Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order Date: 27/10/2026 (Order Reserved on 07/08/2026)

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: A large group of individual landowners (e.g., Bedram Verma, Prema Bai Verma, Bineshwari Verma, Motiram Verma, etc.), Gram Panchayats, and other aggrieved persons from villages Raveli, Dhobnidih, Gudgahan, Basin, Khilora, Kesali and surrounding areas in Baloda Bazar‑Bhatapara district, Chhattisgarh.
  • Respondents: Union of India, Engineer‑In‑Chief South Eastern Central Railway (SECR) Bilaspur Division, Sub‑Divisional Officer (Revenue) Simga (Land Acquisition Officer), various district officials, and Shree Cement Pvt. Limited (project operator).
  • Petitions filed: WPC No. 785/2026, WPC No. 1523/2026, WPC No. 6592/2025, and WPC No. 987/2026, each seeking quash of the land‑acquisition order dated 27‑01‑2026 and the underlying notification dated 16‑06‑2025 for the Gati Shakti Multi‑Modal Cargo Terminal (GCT) railway line from Hathbandh Railway Station (East Cabin) to Khaparadih Village.
  • Background: The Ministry of Railways issued a notification on 16‑06‑2025 (published 28‑06‑2025) proposing acquisition of approximately 93.08 ha of agricultural land across 13 villages for a “Special Railway Project” linking the GCT. Petitioners filed objections under Section 20‑D of the Railways Act, 1989 on 10‑07‑2025, alleging the project primarily benefitted Shree Cement Ltd, that existing railway infrastructure (UltraTech Cement line) could be used, and that the acquisition would damage irrigated fields, village ponds, schools and common lands.
  • The Court previously directed, in orders dated 24‑09‑2025 (W.P.(C) Nos. 5079/2025, 5083/2025, 5069/2025), that the competent authority must consider the objections in accordance with law within 30 days. The authority (SDO‑Revenue, Simga) thereafter held a hearing, received replies on 16‑12‑2025, and on 27‑01‑2026 issued a summary order rejecting the objections.
  • Petitioners sought reliefs including quashing the 27‑01‑2026 order, setting aside the entire acquisition proceeding, directing a fresh decision under Section 20‑D, ordering a detailed inquiry into the private‑benefit claim, and costs.
  • Respondent counsel (State counsel Anand Dadariya, senior counsel for Shree Cement, etc.) argued that the acquisition was a bona‑fide public‑purpose project, that procedural safeguards were complied with, and that the declaration under Section 20‑E (issued 19‑02‑2026) vested the land in the Central Government, which cannot be challenged.
  • The Court examined statutory provisions, prior judgments (e.g., Nareshbhai Bhagubhai v. Union of India (2019), Sooraram Pratap Reddy v. District Collector (2008), Surendra Mohan Bist v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024)), and the factual record.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the objections were duly invited, the petitioners were afforded a personal hearing, and the competent authority considered the objections before rejecting them. No violation of Section 20‑D, no mala‑fides, arbitrariness or colourable exercise of power was demonstrated.
  • Consequently, the order dated 27‑01‑2026 rejecting the objections and the acquisition proceedings initiated under the 16‑06‑2025 notification were not interfered with.
  • All writ petitions were dismissed; any interim orders operating in the matters were vacated.
  • No order as to costs was made. The Court clarified that dismissal does not preclude petitioners from seeking statutory remedies for compensation or other reliefs under the Railways Act, 1989.

Topics: Land Acquisition, Railway Infrastructure