Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Land acquisition – Payment of additional compensation of 64.7% to farmers –State of Uttar Pradesh acquired vast area of land for the benefit of Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority-YEIDA – YEIDA allotted plots to various allottees including respondent no.1 – On the same line, the State acquired land for the benefit of NOIDA – As regards the NOIDA acquisition the High Court in Gajraj case directed payment of additional compensation of 64.7% to the farmers and the same was confirmed in Savitri Devi’s case – As a result, the YEIDA farmers raised the demand for additional compensation – On account of the agitation by farmers, the development work stopped on the acquired land – In view thereof, constitution of High-Level committee which recommended for the payment of 64.7% additional amount as “no litigation incentive” to the farmers and for its reimbursement from the allottees in the appropriate proportion – State Government accepted the same and issued a Government Order – Pursuant thereto, additional demand notices issued to various allottees including respondent no.1 – Challenge to – High Court held the policy of the State Government asking for additional sum from allottees as unfair and unreasonable – On appeal, held: Policy decision of the State Government and the Resolution of the Board of YEIDA were in the larger public interest, taking care of the concerns of the allottees as well as the farmers – Had the said decision not been taken, there were chances of the acquisition being declared unlawful – Development of the entire project was stalled on account of farmers’ agitation – Before taking the policy decision, the State Government, through the Committee constituted, had done a wide range of deliberations with all the stakeholders including the allottees, farmers and YEIDA – Policy decision was taken after taking into consideration all relevant factors and was guided by reasons – In case of a conflict between public interest and personal interest, public interest would outweigh the personal interest – Thus, the High Court not justified in holding that the policy decision of the State as unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary – Order passed by the High Court quashed and set aside – Policy decision.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It could be seen that the recommendations of the Chaudhary Committee were principally intended to resolve the issue between the farmers and the allottees, and to find out a workable solution to the problem. The Chaudhary Committee recommended similar treatment to be given to the farmers whose lands were acquired for YEIDA, as was given to the farmers whose lands were acquired for the benefit of NOIDA and Greater NOIDA. The Chaudhary Committee found that the same benefits as were given to the farmers whose lands were acquired for the benefit of NOIDA and Greater NOIDA in view of the judgment of the High Court in the case of Gajraj’s case, as affirmed by this Court in the case of Savitri Devi’s case should also be given to the farmers whose lands were acquired for the benefit of YEIDA. However, this was made conditional. Additional benefit was granted to the landowners on the condition that they would handover the physical possession of land to YEIDA and withdraw the writ petitions/cases filed by them pending before the High Court. The State Government vide the said G.O. gave effect to the recommendations of the Chaudhary Committee. YEIDA too, in its Board meeting dated 15th September, 2014, resolved to implement the decision of the State Government. Accordingly, demand notices came to be issued to the allottees. It could thus be seen that the policy decision of the State Government is preceded by various factors. Firstly, the farmers’ agitation, after they were denied the benefits which were granted to the farmers whose lands were acquired for the benefit of NOIDA and Greater NOIDA; the report of the Commissioner, the appointment of the Chaudhary Committee, the deliberations of the Chaudhary Committee with various stakeholders, and thereafter the recommendations of the Chaudhary Committee. [Paras 5052][1060-E-H; 1061-A-c]
1.2 It has been held in Kasinka’s case that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in the abstract and the courts are bound to consider all aspects including the results sought to be achieved and the public good at large; that while considering the applicability of the doctrine, the courts have to do equity and the fundamental principles of equity must forever be present to the mind of the court, while considering the applicability of the doctrine; that the doctrine being an equitable doctrine, it must yield when the equity so requires, if it can be shown by the Government or Public Authority that having regard to the facts and circumstances as they have transpired, it would be inequitable to hold the Government or the Public Authority to the promise, assurance or representation made by it. If the principle as laid down in the case of Kasinka Trading applied to the facts of the instant case, it would be clear that the policy decision of the State Government was not only in the larger public interest but also in the interest of the respondents. The projects were stalled on account of the farmers’ agitation. The farmers felt discriminated as they found that the compensation paid to them was much lesser than the one being paid to the equally circumstanced farmers in NOIDA and Greater NOIDA. It was the allottees of the land who had approached the State Government for redressal of the problem. In these circumstances, the Government took cognizance of the problem and appointed the Commissioner to look into the issue. Since the Commissioner recommended appointment of a High-Level Committee, the Chaudhary Committee was appointed. The Chaudhary Committee had threadbare discussions with all the stakeholders. It also took into consideration that on account of stay orders passed by the High Court in various writ petitions, the development of the project was stalled. On account of pendency of the writ petitions, there was always a hanging sword over the entire acquisition of it being declared unlawful. In this premise, in order to find out a workable solution and that too, on the basis of the law laid down by the High Court in the case of Gajraj’s case as affirmed by this Court in the case of Savitri Devi’s case and followed by this Court in the case of Savitri Mohan (Dead), recommendations