-STATUTES-

 Article 19 (1) (f), CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950

 Article 31, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950
 Article 300, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950
 THE 44th AMENDEMENT ACT, 1978
 THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT,1894
 THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND
ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013

-CASES-
1. Indra Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain and Anr. 1975 AIR 1590, 1975 SCC (2) 159
2. State of Tamil Nadu vs L. Krishnan 1996 SCC (7) 450, JT 1996 (1) 660
3. P. Vajravelu Mudaliar vs Special Deputy Collector 1965 AIR 1017, 1965 SCR (1) 614
4. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun vs State of Uttar Pradesh 1985
AIR 652, 1985 SCR (3) 169
-LEGAL DATABASES-

 www.Manupatra.com
 www.SCCOnline.com
 www.Westlaw.com
 www.HeinOnline.com
-STATEMENT OF FACTS-
 XYZ National Highway Authority Agency in its official gazette dated 24-09-2023,
notified to acquire a large tract of agricultural land to construct a new six-lane
highway connecting two major cities, and to purchase the marked required piece of
land of approximately 1000 acres directly from the farmers along the Greater Noida
Expressway for developing new industrial sectors.
 XYZ National Highway Authority Agency in its notification, has mentioned that the
Ram Nagar district administration will be the Nodal executing authority with XYZ to
acquire the agricultural land for the project under The Land Acquisition Act of 2013.
 The acquisition started accordingly in December 2013. Still, the same was halted as
farmers and land owners of the proposed project land protested against the acquisition
by the authority as the compensation amount offered to affected farmers and land
owners at the rate of ₹3,324 per square meter (sqm) was much lower than the market
value of the land proposed to be acquired. As a result, affected farmers and land
owners refused to give their consent to the authority for the acquisition until it
increases the compensation amount for the land already acquired and proposed to be
acquired under its said notification for the project at the rates above the existing
market value of the land.
  However, the notices were issued to farmers and landowners and acquisition process
started, but it was observed that the some of the farmers and landowners notified did
not consent and adhered to the notices issued for acquisition process by the authority
claiming that the compensation offered by the authority is inadequate and that the
Social Impact Assessment process conducted was flawed.
 In addition, it is also noted that the land in question is primarily owned by a group of
farmers who have been cultivating it for generations. The main contention of the
farmers and landowners is that the acquisition process in question not only deprives
them of their livelihood but also in violation of their constitutional rights.
 According to the states presented by the concerned authority of the project, out of 950
acres of minimum required land to complete the project, 650 acres has already been
acquired out of which around 630 acres have been acquired for completing the part of
project in sectors 14, 15, 16, and 20 falling between the Yamuna and the Noida-
Greater Noida Expressway. Around 300 or more acres of the proposed and notified
land for the project is required to be acquired to complete the basic infrastructure
works of the pending project including roads, parks and drainage system, etc.
 The farmers and the land owners (of the land already acquired and proposed to be
acquired) have challenged the notification for acquisition under The Land Acquisition
Act of 2013, notified by XYZ National Highway Authority Agency in its official
gazette dated 24-09-2023.
-SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS-
ISSUE 1
Whether the Act is in line with the constitutional provisions protecting the fundamental rights
of citizens, including the right to property and the right to livelihood?
It is humbly submitted that the Land Acquisition Act, through its provisions for fair
compensation, rehabilitation, and balancing public interest with individual rights, aligns with
the constitutional framework of protecting the right to property and livelihood while enabling
necessary land acquisition for development projects.

-ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-
ISSUE 1
Whether the Act is in line with the constitutional provisions protecting the fundamental rights
of citizens, including the right to property and the right to livelihood?

1. The land acquisition process in India was governed by the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act (LARR Act) of 2013. However, it's important to note that in 2020,
the Indian government passed the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Amendment Act,
 which made significant changes to land acquisition rules, including exemptions for
certain types of projects from the requirements of social impact assessment, consent
of affected families, and other safeguards present in the original 2013 Act.

2. It is most respectfully submitted that the the Land Acquisition Act, while it has
undergone several amendments over time, aims to strike a balance between the right
to property and the right to livelihood, aligning with the constitutional provisions
safeguarding these fundamental rights of citizens in India.

2.1. Right to Property: The Constitution of India originally recognized the right to property as
a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31. However, through the 44th
Amendment Act in 1978, the right to property was removed as a fundamental right and
placed under Article 300A as a legal right. The Land Acquisition Act, while allowing the
acquisition of land for public purposes, also ensures that fair compensation is provided to the
landowners. The Act incorporates provisions for compensation at market rates, rehabilitation,
and resettlement measures for those affected, thereby safeguarding the economic interests of
individuals losing their land.

2.2. Right to Livelihood: The Act also acknowledges the right to livelihood, an essential
aspect of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It ensures
that adequate compensation and rehabilitation measures are provided to affected persons,
including farmers and those dependent on the acquired land for their livelihoods.
Additionally, the Act emphasizes the need for social impact assessment and the consent of
affected families in certain cases, ensuring that their interests and livelihoods are considered
before land acquisition.

2.3. Balancing Public Interest and Private Rights: The Land Acquisition Act facilitates the
acquisition of land for projects deemed to serve the larger public interest, such as
infrastructure development, housing, and industrial projects. It establishes a mechanism for
fair and justifiable acquisition, balancing the public interest with the rights of individuals.

2.4. Constitutional Safeguards: The Act is in line with constitutional provisions and judicial
interpretations that recognize the state's authority to acquire land for public purposes while
ensuring that the acquisition process is just, fair, and non-arbitrary. The Act outlines detailed
procedures, including provisions for hearing objections, compensation determination, and
rehabilitation, in line with the principles of natural justice.

2.5. Judicial Scrutiny and Accountability: The Act is subject to judicial review, ensuring that
any acquisition process adheres to constitutional principles and safeguards the rights of
affected individuals. Courts have often intervened to ensure that the acquisition process is
carried out in compliance with the law and respects the rights of citizens.
 3. Several cases have upheld the constitutionality of land acquisition laws.

3.1. Indra Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain and Anr. (1975): This case emphasized that the right
to property is not a fundamental right but a legal right. It supported the notion that the
government has the power to acquire land for public purposes, provided fair compensation is
given.

3.2. State of Tamil Nadu vs L. Krishnan (1996): The Supreme Court held that the acquisition
of land for a housing scheme was in public interest and did not violate the right to property,
as long as adequate compensation was provided.

3.3. P. Vajravelu Mudaliar vs Special Deputy Collector (1965): The Court ruled that the
government’s power of eminent domain to acquire land for public purposes was not violative
of the right to property, emphasizing the need for just and fair compensation.

3.4. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1989): In
this case, the Supreme Court recognized that while land acquisition for public purposes was
permissible, it should also ensure the rehabilitation and resettlement of affected persons.

4. These cases, among others, have consistently upheld the validity of land acquisition
laws by emphasizing the importance of public interest, just compensation, and the
rehabilitation of affected individuals, ensuring that these laws are in consonance with
the constitutional provisions safeguarding the rights of citizens.