PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa has declined to overturn the land acquisition proceedings for the construction of an 8-km long Mopa link road and has disposed a bunch of petitions filed by farmers, landowners and tenants who are set to lose their lands to the massive project.
“We are of the view that there is no case for interference. The power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution being discretionary, we have weighed all pros and cons. The authorities appear to have considered the necessary criteria including the public interest versus private interest aspect and have come to the conclusion that the land proposed is required to be acquired. We find no reason to take a different view and in conclusion, we believe that the law of the land has been followed to the extent applicable and the challenges in this Petition cannot succeed,” the High Court division bench of Justices A K Menon and R N Laddha, ruled.
The petitioners, all landowners and farmers, claimed that the income that they derive from agriculture is their only source and that they will be gravely prejudiced if the lands are acquired.
A separate petition was filed by the villagers from the villages of Dhargalim, Varconda and Casarvarnem in Pernem Taluka who claimed to be losing lands in their families possession for over a century and are said to be a part of the Tillari Irrigation Project and a notified Command Area under the Goa Command Area Development Act, 1997 (GCAD Act).
The challenge mounted is this petition was slightly different from the other three Petitions inasmuch as the area proposed to be acquired for construction of the proposed link road it is alleged is not part of the initial approved approach road to the Mopa Airport as per the Environmental Impact Assessment Report.
The High Court, however, rejected all the contentions.
“These fundamentals are that an environmental impact assessment has not been carried out, the manual of guidelines has not been followed, that they have been cultivating the land as tenants for more than essentially and that the construction of road would result in wanton destruction of flora and fauna and land used for cultivation. If an alternate route is chosen the very same result would be faced by those persons who are living in such alternate areas,” the High Court ruled.
“The petitioners' objections are not to the construction of the Airport or the need to provide a proper link road, but restricted to what alludes to be a motive inasmuch as they do not wish their lands which they claim to be acquired but have no objection in third party's land being acquired. This notion that the petitioners carry and with which they have approached the Court militates against all the fundamentals which they have sought to canvas in these petitions,” the Court observed.
“The Highways Act has withstood the test of time and there are been occasions where it has been subjected to judicial review and its provisions have not been held to be unconstitutional. The challenge in the Petitions being predicated on the invocation of the Highways Act instead of the LARR Act, offers no serious constitutional challenge.
The enactments are all in force and continue to be in force. It is for the authorities, respondents to decide the manner and extent to which appropriate enactment is to be invoked. Once having decided on invocation of the Highways Act, in our view, it is not open for this Court to interfere in that discretion and the law of the land must follow,” the High Court division bench of Justices A K Menon and R N Laddha, ruled.
On the issue of a lack of environmental clearance for the project, the High Court ruled that “construction of roads under the Highways Act do not require environmental clearance under the EIA Notification of 2006.”
“Permission from the Command Area Development Board is also not mandatory. Considering the fact that the Highways Act is a self-contained Code and the Central Government has framed Rules in exercise of Section 9 of the Act, it is these Rules that are required to be followed by the executing authority and nothing in these Rules oblige the Central Government to obtain environmental clearance,” the High Court said.
“We are also unable to accept the petitioners' submission that the alternative routes proposed by the petitioners and as reflected in the Google Earth Map that has been produced before us ought to be chosen instead of the approved route. Choosing an alternative route would put other people in the same position as that of the petitioners, namely, acquisition of other lands would entail similar inconvenience and disputes,” the Court ruled.
“It is not for this Court to consider the viability of the route. That is best left to the expertise of the DPR consultant,” the Court said.
As regards the requirements of the Highways Act, the High Court said it found “no reason to dislodge the proposed acquisition on the basis that the proposed road terminates at the Airport and therefore it is not a highway.”
“The argument on behalf of the petitioners is that proposed NH-166S is not a highway because it merely leads to the Airport terminal and facilitates transportation of men and materials to the Airport and back. In other words, it does not go beyond the Airport and therefore, cannot be termed as a ‘highway’. In our view, the interpretation, though attractive, cannot be accepted for the reason that the Highways Act contemplates declaration of State roads as National highways,” the Court said.
