Supreme Court: In batch of appeals arising out of the land acquisition proceedings initiated by State of Uttar Pradesh for planned development in the District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, through Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (‘YEIDA’) by invoking ‘urgency provisions’ incorporated in Sections and of the ,(‘the Act’), the division bench of BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta* , JJ. justified the State’s decision to invoke the urgency provisions under Sections and of the , allowing the acquisition to proceed without the usual hearing of objections under Section of the and upheld the land acquisition proceedings.
Background:
The case revolves around the land acquisition process initiated in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, for planned development. The Director of Land Acquisition issued a notification on 26-02-2009 under Section 4(1), invoking urgency provisions under Sections and of the . This acquisition sought to acquire land designated as ‘Abadi Bhoomi’—used by the landowners as dwelling units and for rearing cattle.
The landowners opposed the acquisition, claiming that the land in question had significant social and personal value to them. They filed representations before the Chief Executive Officer of YEIDA requesting that their land not be acquired. Despite these requests, the authorities proceeded with the acquisition, issuing a notification on 19-02-2010 under Section of the .
The landowners subsequently filed multiple writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court, challenging the acquisition, particularly focusing on the invocation of Sections 4, 6, and the urgency provisions under Sections and of the . The High Court delivered divergent views on the matter, prompting the landowners to file the present appeal to the Supreme Court by special leave.
Issues, Analysis and Decision
The Court took note of the fact that the State Government had formulated a “Policy for Planned Development along the Taj Expressway” and the notification to this effect was issued by the Infrastructure & Industrial Development Commissioner, Government of UP on 29-12-2007. The Policy dealt with the formation of Special Development Zone and the development thereof.
After perusing the said policy, the Court noted that while the development of roads and open spaces which was to constitute 35% of the land area was considered to be the core activity, the allied activities such as commercial, institutional & amenities, roads, open and circulation areas, residential including group housing and plotted development areas were to constitute the remaining 65% of the land under the SDZ. Hence, the authorities were required to develop the entire SDZ in an integrated manner.
Whether the present acquisition is a part of the integrated development plan of ‘Yamuna Expressway” undertaken by YEIDA?
In addressing the first issue, the Court ruled in the affirmative, agreeing that the land acquisition was indeed part of the integrated development plan for the Yamuna Expressway initiated by YEIDA. The Court referenced the decision in the Nand Kishore case (supra), which emphasized that the development of land for industrial, residential, and recreational purposes is closely linked to the construction of the Yamuna Expressway.
The Court further explained that the objective behind the acquisition was to integrate land development with the Expressway’s construction, with the overarching goal of promoting overall growth in the region, which would serve the public interest. The development of the Expressway and the adjacent land parcels were thus regarded as inseparable components of the larger project, reinforcing the rationale for the acquisition. This integration is seen as essential for the realization of the project’s broader developmental and economic benefits.
Whether the application of Sections and of the was legal and justified in the instant case, thereby justifying the decision of the State Government to dispense with the enquiry under Section of the ?
The Court held that the invocation of Sections and of the , was legal and justified in this case. The urgency clause was applied in accordance with the planned development of the Yamuna Expressway, as held in Nand Kishore (supra).
Whether the view taken by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Kamal Sharma v. State of U.P. validating the questioned acquisition while relying upon Nand Kishore Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, lays down the correct proposition of law or whether the Division Bench in the case of Shyoraj Singh v. State of U.P was justified in applying the principles laid down in Radhy Shyam v State of UP, , and quashing the acquisition proceedings in question?
The view expounded by the Division Bench in Kamal Sharma (supra), which relied upon Nand Kishore, sets forth the correct proposition of law, and the judgment of the High Court in Shyoraj Singh, which relied on Radhy Shyam, did not present a correct legal interpretation. The judgment in Shyoraj Singh is set aside as it does not lay down good law and was passed while overlooking at the earlier precedents, rendering it per incuriam.
The Court acknowledged that the High Court, while deciding the case of Kamal Sharma (supra), had extensively examined the factual matrix and reviewed the original records of the State Government. The High Court concluded that the invocation of the urgency clause for the acquisition in question was absolutely justified. Additionally, the High Court thoroughly analyzed the entire sequence of judicial pronouncements related to the acquisition before making its determination.
The Court further noted that the High Court acted in an equitable manner, not only affirming the acquisition proceedings but also directing the grant of additional compensation to the landowners.
The Court expressed its appreciation for the High Court’s efforts to resolve the matter objectively and equitably and extended its full approval to the judgment in Kamal Sharma (supra). The Supreme Court recognized the High Court’s thorough consideration of the facts and the fairness of its decision in upholding the acquisition process while ensuring that the landowners were fairly compensated.
Whether the escalated compensation formula as arrived at by the Division Bench of the High Court in the case of Kamal Sharma (supra) would subserve the ends of justice or the landowners whose lands have been acquired would be entitled to better compensation?
