Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1297 (GUJ)

HITESHKUMAR NATVARLAL THAKKAR v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2017-07-20

B.N.KARIA, M.R.SHAH

body2017
JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1.0 As in both these petitions dispute is with respect to one land and they are interconnected, both these petitions are heard, decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 1.1 RULE in both the petitions. Shri Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents nos.1 and 2, Shri Shivang Shah, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.3 and Shri D.G. Chauhan, learned advocate wavies service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.4 in Special Civil Application No.17782/2013. Shri Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents nos.1, 2 and 3, Shri Shivang Shah, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.4 and Shri D.G. Chauhan, learned advocate wavies service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.5 in Special Civil Application No.18038/2015. 2.0 Special Civil Application No.17782/2013 has been preferred by the petitioner herein – owner of the land bearing Survey No.343 situated at village Hansapur, District Patan for the following reliefs; (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 13/06/2013 passed respondent – Collector (at Annexure – C hereto); (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct respondents to demolish the illegal construction put up by them in the land belonging to the petitioner bearing Survey No.343 at Hansapur, District Patan. (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions holding that the action of the respondent authorities in digging up the land of the petitioner for the purpose of construction of gutter water pumping station being land situated at Revenue Survey No.343, Hansapur, District Patan is illegal and without authority of law; 3.0 Special Civil Application No.18038/2015 has been preferred by the petitioner – owner of the land bearing Survey No.343 situated at village Hansapur, District Patan for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned Notification dated 05/08/2015 issued under Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein after referred to as “the Act, 2013”) by which the land admeasuring 58 sq meters, out of the land bearing Survey No.343 paiki situated at village Hansapur, District Patan, is intended to be acquired under the provisions of the Act, 2013 for the public purpose i.e. pumping station and underground sewage project at Patan City. 4.0 As one part of the land bearing Survey No.343 situated at village Hansapur, District Patan, owned by the petitioner, was alleged to be encroached upon by the respondents, more particularly, Patan Nagarpalika and Gujarat Urban Development Company Ltd, who was entrusted with the work of constructing the pumping station and the adjacent land bearing Survey No.375 /A paiki 2 admeasuring 100 sq meters was alloted by the Collector to the Patan Nagarpalika for the purpose of construction of pumping station, the petitioner – owner of the land bearing Survey No.343 paiki has preferred Special Civil Application No.17782/2013 for the aforesaid reliefs. 4.1 Respondents nos.3 and 4 initially denied that there was any encroachment by them on the land of the petitioner and it was denied that any part construction was made on the land of the petitioner, and therefore, the Collector, Patan was directed to submit the report after getting measurement and survey carried out by the DILR. The Collector submitted its report dated 03/06/2014, which is placed on record by the petitioner under further affidavit dated 16/07/2014 and from the said report it is proved that part of the construction of pumping station is put towards certain land of the petitioner. The Collector submitted its report dated 03/06/2014, which is placed on record by the petitioner under further affidavit dated 16/07/2014 and from the said report it is proved that part of the construction of pumping station is put towards certain land of the petitioner. It was found that there was encroachment on the land of the petitioner, bearing Survey No.343 paiki to the extend of 58 sq meters, and therefore, it is the case on behalf of the petitioner that without acquiring the land of the petitioner and without authority under the law, Patan Nagarpalika and Gujarat Urban Development Company Ltd. have made part construction of pumping station on the private land belonging to the petitioner. 5.0 Shri Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that some of the respondents, who can be said to be the State authorities have encroached upon the private property of the petitioner, may be for public purpose. It is submitted that neither any acquisition proceedings have been initiated nor the petitioner has been paid any compensation. It is submitted that therefore the respondents – State authorities have put up part construction on some portion of the land of the petitioner without authority under the law, and therefore, whatever construction is put up, the same is to be removed and /or be directed to be removed /demolished. 