The Supreme Court of India.
Credit: PTI File Photo
New Delhi: 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.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta dismissed appeals by the landowners, while allowing the appeals filed by the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA).
By this judgment, the court also resolved a long-standing dispute over the application of urgency provisions in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
In the case, the court noted that the division bench of the Allahabad High Court, while delivering its decision in Kamal Sharma (2010) has already granted additional compensation of 64.7% to the landowners, to be offered as ‘no litigation bonus’ in consonance with the government order of November 4, 2015, thus there is no scope to direct further enhancement in compensation.
“It is directed that 64.7% enhancement in compensation shall apply in rem, ensuring uniform benefits to all affected landowners under the present land acquisition,” the bench said.
The bench also pointed out the question of non-issuance of the final award and its effect on the acquisition is left open ensuring that any affected party would retain the right to challenge or seek appropriate remedy on this specific issue independently, in accordance with law.
In the apex court, a batch of appeals and the cross-appeals were filed by the landowners and the YEIDA respectively.
The cases stemmed from two conflicting verdicts of the Allahabad High Court.
One of the judgments passed by the high court upheld the acquisition by the YEIDA. The other judgment quashed state action of taking the land of farmers by invoking the urgency clauses.
Dealing with the matter, the bench said the acquisition was deemed integral to the Yamuna Expressway's development.
“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,” the bench said.
The court also upheld the invocation of urgency clauses of the law, after finding “there was sufficient material before the state government to justify the invocation of urgency clause, and there was no malice on part of the state government in invoking the same”.
The bench said the present acquisition formed part of the integrated development plan for the Yamuna Expressway initiated by YEIDA.
The court also examined whether the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in the Kamal Sharma case (2010) lays down the correct proposition of law or whether the law laid down in the Shyoraj Singh case (2010) was justified.
“The view expounded by the division bench in Kamal Sharma, 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,” it said.
"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 bench said.