BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ASGARDA

WRIT PETITION

IN THE MATTER OF:

KISAN SEVA MANCH

…PETITIONER

V.

UNION OF ASGARDA

…RESPONDENT

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF ASGARDA

AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ASGARDA

 Statutes
1. The Right to Fair Compensation And Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
2. Asgarda Constitution, 1950
3. Environment Protection Act, 1986

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Asgarda has jurisdiction to hear the instant matter under Article
32 of the Constitution of ASGARDA.

Article 32 of the Constitution reads as follows:

Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1)  The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2)  The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this
Part
(3)  Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and
( 2 ), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of
its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4)  The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
for by this Constitution
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. That the Central Government of the Union of Asgarda , has entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) with the Union of Jazaniya , wherein both the countries will
jointly build a High Speed Rail Network (Bullet Train) connecting the major financial
centres of Aishbad in Gurjarrashtra state and Momzai in Maharat state.For the
construction of the High Speed Rail Network(Bullet Train),the Union of Asgarda is
required to acquire the land of a large number of farmers of Gurjarrashtra and
Maharat.For this purpose,the Central Government of the Union of Asgarda enmarked a
number of villages from where the land acquisition needs to be done.

2. That the farmers of Gurjarrashtra apprehend that their farmlands will be unduly acquired
by the union of Asgarda for the construction of the High Speed Rail Network (Bullet
Train) .They also are against the acquisition as it will affect their right to livelihood.They
are also skeptical of the fact that under the existing legislations, they will not be
adequately compensated. Also, the Union of Asgarda has not come up with a concrete
plan regarding how it will combat the enormous loss to the environment as thousands of
trees will be cut off for the poject , which will again affect the right to life of the people
of the concerned areas.

3. With these apprehensions of the violations of the fundamental rights of the farmers, the
Kisan Seva Manch (is an NGO based in Suryadesh city of Gurjarrashtra state of the
Union of Asgarda ) on behalf of the farmers as well as the people of the concerned areas
of the state of Gurjarrashtra , has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of Asgarda to
stop the acquisition of the land of the farmers.
 ISSUES INVOLVED 2013
1. Whether the petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable or
not?
2. Whether the land acquisition by the Central Government of
the Union of Asgarda is violative of Article 21 of Constitution?
3. Whether the land acquisition by the Central Government
comes under the definition of public purpose?
4. Whether the Central Government has the right to exercise
“Eminent Domain” over the territory of the State?
5. Whether the Central Government follows the adequate
procedure for acquisition of land?
6. Whether the farmers are adequately compensated by the
Central Government?
7. Whether the land acquisition by the central government
contributes to the enormous loss to the environmental
conditions?

Arguments Presented
ISSUE – 1
petitioner
It is submitted that the petition filed by the (petitioner) Kisan Seva Manch is maintainable under
Article 32 of the Constitution of Asgarda. Under Article 32, the SC has the jurisdiction to try the
present case.
Respondent
It is contended that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. Kisan Seva Manch i.e.
petitioner in the present case has no locus standi to file the present case as the petitioner does not
have a direct interest in the present case.

ISSUE – 2
Petitioner
It is submitted that acquisition of land by the Central Government is violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution. Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty.
Land Acquisition by the Central Government for the construction of High Speed Rail Netowrk
(Bullet Train) deprived the farmers from their personal liberty as it will affect their right to
livelihood. Right to Livelihood is an integral part of right to life and personal liberty. (Charu
Khanna v. UOI AIR 2015 SC 839).

Respondent
It is contended that land acquisition by the Central Government is not violative of Article 21 of
the Constitution. Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Land Acq. By the Central Govt.
does not deprive the farmers from their personal liberty as it will not affect their right to
livelihood. The acquisition of land by the central govt for the construction of high speed rail
network (bullet train) is done by the govt. in accordance with the procedure established by law
i.e. Land Acquisition Act, 2013. Hence there is no violation of Fundamental right enshrined in
Article 21 of the Constitution.