5.1 Shri Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while challenging the impugned order passed by the Collector allocating the land admeasuring 100 sq meters, out of the land bearing Survey No.375 A paiki 2, which is just adjacent to the land of the petitioner for the purpose of pumping station, has vehemently submitted that as such the same is likely to affect the petitioner's land bearing Survey No.343 situated at village Hansapur, District Patan. It is submitted that there is some other land available on which the pumping station can be constructed. It is submitted that therefore the action of the Collector in allocating the adjacent land for pumping station is mala fide. Making the above submissions, it is requested to allow Special Civil Application No.17782/2013 and grant the reliefs as prayed for. 5.2 In support of his above submission, Shri Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has heavily relied upon the following decisions; (i) Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. Through Power of Attorney Holder Vs. Making the above submissions, it is requested to allow Special Civil Application No.17782/2013 and grant the reliefs as prayed for. 5.2 In support of his above submission, Shri Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has heavily relied upon the following decisions; (i) Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. Through Power of Attorney Holder Vs. MIDC & Ors reported in 2012 (3) GLH 807; (ii) Karnataka State Financial Corporation Vs. N. Narasimahaiah & Ors reported in 2008 (5) SCC 176 ; (iii) State of Punjab Vs. Gurdial Singh & Ors reported in 1980 (2) SCC 471 . 5.3 Now so far as challenge to the impugned Notification under Section 11 of the Act, 2013, which is subject matter of Special Civil Application No.18038/2015 is concerned, Shri Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the impugned Notification under Section 11 of the Act, 2013 is absolutely illegal and bad in law inasmuch as before issuing the Notification under Section 11 of the Act, 2013 procedure is required to be followed under Sections 4 to 6 of the Act, 2013, which are not followed. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that by not following the procedure under Sections 4 to 6 of the Act, 2013 the valuable right of the petitioner to submit the objections have been taken away. It is submitted by Shri Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that before issuing Notification under Section 11 of the Act, 2013, appropriate Government is required to follow the procedure as required under Section 4 of the Act, 2013 and is required to obtain the report of Social Impact Assessment. It is submitted that the Social Impact Assessment report shall be followed by Social Impact Assessment study. It is submitted that as per Section 5 of the Act, 2013 even the appropriate Government shall ensure that the public hearing is held at the affected area, after giving adequate publicity about the date, time and venue for the public hearing, to ascertain the views of the affected families to be recorded and included in the Social Impact Assessment report. It is submitted that even the Social Impact Assessment report is also required to be published as required under Section 6 of the Act, 2013. It is submitted that even the Social Impact Assessment report is also required to be published as required under Section 6 of the Act, 2013. It is submitted that even thereafter as required under Section 7 of the Act, 2013, appropriate Government is required to ensure that the Social Impact Assessment report is evaluated by an independent multi-disciplinary expert group, as may be constituted by it. It is submitted that thereafter if all the conditions mentioned in Section 8 (1) are satisfied, appropriate Government may recommend such area for acquisition, which would ensure minimum displacement of people, minimum disturbance to the infrastructure, ecology and minimum adverse impact on the individuals affected. It is submitted that none of the aforesaid procedure has been followed by the appropriate authority before issuing the impugned Notification under Section 11 of the Act, 2013. It is submitted that therefore the impugned Notification under Section 11 of the Act, 2013 with respect to the land in question deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6.0 Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader has appeared on behalf of the State Government, Shri Shivang Shah, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of Patan Nagarpalika and Shri D.G. Chauhan, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of Gujarat Urban Development Company Ltd. 6.1 Number of affidavit-in-replies have been filed on behalf of the respective respondents. However, considering the report submitted by the Collector, after getting the land measured by the DILR, it appears that out of the land bearing Survey No.343 situated at village Hansapur, District Patan owned by the petitioner, area admeasuring 58 sq meters have been encroached upon by the Patan Nagarpalika and Gujarat Urban Development Company Ltd. and they have put up part construction of pumping station on the private land belonging to the petitioner. Till the impugned Notification under Section 11 of the Act, 2013 was issued, action of the respondents to put up part construction of pumping station on the land of the petitioner can be said to be without authority under the law. Under the circumstances, the aforesaid Special Civil Application No.17782/2013 is required to be allowed to the aforesaid extent by restraining respondents nos.3 and 4 – Patan Nagarpalika and Gujarat Urban Development Company Ltd. from putting up any further construction unless authorised by law. Under the