Railway land-acquisition notice lapsed after Himachal government failed to record reasons for extensions, High Court rules

The petitioners challenged a preliminary notification dated 29 March 2023, issued under Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”) for acquiring land for the Bhanupali–Bilaspur–Beri Broad-Gauge Railway Line.

No declaration under Section 19(1) was made within 12 months.

The State issued three notifications extending the time for making the declaration—dated 16 March 2024, 24 March 2025 and 25 March 2026—which referred to “unavoidable administrative circumstances” and the incomplete rehabilitation and resettlement plan.

On the Court’s examination of the departmental record, the respondents accepted that no reasons for the extensions had been recorded there.

The petitioners sought, among other reliefs, a finding that the preliminary notification had been rescinded and that the extension notifications were invalid.

1. Whether the State could validly extend the 12-month period for making a declaration under Section 19(1) without recording in writing reasons justifying the extension, as required by Section 19(7).

2. Whether, in the absence of a valid extension or a declaration within 12 months, the preliminary notification stood deemed rescinded under Section 19(7).

Section 19(7) of the 2013 Act provides that if no declaration under Section 19(1) is made within 12 months of the preliminary notification, that notification is deemed rescinded, subject to the statutory exclusion for periods during which proceedings are stayed or injuncted by a court.

The appropriate Government may extend the 12-month period if, in its opinion, circumstances justify doing so; however, the third proviso requires the decision to extend to be recorded in writing, notified and uploaded on the concerned authority’s website.

The Court treated the power to extend as coupled with a duty to record the reasons supporting its exercise.

The Court found that no Section 19(1) declaration had been made within 12 months of the preliminary notification.

Although the extension notifications referred generally to “unavoidable administrative circumstances” and the unfinished rehabilitation and resettlement plan, they did not identify the circumstances or explain the impediments to finalising the plan.

Nor were reasons recorded in the departmental file.

The Court held that a bare statement that the plan could not be finalised was insufficient to meet Section 19(7)’s requirement that the extension decision be recorded in writing and notified.

The extensions were therefore invalid, leaving the statutory rule of deemed rescission to apply.

It also held the three extension notifications dated 16 March 2024, 24 March 2025 and 25 March 2026 invalid because they did not contain the required reasons or decision justifying an extension.