Acquisition Procedure Conducted as per Statutory Mandates and Principles of Natural Justice Cannot be Impugned.

Eight petitioners challenged a land acquisition notice dated 09.05.2023 issued under Section 19(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("2013 Act") and subsequent awards.

The land was acquired for the "Mukhyamantri Gramin Sadak Yojana" road project.

The petitioners alleged that the mandatory preliminary notice under Section 11(1) of the 2013 Act was never issued, thereby violating their right to notice and objection.

The State countered that a Section 11(1) notification was issued on 02.09.2022 via letter no. 2113 and that 80% of the project was already complete.

1. Whether the respondent authorities failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements, specifically the issuance of notice under Section 11(1), prior to the declaration of the award under the 2013 Act

2. Whether the acquisition process violated the constitutional and human rights principles governing the right to property under Article 300A

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, specifically Section 11(1) (preliminary notification), Section 19(1) (declaration of acquisition), and Section 37 (awards).

Seven Principles of the Right to Property formulated by the Supreme Court in Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Vimal Kumar Shah (2024), which establishes the rights to notice, hearing, reasoned decision, public purpose, restitution/compensation, efficient process, and conclusion as essential strands of Article 300A.

The court examined the petitioners’ claim of non-issuance of notice against the State’s documentary evidence. It noted that the petitioners failed to plead the absence of Section 11(1) notice in their original writ petition.

Conversely, the State’s counter-affidavit provided specific details of the preliminary notification issued on 02.09.2022. The court highlighted that the petitioners did not file a rejoinder to rebut these specific factual assertions despite having ample time.

Consequently, the court found that the "right to notice" and "right to be heard" were not breached; rather, the petitioners failed to exercise their right to object after the notice was issued.

The court further observed that the acquisition served a "public purpose" (rural road connectivity) and fair compensation had been calculated and deposited with the Authority, satisfying the remaining benchmarks of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation precedent.

The court dismissed the writ petition, vacated the previous status quo order, and directed the petitioners to receive their compensation upon production of valid documents.

The acquisition process was deemed valid as it balanced the state’s power of eminent domain for public utility with the procedural safeguards required by law.