circumstances, the aforesaid Special Civil Application No.17782/2013 is required to be allowed to the aforesaid extent by restraining respondents nos.3 and 4 – Patan Nagarpalika and Gujarat Urban Development Company Ltd. from putting up any further construction unless authorised by law. 6.2 Now so far as challenge to the order passed by the Collector allocating /alloting the land bearing Survey No.375 /A paiki 2 admeasuring 100 sq meters situated at village Hansapur, District Patan, which is subject matter of Special Civil Application No.17782/2013 is concerned, it is vehemently submitted by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respondents that the land bearing Survey No.375 /A paiki 2 admeasuring 100 sq meters belong to the State Government and was a padtar land and as the same was needed for the public purpose of underground sewage and pumping station, Collector has rightly allotted the said land to the Patan Nagarpalika. It is submitted that the said land is the most suitable land, which is needed for the public purpose. It is submitted that except by stating that the action is mala fide it is not further stated how the allocation of the Government made to the Patan Nagarpalika for public purpose can be said to be mala fide. It is submitted that merely because pumping station is likely to be constructed on the land just adjacent to the land of the petitioner and the petitioner may not like it, the action /allocation would not become mala fide. It is submitted that it is ultimately for the appropriate authority to choose the land, which is needed for public purpose, and therefore, it is requested to dismiss Special Civil Application No.17782/2013 in so far as challenging the impugned order dated 13/06/2013 alloting the Government land bearing Survey No.375 /A paiki 2 to the Patan Nagarpalika for pumping station. 6.3 Now so far as Special Civil Application No.18038/2015 and challenge to the impugned Notification under Section 11 of the Act, 2013 is concerned, though initially Ms. 6.3 Now so far as Special Civil Application No.18038/2015 and challenge to the impugned Notification under Section 11 of the Act, 2013 is concerned, though initially Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader tried to oppose the petition by submitting that the proceedings at this stage are at the stage of Notification under Section 11 of the Act, 2013 by which only preliminary Notification has been issued declaring the intention that the land in question is required for public purpose, however, she has fairly conceded that before issuing /publishing the Notification under Section 11 of the Act, 2013 procedure as required under Sections 4 to 8 of the Act, 2013 has not been followed. She has stated at the bar that as the land in question is urgently needed for public purpose for underground sewage and pumping station, Government may in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Act, 2013 exempt undertaking of the Social Impact Assessment study. She has stated at the bar that therefore in the present case, State Government may in exercise of powers under Section 9 read with Section 40 of the Act, 2013 exempt undertaking of Social Impact Assessment study. 7.0 Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. Now so far as Special Civil Application No.17782/2013 is concerned, in the said Special Civil Application challenge is twofold. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 13/06/2013 by which the Collector has allotted the land bearing Survey No.375 /A paiki 2 situated at village Hansapur, District Patan to the Patan Nagarpalika for the purpose of underground sewage and pumping station and another challenge is that without authority under the law respondents have started putting up construction of pumping station on part of the land bearing Survey No.343 situated at village Hansapur, District Patan belonging to the petitioner. 7.1 Now so far as the challenge to the impugned order dated 13/06/2013 issued by the Collector is concerned, it is required to be noted that the land admeasuring 375 /A paiki 2 admeasuring 100 sq meters is given to the Patan Nagarpalika for public purpose belonging to the State Government as a padtar land. The petitioner, as such, has nothing to do with the said land except that the land, which is allotted, is adjacent to the land of the petitioner bearing Survey No.343 situated at village Hansapur, District Patan. The petitioner, as such, has nothing to do with the said land except that the land, which is allotted, is adjacent to the land of the petitioner bearing Survey No.343 situated at village Hansapur, District Patan. Except in one line it is stated that the action is mala fide there are no further averments in the petition. It is not demonstrated how the said action is mala fide. It is the specific case on behalf of the State Government and the Nagarpalika that the land, which is allotted out of the Government land /padtar land, is the only land, which is available and needed for the public purpose. It is required to be noted that out of the total construction of pumping station, part construction is made on the land of the petitioner bearing Survey No.343 situated at village Hansapur, District Patan and the remaining construction is made on the land bearing Survey No.375 /A paiki 2. By now substantial amount has been spent for construction and the construction up to slab level has been constructed. The depth of the pumping station is 11.30 meter and diameter is 10.60 sq meter, and therefore, substantial public amount has been spent. Merely because pumping station is being constructed on the land adjacent to the petitioner, the allotment by the impugned order cannot be said to be mala fide and /or illegal. At one place pumping station is required to be constructed. It will not be for the petitioner to select the place where the pumping station is to be constructed. The land in question is very much needed for public purpose and also for the healthy and hygienic condition of the public at large. Under the circumstances, challenge to the impugned order dated 13/06/2013 fails. 