The Court noted that the majority of landowners have refrained from seeking judicial intervention in this matter, as manifested by the fact that only 140 out of 12,868 landowners have opted to challenge the acquisition by approaching this, Court. This indicates that the majority of the landowners have accepted the escalated compensation granted by the High Court in Kamal Sharma.
The Court mentioned that in the cases of Savitri Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, ,Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Ravindra Kumar, , despite holding the invocation of the urgency clause under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act to be illegal, the Court nonetheless upheld the acquisition proceedings and directed enhancement of compensation so as to compensate the land owners. However, in the present case, the Court concluded that the action of the State in invocation of the urgency clause is in consonance with the law.
The Court said that the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, while delivering its decision in Kamal Sharma has already granted additional compensation of 64.7% to the landowners, to be offered as ‘No Litigation Bonus’ in consonance with the Government order dated 04-11-2015 (‘GO’), thus there is no scope to direct further enhancement in compensation.
In light of the GO and the precedents established in Savitri Devi (supra) and Yamuna Expressway Industrial Authority (supra), the Supreme Court directed that a 64.7% enhancement in compensation would apply in rem, ensuring that uniform benefits would be provided to all affected landowners under the present land acquisition process.
The Supreme Court clarified that the question of non-issuance of the final award and its effect on the acquisition remains open. The Court ensured that any affected party retains the right to challenge or seek an appropriate remedy regarding this specific issue, independently, and in accordance with the law.
Thus, the Court dismissed the appeals filed by the landowners and allowed the appeals filed by YEIDA.
CASE DETAILS
| Citation: Appellants : Kali Charan Respondents : State of U.P. | Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): Ms. Vandana Anand, AOR, Mr. Rajat Sehgal, Adv., Mr. Anurag Rawal, Adv., Mr. Samyak Jain, Adv., Mr. Amit Singh, Adv., Mr. Surya Ketu Tomar, Adv., Mr. Pratyaksh Raj, Adv., Mr. Akash Nagar, Adv., Mr. Jaibir Singh Nagar, Adv.,Dr. Suresh Chand Nagar, Adv.,Ms. Ruchi B Nagar, Adv., Mr. Kuldeep Nagar, Adv., Mr. Nafees Chaudhary, Adv., Mr. Surender Kumar, Adv., Mr. Yashpal Bhati, Adv., Mr. Vijender Kumar, Adv., Mr. Siddhartha Jha, AOR, Mr. Rakesh Mishra, AOR, Mr. Pankaj Dubey, Adv., Mr. Pratyaksh Semwal, Adv., Mr. Alok Kumar Pandey, Adv.,Ms. Madhumeet Kaur, Adv., Ms. Kiran Pandey, Adv.,Ms. Rishu Mishra, Adv., Mr. Vimlesh Kumar Shukla, Sr. Adv.,Ms. Parul Shukla, AOR,Ms. Shubhangi Pandey, Adv., Mr. Udayaditya Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Saday Mondol, Adv., Mr. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv., Mr. Amar Gupta, Adv., Mr. Saket Sikri, Adv., Mr. Divyam Agarwal, AOR, Mr. Pranav Tanwar, Adv., Mr. Mohit Sharma, Adv., Mr. Zain Maqbool, Adv., Mr. Vineet Nagar, Adv.,Ms. Divya Jyoti Singh, AOR, Mr. Kshitiz Ahuja, Adv., Mr. Shekhar Bhatia, Adv., Mr. Anand Mishra-1, AOR,Ms. Vandita Nain, Adv.,Ms. Ayushi Rajput, Adv., Mr. Prem Kumar Chaurasia, Adv. For Respondent(s): Mr. Nischal Kumar Neeraj, AOR, Mr. Anand Mishra-1, AOR,Ms. Ayushi Rajput, Adv.,Ms. Vandita Nain, Adv., Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Amar Gupta, Adv., Mr. Divyam Agarwal, AOR, Mr. Amar Gupta, Adv., Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv., Mr. Pranav Tanwar, Adv., Mr. Pranav Tanwar, Adv., Mr. Zain Maqbool, Adv., Mr. Mohit Sharma, Adv., Mr. Syed Imtiyaz Ali, Adv., Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, AOR, Mr. Mumtaz Alam Siddiqui, Adv., Mr. Yashpal Sharma, Adv., Mr. Mouzzam Khan, Adv.,Ms. Phaguni Bajpayi, Adv.,Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR, Mr. Susheel Tomar, Adv., Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR, Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, Adv., Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais, AOR., Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, Adv., Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, AOR,Mrs. Ankita Kashyap, Adv., Mr. Arjun Singh Tomar, Adv., Mr. Vivek Sharma, AOR, Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv., Mr. Dinkar Kalra, AOR. |
CORAM :
Writ-C No. 26767 of 2010
Writ-C No. 30747 of 2010
The post appeared first on .