Court Rules Acquisition Valid Despite Ordinance Lapse, Emphasizes Cultural Heritage Preservation and Inspiration for Future Generations
In a significant judgment delivered on July 13, 2026, the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) dismissed a petition challenging the acquisition of a 6,600 sq.ft. plot adjoining the statue of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar in Amravati. The land was sought for constructing a mural and beautification of the precinct surrounding the statue. The petitioner, Dr. Chandrashekhar Madanlal Gattani, contended that the acquisition violated constitutional rights and provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“the Act of 2013”), notably questioning the “public purpose” justification and procedural validity due to the lapse of a relevant Ordinance.
The Court thoroughly examined the purpose of acquisition and held that creating a mural to honor Dr. Ambedkar’s legacy transcends mere beautification; it serves a critical public purpose by preserving cultural heritage and fostering intellectual and moral values among future generations. The Court cited the constitutional duty under Article 51A(f) to “value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture” and reiterated precedents establishing that memorials and cultural projects constitute legitimate public purposes.
Addressing procedural objections, the petitioner argued that the acquisition notifications were issued relying on Section 10A of the Act, introduced via Ordinance No.9/2014, which had lapsed before the notifications. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017) to clarify that rights, obligations, and liabilities arising under a lapsed Ordinance can survive if the acquisition is in public interest and has assumed irreversible character. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings did not automatically become void due to the Ordinance lapse.
Regarding compliance with social impact assessment and hearing requirements under Chapters II and III of the Act, the Court found the unique facts warranted limited procedural formalities. The land involved was a small piece adjoining the existing statue with no displacement of families or significant social impact. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused by the process or to suggest feasible alternate land for acquisition. The Court further noted that the acquisition notifications complied with the requirement to acquire only the bare minimum land necessary.
The Court dismissed the petition, holding the acquisition to be lawful and in the public interest, and observed that the petitioner’s rights under Article 300A were not violated due to adequate procedural safeguards and compensation. The Court extended the interim status quo on possession for four more weeks, after which the acquisition process may proceed.
This judgment underscores the judiciary’s recognition of cultural preservation as a valid public purpose under the Act of 2013 and clarifies procedural nuances when Ordinances lapse during acquisition proceedings. It affirms the State’s authority to acquire land for projects that contribute to the social and intellectual fabric of the nation, provided constitutional and statutory safeguards are respected.
Bottom Line:
Acquisition of land for constructing mural and beautification project around Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar's statue constitutes "public purpose" under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Statutory provision(s):
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Sections 2(1), 10A, 11(1), 19(2); Constitution of India Articles 14, 51A(f), 123, 300A