7.2 However, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner is justified in making the grievance that unless and until the land belonging to the petitioner upon which part construction is made is acquired and the petitioner has been paid the compensation, respondents cannot be permitted to put up any construction. Now it is established that out of the total land bearing Survey No.343 belonging to the petitioner on 58 sq meters of land only part construction is made for pumping station. Now it is established that out of the total land bearing Survey No.343 belonging to the petitioner on 58 sq meters of land only part construction is made for pumping station. The said construction can be said to be without authority under the law so long as the same is not acquired by the appropriate authority and for which the compensation is not paid and /or the same is backed by any authority under the law. Under the circumstances, till the land in question is acquired under the provisions of the Act, 2013 and /or the petitioner is not paid the compensation as per the law, respondents cannot be permitted to put up any further construction, and therefore, appropriate respondents are required to be restrained from putting up any further construction unless it is backed by the authority of law. 7.3 At the same time the prayer of the petitioner to direct the respondents to demolish the construction already put up is concerned, as the land in question is sought to be proposed now under the provisions of the Act, 2013 and it appears that earlier under the bona fide belief that the construction is being put on the Government land the authority started the investment, by now which is public money, at the most the petitioner can be compensated with the amount of compensation /damages. We are of the opinion that it will not be in the larger public interest to demolish the pumping station, which is partly on the land belonging to the petitioner. If part construction is removed, in that case, it is likely to affect other construction, which is on the land allotted by the Government. Under the circumstances, prayer of the petitioner to direct the respondents to demolish the construction is required to be rejected. 7.4 Now so far as Special Civil Application No.18038/2015 challenging the impugned Notification under Section 11 of the Act, 2013 is concerned, while considering the challenge to the said Notification provisions of Sections 4 to 9 of the Act, 2013 are required to be referred to, which reads as under; “4. 7.4 Now so far as Special Civil Application No.18038/2015 challenging the impugned Notification under Section 11 of the Act, 2013 is concerned, while considering the challenge to the said Notification provisions of Sections 4 to 9 of the Act, 2013 are required to be referred to, which reads as under; “4. Preparation of Social Impact Assessment study.–(1) Whenever the appropriate Government intends to acquire land for a public purpose, it shall consult the concerned Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be, at village level or ward level, in the affected area and carry out a Social Impact Assessment study in consultation with them, in such manner and from such date as may be specified by such Government by notification. (2) The notification issued by the appropriate Government for commencement of consultation and of the Social Impact Assessment study under sub-section (1) shall be made available in the local language to the Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be, and in the offices of the District Collector, the Sub- Divisional Magistrate and the Tehsil, and shall be published in the affected areas, in such manner as may be prescribed, and uploaded on the website of the appropriate Government: Provided that the appropriate Government shall ensure that adequate representation has been given to the representatives of Panchayat, Gram Sabha, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be, at the stage of carrying out the Social Impact Assessment study: Provided further that the appropriate Government shall ensure the completion of the Social Impact Assessment study within a period of six months from the date of its commencement. (3) The Social Impact Assessment study report referred to in sub-section (1) shall be made available to the public in the manner prescribed under section 6. (3) The Social Impact Assessment study report referred to in sub-section (1) shall be made available to the public in the manner prescribed under section 6. (4) The Social Impact Assessment study referred to in sub-section (1) shall, amongst other matters, include all the following, namely:— (a) assessment as to whether the proposed acquisition serves public purpose; (b) estimation of affected families and the number of families among them likely to be displaced; (c) extent