq.
mtrs., out of which only an area of 18,132 sq. mtrs. is subject
matter of dispute in the present set of writ petitions. Whereas,
for the project of 5 intersections (16.51 km), the total area
notified for acquisition is 82,860 sq. mtrs., and the area of the
land belonging to the petitioners herein comes to
approximately 51,965 sq. mtrs.
240. It is also submitted before us that the possession of the
Government land covered under the project has already been
taken and constructions have started. For the private lands
other than the challenge herein, the Railway is in the process
of taking possession after award has been declared and
compensation is deposited. The Railways has already spent
approximately 30,000 crores on the projects.
241. Considering the above, we find that the issues relating to
the feasibility of the project or alignment of railway track are
the questions which would be involving ground requirements,
technical aspects, cost involved, and range of other factors of
the project. Such a massive project prepared on the planning
by the experts in the field, involving decisions which would
rest on complex considerations of various aspects, cannot be
stalled at the instance of a handful number of landholders
and it would not be feasible for the Railway to change the
alignment only for a portion of the acquired land, i.e., qua the
land of the petitioners, solely on the ground that the
petitioners' land would be saved and some alternative route
be worked out. Moreover, there are no allegations of mala
Page 123 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
fides against the Railway Authorities for insisting on the
th
alignment of 4 Railway line and 5 intersections finalized by
the experts. The scope of judicial review of such decisions
would necessarily be extremely narrow.
242. The insistence of the learned Senior Counsels for the
appellants that the changes in the alignment suggested by the
builder, namely Mr. Alpesh Parikh, ought to have been
considered by the Competent Authority while dealing with the
objections of the landholders is without any basis, inasmuch
as, change of alignment is not a matter within the jurisdiction
of the Competent Authority, it being a highly technical subject
matter for consideration of the technical expert of the
Railways which had conceived the project.
243. The reasoning given by the Competent Authority that for
the project which is for public purpose, only limited extent of
land which falls within the alignment is being acquired, could
not be disputed before us. The fact that in one of the
communications, the Competent Authority would submit that
it was messenger of the information received by the Railways
would not mean that the order dated 27.09.2024 of rejection
of objections of the landholders is without application of mind
by the Competent Authority or is simply narration of the stand
of the Railways. Having gone through the order impugned
dated 27.09.2024 extracted hereinbefore, it may clearly be
seen that each of the grounds taken for objection to the
acquisition has been dealt with one by one and answered by
the Competent Authority while rejecting the objections of the
landholders / petitioners dated 31.10.2023 against the
Page 124 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
preliminary notification under Section 20A(1) for acquisition
of the land in question, as untenable.
244. In view of the above, all the submissions made by the
learned Senior Counsels for the petitioner on the importance
of Section 5A of the 1894 Act on the principle that the right to
object to acquisition under Section 20D of the Railways Act is
a valuable right of the petitioners whose lands are sought to
be acquired, do not need deliberation, looking to the facts and
circumstances of the present case where the original record
indicates that due opportunity of hearing had been afforded to
the landholders/objectors and they were personally heard
through their advocates and representatives.
245. The second limb of arguments of the learned Senior
Counsels for the petitioners to assail the acquisition under the
Railways Act, 1989 on the premise of violation of the
provisions of Section 20D of the Railways Act, 1989, as such,
is found to be devoid of merits.
246. No other points have been pressed.
247. Having gone through the original records of the
acquisition submitted by the respondent Railways as well as
the Competent Authority of the proceedings conducted under
Chapter IVA of the Railways Act, 1989, we find that the
procedure for acquisition of the lands in question for the
projects of Railways notified as ‘Special Railway Projects’
cannot be said to suffer from violation of any rule or
procedure and, as such, cannot be vitiated in law.
Page 125 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026
C/SCA/16174/2024 (GJHC240757172024) CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
248. With the above, all the writ petitions, in this bunch,
challenging the acquisition notifications under Section 2(37A),
Section 20A, and Section 20E are liable to be dismissed being
devoid of merits and are being dismissed as such.
249. All the pending civil application in this bunch of writ
petitions stand disposed of, accordingly. No order as to costs.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
FURTHER ORDER
After the judgment was pronounced in the open Court,
the prayer made by the learned Senior Counsels appearing for
the petitioners for grant of interim protection as to the
possession of the petitioners over the land in question is
hereby granted for a period of four (4) weeks from today.
After pronouncement of the judgment, the original
record produced by Ms.Archana Amin, the learned advocae
for the respondent Railways and Ms.Maithili Mehta, the
learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State
respondents, are hereby returned.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
SAHIL S. RANGER
Page 126 of 126
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:29 IST 2026