ISSUE – 3
Petitioner
It is submitted that the acquisition of the land for the construction of High Speed rail network
(bullet train) does not come under the purview of public purpose under section 2 of the LAA,
2013 and therefore the central govt does not have right to acquire the land for public purpose.
Respondent
It is contended that the acquisition of land for the construction of high speed rail network (bullet
train) comes under the purview of public purpose under Section 2(1)(b) of the LAA, 2013 and
therefore the central govt has the right to acquire land. When the appropriate govt acquires land
for its own use, hold and control, including for Public Sector Undertakings and for public
purpose, and shall include the following purposes, namely: (b) for infrastructure projects, which
includes the following, namely:—
(i) all activities or items listed in the notification of the Government of India in the
Department of Economic Affairs (Infrastructure Section) number 13/6/2009-INF, dated the
27th March, 2012, excluding private hospitals, private educational institutions and private
hotels;
(ii) projects involving agro-processing, supply of inputs to agriculture, warehousing, cold
storage facilities, marketing infrastructure for agriculture and allied activities such as dairy,
fisheries, and meat processing, set up or owned by the appropriate Government or by a
farmers' cooperative or by an institution set up under a statute;
(iii) project for industrial corridors or mining activities, national investment and
manufacturing zones, as designated in the National Manufacturing Policy;
(iv) project for water harvesting and water conservation structures, sanitation;
(v) project for Government administered, Government aided educational and research
schemes or institutions;
(vi) project for sports, health care, tourism, transportation or space programme;
(vii) any infrastructure facility as may be notified in this regard by the Central Government
and after tabling of such notification in Parliament;

ISSUE -4
Petitioner
It is submitted that the govt has power to exercise eminent domain over the territory of Asgarda.
Doctrine of eminent domain in its general connotation means the supreme power of the king or
the govt. under which property of any person can be taken over in the interest of general public.
But after the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 it is provided that the govt should safeguard the
common benefits, protection and security of the whole community while exercising this power.
In Sooraram Reddy v. Collector Ranga Reddy, the Honble SC reviewed the power of eminent
domain as “Eminent domain is malafide exercise of power”.
The doctrine of eminent domain is based on two maxims namely:
 Salus Populi Supreme Ley Esto i.e. welfare of the public.
 Necessata public major est quan ie. Public interest is more important than private.
Thus the power of eminent domain has to be exercised carefully for the purpose of acquiring
private property for public purpose.
Respondent
It is contended that the govt. has absolute right to exercise eminent domain over the territory of
the state. In State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, the SC defined eminent domain as the power of
sovereign to take property for public use without the owner’s consent upon making just
compensation. The power of the State to take private property for public use and consequent
right to the owner to compensate now emerges from the Constitution of Asgarda. In entry 42 List
3 of the Seventh schedule under constitution of Asgarda, both Union and state govt. are
empowered to enact laws relating to acquisition of property.

ISSUE – 5
Petitioner
It is submitted that the acquisition of the land for the construction of High Speed rail network
(bullet train) by central govt., while making such accusation the central govt. does not follow the
adequate procedure for the acquisition of land as provided in ACT of 2013. While making the
land acquisition, the govt has follow the following procedure:
1. Determination of social impact assessment and public purpose.
2. Issuance of preliminary notification.
3. Hearing of objections
4. Preparation of rehabilitation and resettlement scheme.
In the present case the govt. while making land acquisition does not properly followed the
abovementioned procedure and hence the land acquisition by the govt is not valid.
Respondent
It is contended that the acquisition of the land for the construction of High Speed rail network
(bullet train) by central govt., while making such accusation the central govt. follow the adequate
procedure for the acquisition of land as provided in ACT of 2013. While making the land
acquisition, the govt has follow the following procedure:
1. Determination of social impact assessment and public purpose.
2. Issuance of preliminary notification.
3. Hearing of objections
4. Preparation of rehabilitation and resettlement scheme.
In the present case the govt. while making land acquisition properly followed the
abovementioned procedure and hence the land acquisition by the govt is valid.
ISSUE - 6
PETITIONER
It is submitted that the central govt did not adequately compensated the farmers for the
acquisition of their land. The govt. while making compensation does not properly followed the
procedure mentioned in Section 27 of LAA, 2013 .Section 27 read as under:
27. Determination of amount of compensation.–The Collector having determined the market
value of the land to be acquired shall calculate the total amount of compensation to be paid to the
land owner (whose land has been acquired) by including all assets attached to the land.
It is further submitted that the collector while determining the market value of land does not
follow the procedure mentioned in section 26 of the Act and therefore the farmers are not
adequately compensated by the central govt.

