NEW DELHI: In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the validity of land acquisition for the integrated development of the Yamuna Expressway and its adjoining areas in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. The top court decided a batch of appeals and the cross-appeals filed by the landowners and the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) respectively.
The cases arose from two conflicting verdicts of the Allahabad High Court. One judgement upheld the acquisition by the YEIDA and another quashed state action of taking the land of farmers by invoking the urgency clauses.
A bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta dismissed appeals by the landowners while allowing the appeals filed by the YEIDA, resolving a long-standing dispute over the application of urgency provisions in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Writing a 49-page judgement for the bench, Justice Mehta said the acquisition was deemed integral to the Yamuna Expressway’s development.
The judgement emphasized that the expressway’s construction and the development of adjoining areas were inseparable components of a unified public-interest project.
It upheld the invocation of urgency clauses of the law, saying it was justified under the planned development policy for the region.
It noted that concerns about unauthorized encroachments and the need for rapid development warranted bypassing the usual inquiry under the relevant law.
The bench acknowledged that majority of affected landowners had accepted the compensation awarded by the Allahabad High Court and endorsed the 64.7 per cent enhanced compensation granted as a “No Litigation Bonus”.
It ruled out further enhancement, emphasizing uniformity in benefits for all affected parties.
The bench dealt with three key questions in the case.
“Whether the present acquisition is a part of the integrated development plan of ‘Yamuna Expressway’ undertaken by respondent No.3-YEIDA,” read the first issue.
Answering in affirmative, the bench held, “The present acquisition forms part of the integrated development plan for the Yamuna Expressway initiated by YEIDA.”
“The objective of the acquisition is to integrate land development with the Yamuna Expressway’s construction, thereby promoting overall growth serving the public interest. Consequently, the Expressway and the development of adjoining lands are considered to be inseparable components of the overall project,” it held.
The second issue was whether the application of sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act was legal and warranted in the instant case, thereby justifying the government’s decision to dispense with the inquiry under the land acquisition law.
“Yes, the invocation of sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 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 the Nand Kishore case,” it said.
The third issue was whether the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in the Kamal Sharma case lays down the correct proposition of law or whether the law laid down in the Shyoraj Singh case was justified.
The apex court affirmed that the judgement in the Kamal Sharma case, which relied on earlier precedents, correctly interpreted the law and upheld the acquisition.
The bench set aside the conflicting judgement of the High Court in the Shyoraj Singh case as “per-incuriam’ and thus invalid. This had ruled in favour of the landowners.
The case stemmed from land acquisition initiated in 2009 under the urgency provisions of sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act for the planned development of the Yamuna Expressway region.
The landowners opposed the acquisition, citing misuse of the urgency clause and claiming that their lands, classified as Abadi Bhoomi (residential land), were unsuitable for acquisition without due inquiry.
The high court had issued divergent rulings in related cases.
In Kamal Sharma vs State of UP, the court upheld the acquisition and granted enhanced compensation, while in Shyoraj Singh vs State of UP, another bench quashed the acquisition, citing arbitrary application of the urgency provisions.
