Activists 'wrong', Gujarat HC order on bullet train insisted on 'adequate' compensation

Yagnik with JICA officials

By A Representative 
Senior High Court advocate Anand Yagnik has taken strong objection to what he calls some “Gujarat-based activist friends, more known for computer activism, who are happy that we lost matters of bullet train.” Claiming that they are “spreading misinformation out of malice to the people of India and Japan”, he regrets, “Unfortunately, this NGO hazard enjoys freedom of expression”.

Yagnik is a top petitioner on behalf of the farmers affected by the Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train project, funded by the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA). JICA officials recently handed over a crucial report to Yagnik on a meeting they had with the aggrieved farmers affected by the project. The state government earlier denied handing over the report.
Without naming anyone, Yagnik, in a message to a WhatsApp group, says, these activist friends “may read the last paragraph of the judgment”, stating, these “friends”, who have their “base in Ahmedabad and other parts of Gujarat and felt left out in the bullet train initiative”, should stop misinformation, warning, “Or else their names will be disclosed with evidence of misinformation and twisted information.”
The last paragraph of the High Court order on bullet train, forwarded by Yagnik, even as dismissing 100 plus pleas, says, “However, this judgment shall have no bearing on the future of issues which arise about adequacy of compensation”  (click HERE for full order).

It continues, “Further, the state government is expected to keep in mind that the most important factor which should with the authorities is about fair, adequate and reasonable compensation to be paid by following a transparent procedure under the provisions of the amended Act read with the Central Act, 2013 which the land is acquired for public purpose keeping in mind provisions of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.” 

Last paragraph of the judgment

It also says that it should be “borne in mind that such compensation is paid in respect of similar types of land situated in the immediate adjoining areas when it was acquired by the National Highways Authority or any such Central or state government authorities.” 

The Central Act referred to by the judgment refers to the is the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Act, 2013, while its amended Gujarat Act, cleared by the President of India in 2016, “dilutes” the Centre's stringent provisions of LARR. It does away with social impact assessment and consent clauses for acquiring land parcels for public projects.
Article 300-A provides that "no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law", even as ensuring that the right to property "is a constitutional/legal right/as a statutory right, and in the event of breach, the remedy available to an aggrieved person is through the High Court."
Top environmentalist Rohit Prajapati of the Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti, a Vadodara-based NGO, in a “quick reaction” to the Gujarat High Court judgment had dubbed the Gujarat High Court judgment on the acquisition of land for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s pet 508 km-long Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train project, dated September 19, as “bad in law, spirit and undesirable”.
Prajapati regretted that the judgment “reads like a recording of the proceeding and at the end opinion of the court and not like a well-conceived comprehensive judicial order”, adding, “Crucial principles of the law of the land, legal and other issues raised in the Petition are not dealt within proper legal framework, either in letter or in spirit”.
He added, “A critical and complex matter has been narrowed down to simple opinion by the court without a sound basis, critical examination of all the facts, factors, democratic process of decision making, social and environmental impacts.”
Prajapati further said, “All in all, the judgment not only sets a bad precedent, but also has severe and grave impacts as well as short and long-term consequences for the project affected people, justice and the environment (including biodiversity).”