were made by the Chaudhary Committee. The Chaudhary Committee specifically recommended that the additional compensation and other incentives would be paid only if the landowners agree to handover physical possession of the land to YEIDA and withdraw all the litigations. It could be seen that the recommendations, which were accepted by the State Government and formulated in the policy, were made taking into consideration the interests of all the stakeholders. It is not only the interest of a small section of the allottees which should weigh with the Government, but the Government should also give due weightage to the interest of the large section of farmers, whose lands were acquired. The High Court fell in error in observing that no writ petitions were filed challenging the acquisition for YEIDA. The report of the Chaudhary Committee itself would clarify that YEIDA had itself submitted that insofar as the residential plots are concerned, there were stay orders operating in majority of the writ petitions due to which the development of the project work was stalled. [Paras 54-57][1064-A-H; 1065-A-D]
1.3 The policy decision of the State Government was in the larger public interest. It was taken considering entire material collected by the Chaudhary Committee after due deliberations with all the stakeholders. The factors which were taken into consideration by the State Government were relevant, rational and founded on ground realities. Thus, the finding of the High Court that the policy decision of the State Government was arbitrary, irrational and unfair, is totally incorrect. [Para 58][1065E]
1.4 An interference with the policy decision would not be warranted unless it is found that the policy decision is palpably arbitrary, mala fide, irrational or violative of the statutory provisions. The High Court was also not right in interfering with the policy decision of the State Government, which is in the larger public interest. It could thus be seen that it is more than settled that a change in policy by the Government can have an overriding effect over private treaties between the Government and a private party, if the same was in the general public interest. The additional requirement is that such change in policy is required to be guided by reason. [Paras 60 and 62][1068-H; 1069-A, D-E]
1.5 When a policy is changed by the State, which is in the general public interest, such policy would prevail over the individual rights/interests. The policy of the State Government as reflected in the said G.O. was not only in the larger public interest but also in the interest of the respondents. [Para 65][1069G-H; 1070-A]
1.6 The respondents have indulged into the conduct of approbate and reprobate. They have changed their stance as per their convenience. When their projects were stalled on account of the farmers’ agitation, it is they who approached the State Authorities for finding out a solution. When the State Government responded to their representations and came up with a policy which was equitable and in the interest of both, the farmers and the allottees and when the said policy paved the way for development, when called upon to pay the additional compensation, the respondents-allottees somersaulted and challenged the very same policy before the High Court, which benefitted them. [Para 66][1070-B-D]
1.7 Insofar as the individual plot owners are concerned, it will be worthwhile to mention that the residential plot owners in Sectors 18 and 20 of Yamuna Expressway city have formed an association, viz., Yamuna Expressway Residential-Plot-Owners Welfare Association (hereinafter referred to as “the YERWA”). The communication addressed by the president of the YERWA to the CEO of YEIDA would reveal that 98.5% of the allottees/owners have voted in favour of paying the additional premium demanded by the Authority. The only request made by the YERWA is with regard to making a provision for paying additional premium in installments. Insofar as the individual residential plot owners are concerned, more than 98% of the plot owners do not have any objection to the payment of the additional compensation. [Paras 67 and 68][1070-D-F]
1.8 The policy decision of the State Government as reflected in the said G.O. dated 29th August, 2014 and the Resolution of the Board of YEIDA dated 15th September, 2014 were in the larger public interest, taking care of the concerns of the allottees as well as the farmers. Had the said decision not been taken, there was a hanging sword of the acquisition being declared unlawful. The development of the entire project was stalled on account of farmers’ agitation. Before taking the policy decision, the State Government, through the Chaudhary Committee, had done a wide range of deliberations with all the stakeholders including the allottees, farmers and YEIDA. The policy decision was taken after taking into consideration all relevant factors and was guided by reasons. In any case, it is a settled position of law that in case of a conflict between public interest and personal interest, public interest will outweigh the personal interest. The High Court was thus not justified in holding that the policy decision of the State was unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary. The High Court erred in allowing the writ petitions, thus, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside. [Para 70][1070-H; 1071-A-C]
Gajraj and Others v. State of U.P. and Others 2011 SCC OnLine All 1711; Savitri Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2015) 7 SCC 21 : [2015] 7 SCR 512; Centre for Public Interest Litigation and others v. Union of India and Others (2012) 3 SCC 1 : [2012] 3 SCR 147; Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Others (2000) 10 SCC 664 : [2000] 4 Suppl. SCR 94; ITC Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2011) 7 SCC 493 : [2011] 7 SCR 66; Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Savitri Mohan (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others (2016) 13 SCC 210 : [2016] 3 SCR 187; Kasinka Trading and Another v. Union of India and Another (1995) 1 SCC 274 : [1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 448; Essar Steel Limited v. Union of India and Others (2016) 11 SCC 1 : [2016] 4 SCR 326; APM Terminals B. V. v. Union of India and Another (2011) 6 SCC 756 : [2011]
8 SCR 600 – referred to.
Prof. S.A. de Smith “Judicial Review of Administrative Action” – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. 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.