Land acquisition – Present acquisition if a part of the integrated development plan of ‘Yamuna Expressway” undertaken by respondent No.3-YEIDA:
Held: Yes – Development of land parcels for industrial, residential, and recreational purposes is complementary to the construction of the Yamuna Expressway – The objective of the acquisition is to integrate land development with the Yamuna Expressway’s construction, thereby promoting overall growth serving the public interest – Thus, the Expressway and the development of adjoining lands are considered to be inseparable components of the overall project – Appeals filed by the landowners dismissed, while that of the YEIDA are allowed. [Para 38]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.17 (1), (4) – Application of ss.17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, if was legal and justified in the instant case, justifying the decision of the State Government to dispense with the enquiry under s.5-A of the Act:
Held: Yes – The invocation of ss.17(1) and 17(4) 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 decision of this Court in Nand Kishore. [Para 38] Land acquisition – View taken by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Kamal Sharma validating the questioned acquisition while relying upon Nand Kishore, if lays down the correct proposition of law or whether the Division Bench in the case of Shyoraj Singh was justified in applying the principles laid down in Radhy Shyam case and quashing the acquisition proceedings in question:
Held: Kamal Sharma extensively considered the factual matrix and also examined the original records of the State Government to arrive at the satisfaction that the invocation of the urgency clause was absolutely justified with regard to the acquisition in question – High Court also exhaustively considered the entire sequence of judicial pronouncements in respect of the acquisition in question before arriving at the aforesaid conclusion and acted in an equitable manner while affirming the acquisition proceedings and directing the grant of additional compensation – The view of the Division Bench in Kamal Sharma, which relied upon Nand Kishore is the correct proposition of law – Judgment of the High Court in Shyoraj Singh, which relied on Radhy Shyam is not a correct legal interpretation – Shyoraj Singh set aside as it does not lay down good law and is per incuriam as it was passed overlooking the earlier precedents – 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 04.11.15, thus there is no scope for further enhancement in compensation – 64.7% enhancement in compensation to apply in rem, ensuring uniform benefits to all affected landowners under the present land acquisition. [Paras 38, 43, 44]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey supra [2022] 5 SCR 1034 : (2022) SCC OnLine SC 655. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.