Lucknow, Aug 4 (PTI) The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday expressed concern over the land acquisition process for the proposed railway overbridge in Gomtinagar Extension, observing that the state government appeared 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 in Lucknow 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 Lucknow bench 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.
During the hearing, the court examined the SIA report as well as the report of the independent multidisciplinary expert group. Both reports acknowledged the need for an ROB at the Bharwara railway crossing to ease chronic traffic congestion and improve connectivity.
However, they 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.
Referring to the SIA report dated July 4, 2025, the bench noted that it had suggested an alternative site for the ROB and recommended the course of land acquisition if the alternative location was found unviable.
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.
Prima facie, the available record did not indicate that alternative options had been adequately considered before proceeding with the acquisition, the bench said.
The court observed 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.
It further noted that, despite its earlier direction, the record relating to the government’s decision under Section 8(2) had not been produced before it. The state was directed to explain how the statutory requirements and expert recommendations were considered before issuing the land acquisition notification.
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, however, 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. PTI COR KIS KVK KVK
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.