of lands, public and private, houses, settlements and other common properties likely to be affected by the proposed acquisition; (d) whether the extent of land proposed for acquisition is the absolute bare- minimum extent needed for the project; (e) whether land acquisition at an alternate place has been considered and found not feasible; (f) study of social impacts of the project, and the nature and cost of addressing them and the impact of these costs on the overall costs of the project vis-a-vis the benefits of the project: Provided that Environmental Impact Assessment study, if any, shall be carried out simultaneously and shall not be contingent upon the completion of the Social Impact Assessment study. (5) While undertaking a Social Impact Assessment study under sub-section (1), the appropriate Government shall, amongst other things, take into consideration the impact that the project is likely to have on various components such as livelihood of affected families, public and community properties, assets and infrastructure particularly roads, public transport, drainage, sanitation, sources of drinking water, sources of water for cattle, community ponds, grazing land, plantations, public utilities such as post offices, fair price shops, food storage godowns, electricity supply, health care facilities, schools and educational or training facilities, anganwadis, children parks, places of worship, land for traditional tribal institutions and burial and cremation grounds. (6) The appropriate Government shall require the authority conducting the Social Impact Assessment study to prepare a Social Impact Management Plan, listing the ameliorative measures required to be undertaken for addressing the impact for a specific component referred to in sub-section (5), and such measures shall not be less than what is provided under a scheme or programme, in operation in that area, of the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government, in operation in the affected area. 5. 5. Public hearing for Social Impact Assessment.–Whenever a Social Impact Assessment is required to be prepared under section 4, the appropriate Government shall ensure that a public hearing is held at the affected area, after giving adequate publicity about the date, time and venue for the public hearing, to ascertain the views of the affected families to be recorded and included in the Social Impact Assessment Report. 6. Publication of Social Impact Assessment study.–(1) The appropriate Government shall ensure that the Social Impact Assessment study report and the Social Impact Management Plan referred to in sub-section (6) of section 4 are prepared and made available in the local language to the Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be, and the offices of the District Collector, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Tehsil, and shall be published in the affected areas, in such manner as may be prescribed, and uploaded on the website of the appropriate Government. (2) Wherever Environment Impact Assessment is carried out, a copy of the Social Impact Assessment report shall be made available to the Impact Assessment Agency authorised by the Central Government to carry out environmental impact assessment: Provided that, in respect of irrigation projects where the process of Environment Impact Assessment is required under the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, the provisions of this Act relating to Social Impact Assessment shall not apply. 7. Appraisal of Social Impact Assessment report by an Expert Group.–(1) The appropriate Government shall ensure that the Social Impact Assessment report is evaluated by an independent multi-disciplinary Expert Group, as may be constituted by it. (2) The Expert Group constituted under subsection (1) shall include the following, namely:— (a) two non-official social scientists; (b) two representatives of Panchayat, Gram Sabha, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be; (c) two experts on rehabilitation; and (d) a technical expert in the subject relating to the project. (3) The appropriate Government may nominate a person from amongst the members of the Expert Group as the Chairperson of the Group. (3) The appropriate Government may nominate a person from amongst the members of the Expert Group as the Chairperson of the Group. (4) If the Expert Group constituted under subsection (1), is of the opinion that,— (a) the project does not serve any public purpose; or (b) the social costs and adverse social impacts of the project outweigh the potential benefits, it shall make a recommendation within two months from the date of its constitution to the effect that the project shall be abandoned forthwith and no further steps to acquire the land will be initiated in respect of the same: Provided that the grounds for such recommendation shall be recorded in writing by the Expert Group giving the details and reasons for such decision: Provided further that where the appropriate Government, inspite of such recommendations, proceeds with the acquisition, then, it shall ensure that its reasons for doing so are recorded in writing. (5) If the Expert Group constituted under subsection (1), is of the opinion that,— (a) the project will serve any public purpose; and (b) the potential benefits outweigh the social costs and adverse social impacts, it shall make specific recommendations within two months from the date of its constitution whether the extent of land proposed to be acquired is the absolute bare-minimum extent needed for the project and whether there are no other less displacing options available: Provided that the grounds for such recommendation shall be recorded in writing by the Expert Group giving the details and reasons for such decision. (6) The recommendations of the Expert Group referred to in sub-sections (4) and (5) shall be made available in the local language to the Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be, and the offices of the District Collector, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Tehsil, and shall be published in the affected areas, in such manner as may be prescribed and uploaded on the website of the appropriate Government. 