MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
(Proposition No. 10)(B3)
SUBMITTED TO:
Dr. Virender Negi
SUBMITTED BY:
Rewant Mehra
Roll No. 73/16
B.A.LL.B. Hons.
Semester – 9
Section - B
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ASGARDA
WRIT PETITION
IN THE MATTER OF
KISAN SEVA MANCH
….PETITIONER
Vs.
UNION OF ASGARDA
….RESPONDENT
BEFORE SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF ASGARDA
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ASGARDA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
S. No. Particulars Slide No.
1. List of abbreviations 4
2. Table of Cases 5
3. Statutes Referred 6
4. Statement of Jurisdiction 7
5. Statement of Facts 8
6. Issues Involved 10
7. Arguments Presented 11
8. Prayer 15
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
S. No. Abbreviation Full Form
1. Hon’ble Honorable
2. HSRN High Speed Rail Network
3. UOA Union of Asgarda
4. UOI Union of India
TABLE OF CASES
Charu Khanna v. UOI AIR 2015 SC 839
Sooraram Pratap Reddy v. (2008) 9 SCC 552
District Collector, Ranga
Reddy
STATUTES REFERRED
• The Constitution of Asgarda, 1950.
• The Environment Protection Act, 1986.
• The Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act,
2013.
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 UOA , has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with the Union of Jazaniya , wherein both the countries will jointly build a HSRN
(Bullet Train) connecting the major financial centres of Aishbad in Gurjarrashtra state and
Momzai in Maharat state. For the construction of the HSRN (Bullet Train), the UOA 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
UOA for the construction of the HSRN (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 UOA 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 project , which will again affect the right to life of the people of
the concerned areas.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
3. With these apprehensions of the violations of the fundamental rights of the farmers, the Kisan
Seva Manch (an NGO based in Suryadesh city of Gurjarrashtra state of the UOA) 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
1. Whether the petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable or not?
2. Whether the land acquisition by the Central Government of the UOA is violative of Article 21
of the 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 followed 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
It is submitted that the petition filed by the Kisan Seva Manch (petitioner) is maintainable under
Article 32 of the Constitution of Asgarda. Under Article 32, the SC has the jurisdiction to try the
present case.
• ISSUE-2
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 HSRN (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)
• ISSUE-3
It is submitted that the acquisition of the land for the construction of HSRN (Bullet Train) does not
come under the purview of public purpose under Section 2 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 and
therefore the central government does not have right to acquire the land for public purpose.
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED
• ISSUE-4
It is submitted that the government 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
government should safeguard the common benefits, protection and security of the whole
community while exercising this power. In Sooraram Reddy v. District Collector, Ranga
Reddy (2008) 9 SCC 552 the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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:
1. salus populi supreme ley esto i.e. welfare of the public.
2. necessata public major est quan i.e.. 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.
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED
• ISSUE-5
It is submitted that the acquisition of the land for the construction of HSRN (Bullet Train) by the
Central Government, while making such accusation, the Central Government did not follow the
adequate procedure for the acquisition of land as provided in Act of 2013. While making the land
acquisition, the government has to 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.
• ISSUE-6
It is submitted that the Central Government did not adequately compensated the farmers for the
acquisition of their land. The government while making compensation did not properly follow the
procedure mentioned in Section 27 of Land Acquisition Act, 2013. Section 27 reads as under:
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.
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED
It is further submitted that the collector while determining the market value of land did not
follow the procedure mentioned in section 26 of the Act and therefore the farmers were not
adequately compensated by the Central Government.
• ISSUE-7
It is submitted that the acquisition of the land for the construction of HSRN (Bullet Train) by
Central Government also affects the environmental conditions as Central Government 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
Act, 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.
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to:
UPHOLD the land acquisition invalid and issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus.
AND/OR
Pass any other Order, Direction or Relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interests of
justice, equity and good conscience.
Place:
Date
Sd/-
(Counsel for the Petitioner)
