Farmers’ Challenge to Rail Link Serving Shree Cement Terminal Fails; Chhattisgarh HC Says Incidental Private Benefit Doesn’t Defeat Public Purpose

The petitioners, landowners and agriculturists from villages in Balodabazar-Bhatapara district, challenged acquisition proceedings for a Special Railway Project providing connectivity from Hathbandh Railway Station to Khaparadih in connection with a Gati Shakti Multi-Modal Cargo Terminal.

They contended that the project primarily benefited Shree Cement Ltd., that alternative railway infrastructure and alignments were available, and that the proposed line would affect agricultural land and village resources.

In several petitions, the petitioners challenged the order dated 27 January 2026 rejecting their objections under Section 20-D of the Railways Act, 1989; some also sought to quash the acquisition proceedings and subsequent notifications.

Earlier, the High Court had directed the competent authority to decide objections in accordance with law.

A declaration under Section 20-E was subsequently issued on 19 February 2026.

Sections 20-A to 20-F of the Railways Act, 1989 govern acquisition for special railway projects; Section 20-D gives interested persons a right to object and requires the competent authority to consider those objections, but does not confer a veto over the project or a right to have objections accepted.

Under Section 20-E, publication of the declaration results in vesting as provided by the Act.

Article 226 judicial review does not permit the Court to substitute its view for that of technical authorities on railway alignment or feasibility absent illegality, arbitrariness, mala fides, colourable exercise of power, or breach of mandatory procedure.

Article 300-A protects against deprivation of property except by authority of law; it does not prevent a lawful acquisition for a genuine public purpose.

Relying on Sooraram Pratap Reddy v. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, (2008) 9 SCC 552, the Court stated that incidental private benefit does not negate public purpose where the project’s dominant character is public.

It also relied on Nareshbhai Bhagubhai v. Union of India, (2019) 15 SCC 1, for the need to comply with statutory safeguards, and Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 1 SCC 134, on balancing individual rights against public interest in acquisition matters.

The Court found that the acquisition formed part of a notified Special Railway Project and that the acquired land and infrastructure would vest in and remain under the control of the Railways; Shree Cement’s benefit as terminal operator was therefore incidental and did not establish a private or colourable purpose.

The petitioners had been heard, their objections and the Railway authorities’ response were before the competent authority, and the objections were rejected after consideration.

The Court held that Section 20-D did not require a physical inspection or a civil-trial-type enquiry in every case, and that disagreement with the outcome did not establish denial of the statutory right to object.

It declined to reassess the proposed alignment, noting the Railway authorities’ technical explanation that the suggested alternative involved reservoir or waterlogged areas and a long-span bridge.

The Court also considered the project’s scale, the subsequent Section 20-E declaration, and the absence of demonstrated jurisdictional error or breach of mandatory procedure; it held that neither the objections concerning agricultural land and village resources nor the earlier Greenfield freight-terminal proceedings established a basis to invalidate the acquisition.

It dismissed all the writ petitions and vacated any interim orders.

The dismissal did not preclude the petitioners from pursuing statutory remedies concerning compensation or other matters for which the Railways Act provides a remedy.