8. 8. Examination of proposals for land acquisition and Social Impact Assessment report by appropriate Government.–(1) The appropriate Government shall ensure that— (a) there is a legitimate and bona fide public purpose for the proposed acquisition which necessitates the acquisition of the land identified; (b) the potential benefits and the public purpose referred to in clause (a) shall outweigh the social costs and adverse social impact as determined by the Social Impact Assessment that has been carried out; (c) only the minimum area of land required for the project is proposed to be acquired; (d) there is no unutilised land which has been previously acquired in the area; (e) the land, if any, acquired earlier and remained unutilised, is used for such public purpose and make recommendations in respect thereof. (2) The appropriate Government shall examine the report of the Collector, if any, and the report of the Expert Group on the Social Impact Assessment study and after considering all the reports, recommend such area for acquisition which would ensure minimum displacement of people, minimum disturbance to the infrastructure, ecology and minimum adverse impact on the individuals affected. (3) The decision of the appropriate Government shall be made available in the local language to the Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be, and the offices of the District Collector, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Tehsil, and shall be published in the affected areas, in such manner as may be prescribed, and uploaded on the website of the appropriate Government: Provided that where land is sought to be acquired for the purposes as specified in subsection (2) of section 2, the appropriate Government shall also ascertain as to whether the prior consent of the affected families as required under the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 2, has been obtained in the manner as may be prescribed. 9. Exemption from Social Impact Assessment.– Where land is proposed to be acquired invoking the urgency provisions under section 40, the appropriate Government may exempt undertaking of the Social Impact Assessment study.” 7.5 Now considering the Scheme of the Act, 2013, it appears that before the land is sought to be acquired and the Notification under Section 11 of the Act, 2013 is published there is a requirement of preliminary Notification for determination of Social Impact and public purpose. As per Sub Section (1) of Section 4 whenever the appropriate Government intends to acquire the land for public purpose, it shall consult the concerned Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be at village level or ward level, in the affected area and carry out a Social Impact Assessment study in consultation with them, in such manner and from such date as may be specified by such Government by Notification. As per Sub Section (3) of Section 4, Social Impact Assessment study report referred to in Sub Section(1) shall be made available to the public in the manner prescribed under Section 6. Social Impact Assessment study shall amongst other matters, include all the following namely:- (a) assessment as to whether the proposed acquisition serves public purpose; (b) estimation of affected families and the number of families among them likely to be displaced; (c) extent of lands, public and private, houses, settlements and other common properties likely to be affected by the proposed acquisition; (d) whether the extent of land proposed for acquisition is the absolute bare-minimum extent needed for the project; (e) whether land acquisition at an alternate place has been considered and found not feasible; (f) study of social impacts of the project, and the nature and cost of addressing them and the impact of these costs on the overall costs of the project vis-a-vis the benefits of the project; 7.6 As per Sub Section (5) of Section 4 while undertaking a Social Impact Assessment study under Sub Section (1) the appropriate Government shall, amongst other things, take into consideration the impact that the project is likely to have on various components such as livelihood of effected families public and community properties, assets and infrastructure particularly roads, public, transport, drainage, sanitation, sources of drinking water etc.. Even the appropriate Government shall also require the authority conducing the Social Impact Assessment study to prepare a Social Impact Management Plan, listing the ameliorative measures required to be undertaken for addressing the impact for a specific component referred to in Sub Section (5), and as such measures shall not be less than what is provided under a scheme or programme. As per Section 5 of the