The Centre, in an affidavit, informed the Gujarat High Court that land acquisition for the bullet train project was being done by the state government and it had no role to play in it.
The Centre also said that as far as the entire process of land acquisition for the project is concerned, only a preliminary notification has been issued about the same. It argued in the affidavit that if the petitioners were aggrieved by the payment made for their land, they can resort to various provisions and remedies available under the act. It pointed out that the petitioners had approached the high court at the threshold (when only a notification for acquiring the land had been made) and hence, at this point, they were neither the aggrieved nor the affected parties.
The Centre said it would not make any further comments as the petitioners had not sought any relief.
It also stated that all notifications relating to land acquisition under the bullet train project had been issued by the state government and that the Centre and the Ministry of Rural Development (one of the parties that filed the affidavit) were neither competent nor empowered to make any submissions.
The Centre's reply came after 1,000 farmers had submitted affidavits in the Gujarat high court in opposition to the state government's claim that farmers in Gujarat were ready to give up land for the proposed Ahmedabad-Mumbai Bullet Train Project.
The HC had asked the Centre to submit its affidavit by September 26, failing which, it would grant interim relief to the farmers.
In all, five petitions have been filed before a division bench of the Gujarat high court headed by chief justice R Subhash Reddy, challenging the land acquisition for the project.
The farmers had alleged in the affidavit that their land was being acquired without their consent and without any rehabilitation package. They also alleged that the state had done away with social impact assessment for land that was being acquired for the project. The affidavit had also stated that the acquisition was in violation of the agreement entered into with Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA).
DISGRUNTLED
The farmers had alleged in the affidavit that their land was being acquired without their consent and without any rehabilitation package.
