Public purpose under Section 2(za) of the 2013 Act includes government projects aimed at tourism and infrastructure development. Timely filing of objections under Section 15 of the 2013 Act is essential for the right to be heard. The courts’ role in judicial review is limited to examining legality and compliance, not the commercial wisdom of government decisions. Delay in filing objections beyond the prescribed period precludes subsequent challenges to the acquisition process.

The court dismissed the petition, holding that the acquisition was for a valid public purpose under Section 2(za) of the 2013 Act. It noted that the petitioner’s failure to file objections within the prescribed period precluded any claim of denial of opportunity of hearing under Section 15. The Court found no procedural lapses and ruled that the acquisition process was conducted in compliance with the law.

Final Order: Petition dismissed – Interim relief extended by four weeks – No order as to costs.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Constitution of India (COI) – Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction of High Court.

2. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) – Section 2 (za) – Definition of Public Purpose – Section 4 – Social Impact Assessment Notification – Section 11(1) – Preliminary Notification – Section 15 – Opportunity of Hearing and Filing of Objections – Section 19(2) – Declaration of Acquisition.

Subjects:

Land Acquisition – Public Purpose – Government Guest House – Social Impact Assessment – Opportunity of Hearing – Procedural Compliance – Tourism Development – Delay in Filing Objections – Judicial Review – Compensation Claim.

Nature of the Litigation: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the acquisition of land for the construction of a Government Guest House at Jalandhar Beach, Diu.

Relief Sought by Petitioner: Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the alleged acquisition of land owned and possessed by him, asserting that the acquisition lacked public purpose and violated statutory provisions under the 2013 Act.

Reason for Filing the Case: Petitioner contended that the acquisition was not for public purpose, argued procedural lapses in providing an opportunity of hearing under Section 15 of the 2013 Act, and claimed the existence of sufficient guest houses in the locality.

Prior Decisions: No interim decision favoring the petitioner, except interim relief granted during the pendency of the case.

Issues:

a) Whether the acquisition of the petitioner’s land for the construction of a Government Guest House constitutes a public purpose under the 2013 Act. b) Whether the petitioner was denied an opportunity of hearing under Section 15 of the 2013 Act. c) Whether the acquisition complied with the procedural requirements laid down by the 2013 Act.

d) Whether the petitioner’s delay in filing objections precluded his right to challenge the acquisition process.

Submissions/Arguments:

Petitioner’s Arguments: a) Acquisition lacked public purpose as there were already seven existing guest houses in the locality. b) Construction of a Government Guest House is not a tourism project and does not fulfill the definition of public purpose under Section 3(za) r/w Section 2 of the 2013 Act. c) No opportunity of hearing was provided despite the petitioner’s objections filed against the acquisition. d) Proposed acquisition would severely affect the petitioner’s business and property without any corresponding benefit to the public.

Respondents’ Arguments: a) Acquisition was initiated for a public purpose and followed all statutory procedures under the 2013 Act. b) Petitioner failed to file objections within the 60-day period prescribed under Section 15 of the 2013 Act. c) Public purpose was established through the Social Impact Assessment and the need for additional land for the Government Guest House. d) Acquisition process was transparent, and objections filed after the declaration under Section 19(2) of the 2013 Act could not be considered.