RESPODENT
It is contended that the central govt while making the compensation properly followed the
procedure provided in the Act of 2013. While determining the market value of the land, the
collector properly follows the procedure laid down in section 26 of the Act of 2013.

26. Determination of market value of land by Collector.–

(1) The Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing and determining the market value
of the land, namely:— (a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of
1899) for the registration of sale deeds or agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the area,
where the land is situated; or (b) the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the
nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or (c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon
under sub-section
(2) of section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for private companies or for public private
partnership projects, whichever is higher: 20 Provided that the date for determination of market
value shall be the date on which the notification has been issued under section 11.
Explanation 1.—The average sale price referred to in clause (b) shall be determined taking into
account the sale deeds or the agreements to sell registered for similar type of area in the near
village or near vicinity area during immediately preceding three years of the year in which such
acquisition of land is proposed to be made.
Explanation 2.—For determining the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1, one-half of
the total number of sale deeds or the agreements to sell in which the highest sale price has been
mentioned shall be taken into account.
Explanation 3.—While determining the market value under this section and the average sale
price referred to in Explanation 1 or Explanation 2, any price paid as compensation for land
acquired under the provisions of this Act on an earlier occasion in the district shall not be taken
into consideration.
Explanation 4.—While determining the market value under this section and the average sale
price referred to in Explanation 1 or Explanation 2, any price paid, which in the opinion of the
Collector is not indicative of actual prevailing market value may be discounted for the purposes
of calculating market value.
(2) The market value calculated as per sub-section (1) shall be multiplied by a factor to be
specified in the First Schedule. (3) Where the market value under sub-section (1) or sub-section
(2) cannot be determined for the reason that— (a) the land is situated in such area where the
transactions in land are restricted by or under any other law for the time being in force in that
area; or (b) the registered sale deeds or agreements to sell as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-
section (1) for similar land are not available for the immediately preceding three years; or (c) the
market value has not been specified under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) by the
appropriate authority, the State Government concerned shall specify the floor price or minimum
price per unit area of the said land based on the price calculated in the manner specified in sub-
section (1) in respect of similar types of land situated in the immediate adjoining areas: Provided
that in a case where the Requiring Body offers its shares to the owners of the lands (whose lands
have been acquired) as a part compensation, for acquisition of land, such shares in no case shall
exceed twenty-five per cent, of the value so calculated under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or
sub-section (3) as the case may be: Provided further that the Requiring Body shall in no case
compel any owner of the land (whose land has been acquired) to take its shares, the value of
which is deductible in the value of the land calculated under sub-section (1): Provided also that
the Collector shall, before initiation of any land acquisition proceedings in any area, take all
necessary steps to revise and update the market value of the land on the basis of the prevalent
market rate in that area: Provided also that the appropriate Government shall ensure that the
market value determined for acquisition of any land or property of an educational institution
established and administered by a religious or linguistic minority shall be such as would not
restrict or abrogate the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
ISSUE – 7
PETITIONER
It is submitted that the acquisition of the land for the construction of High Speed rail network
(bullet train) by central govt. also affects the environmental conditions as central govt. has not
come up with a concrete plan regarding how it will combat the enormous loss to the environment
as thousand of tress will be cut off for the project which will again affect the right to life of the
people of the concerned areas. Section 2(a) of the Environment Protection 1986 provides
definition of environment as follows:
“environment”” includes water, air and land and the inter-relationship which exists among and between water,
air and land, and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property;
Respondent
it is contended that the central govt

Prayer
Petitioner
Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, may this
honorable court pleased to:
To uphold the land acquisition invalid and issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or
Pass any order, direction, or relief that this honble court may deem fit in the interest of justice,
equity and good conscious.
Respondent
Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, may this
honorable court pleased to:
To uphold the land acquisition valid or
Pass any order, direction, or relief that this honble court may deem fit in the interest of justice,
equity and good conscious.