Act, 2013 whatever Social Impact Assessment is required to be prepared under Section 4 appropriate Government shall ensure that public hearing is held at the affected area, after giving adequate publicity about the date, time and venue for the public hearing, to ascertain the views of the affected families to be recorded and included in the Social Impact Assessment Report. Even the Social Impact Assessment report is required to be evaluated by an independent multi-disciplinary expert group, which shall include the members as mentioned in Section 7. Even thereafter also and after receiving of the Social Impact Assessment report, duty is cast upon the appropriate Government to ensure that there is a legitimate and bona fide public purpose for the proposed acquisition, which necessitates the acquisition of the land identified and the State Government is also required to satisfy that the potential benefits and the public purpose shall outweigh the social costs and adverse social impact as determined by the Social Impact Assessment that has been carried out and only the minimum area of land required for the project is proposed to be acquired. Only thereafter, there can be publication of preliminary Notification under Section 11 of the Act, 2013. Thus, before Notification under Section 11 of the Act, 2013 is issued, appropriate Government is required to follow the procedure as required under Sections 4 to 8 of the Act, 2013. The procedure, which is required to be followed under Sections 4 to 8 of the Act, 2013, is very important and a required procedure and number of aspects are required to be considered as mentioned in the aforesaid provisions before publication of the preliminary Notification under Section 4 of the Act, 2013. Only thereafter, Notification under Section 11 of the Act, 2013 is required to be issued /published. However, there is exception to the aforesaid procedure, where the land is required to be acquired invoking urgency under Section 40 of the Act, 2013, appropriate Government may, in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Act, 2013, exempt the undertaking of Social Impact Assessment study. In the present case, neither the urgency clause is applied as on today nor the appropriate Government, in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Act, 2013 has exempted the undertaking of Social Impact Assessment study. In the present case, neither the urgency clause is applied as on today nor the appropriate Government, in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Act, 2013 has exempted the undertaking of Social Impact Assessment study. Under the circumstances, the impugned Notification under Section 11 of the Act, 2013, without following any procedure by the appropriate authority as required under Sections 4 to 9, cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. However, at the same time, it will be open for the appropriate authority to exempt the undertaking of the Social Impact Assessment study in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Act, 2013 in case the land is needed urgently and it is proposed to acquire the land invoking the urgency provisions under Section 40. 8.0 In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, Special Civil Application No.17782/2013 is hereby partly allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly to the aforesaid extent so far as Special Civil Application No.17782/2013 is concerned. 8.1 Respondents are hereby restrained from putting up any further construction on the land belonging to the petitioner at Survey No.343 situated village Hansapur, District Patan admeasuring 58 sq meters until authorised by law and /or until the land in question is acquired under the Act, 2013 and the petitioner has been paid the compensation for the same as per the law. 8.2 However, Special Civil Application No.17782/2013 is hereby rejected /dismissed so far as challenge to the order of the Collector dated 13/06/2013 allotting /allocating the land bearing Survey 375 /A paiki 2 admeasuring 100 sq meters to the Patan Nagarpalika for the purpose of pumping station is concerned. 8.3 The prayer of the petitioner to direct the respondents to demolish the construction already put up on the land belonging to the petitioner i.e. on the land bearing Survey No.343 admeasuring 58 sq meters is hereby rejected. As observed hereinabove, the same shall not be in the larger public interest and ultimately it will be waste of public money. 9.0 In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, Special Civil Application No.18038/2015 is hereby allowed. Impugned Notification under Section 11 of the Act, 2013 with respect to the land bearing Survey No.343 admeasuring 58 sq meters situated at village Hansapur, District Patan is hereby quashed and set aside. 9.0 In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, Special Civil Application No.18038/2015 is hereby allowed. Impugned Notification under Section 11 of the Act, 2013 with respect to the land bearing Survey No.343 admeasuring 58 sq meters situated at village Hansapur, District Patan is hereby quashed and set aside. However, it will be open for the appropriate authority to acquire the land under Act, 2013 after following the due procedure as required under the provisions of the Act, 2013, including under Section 9 of the Act, 2013. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent so far as Special Civil Application No.18038/2015 is concerned. No order as to costs.