The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld land acquisition proceedings for railway connectivity to a Gati Shakti Multi-Modal Cargo Terminal associated with Shree Cement Limited, holding that incidental benefits to a private company do not automatically negate the public purpose of an infrastructure project.
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad dismissed a batch of four writ petitions challenging the acquisition of agricultural land for a proposed railway connection between Hathbandh Railway Station and Khaparadih village in Chhattisgarh.
Background
The petitioners, including farmers from several villages in Balodabazar-Bhatapara district, challenged the acquisition notification dated June 16, 2025, and an order dated January 27, 2026, rejecting their objections under Section 20-D of the Railways Act, 1989.
They argued that the proposed railway line primarily benefited Shree Cement rather than serving a genuine public purpose. They also raised concerns about the availability of alternative routes, existing railway infrastructure and the impact of the proposed alignment on fertile agricultural land and village resources.
The farmers further contended that their objections had not been properly examined despite an earlier direction from the High Court to decide them in accordance with law.
The Court examined whether the acquisition was essentially intended for a public infrastructure project and whether the authorities had followed the statutory procedure for considering objections.
Justice Prasad observed that the acquired land would vest in the Central Government and the Railways, while Shree Cement's role would remain limited to operating the cargo terminal under the applicable policy.
The Court stated,
"Public purpose has to be understood in a broad and realistic manner".
It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sooraram Pratap Reddy v. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District to explain that incidental private benefits do not necessarily change a project's public character.
The Court also considered the farmers' objections concerning alternative railway alignments. It held that choosing a railway route involves technical, engineering and administrative considerations, and the Court could not substitute its own assessment for that of the competent authorities merely because landowners preferred another route.
On the procedural challenge, the Court found that the petitioners had been given an opportunity to present their objections and that the competent authority had considered the material placed before it. It reiterated,
"The right is to object and to have the objection considered in accordance with law; it is not a right to have the objection accepted."
The High Court held that the petitioners had failed to establish illegality or procedural irregularity warranting judicial interference. It dismissed all four writ petitions and vacated any interim orders operating in the cases.
However, it clarified that the dismissal would not prevent the petitioners from pursuing available statutory remedies concerning the determination, enhancement or payment of compensation under the Railways Act, 1989. No order as to costs was passed.
