The Allahabad High Court has expressed concern over the land acquisition process for a proposed railway overbridge in Gomtinagar Extension, Lucknow, observing that the state government appears to have proceeded without duly considering the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) report and the recommendations of an independent expert group.
A division bench of Justices Rajan Roy and Manjive Shukla made the observations while hearing a batch of petitions, including a public interest litigation, challenging the proposed acquisition of land for the railway overbridge (ROB) at the Bharwara railway crossing. The court examined the SIA report as well as the report of the independent multidisciplinary expert group, which acknowledged the need for an ROB at the Bharwara railway crossing to ease chronic traffic congestion and improve connectivity.
However, the reports also noted differences among departments and stakeholders over the most appropriate location for the project. The expert group described the issue as a technical matter and recommended that the final decision on the alignment be taken only after obtaining the views of the Railways, the Uttar Pradesh State Bridge Corporation, and other concerned technical agencies.
The court observed that the state had failed to place on record any material to show that the opinions of the concerned technical agencies were obtained before a decision was taken under Section 8(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The bench noted that the procedure prescribed under the land acquisition law was not a mere formality but was intended to ensure that public projects caused the least possible displacement and that alternatives involving lesser displacement were properly examined wherever available.
The court directed the additional advocate general to produce the relevant records and explain the state’s stand, and fixed August 5 as the next date of hearing. The bench also pointed to an apparent inconsistency between the notification issued under Section 11 of the Act, which stated that no affected families would be displaced, and the findings of the SIA report, which indicated otherwise. It sought the state’s explanation for the discrepancy.
The court clarified that its observations were confined to the legality of the land acquisition and decision-making process and did not question the need for the proposed ROB, noting that the project was necessary to ease traffic congestion at the Bharwara railway crossing.
