New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 26) upheld the validity of land acquisition by the State of Uttar Pradesh for the integrated development of the Yamuna Expressway and its adjoining areas in the district Gautam Budh Nagar.
A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta upheld the validity of land acquisition while hearing a batch of appeals and cross-appeals filed by the land owners and Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) arising from two conflicting verdicts delivered by the Allahabad High Court.
While one verdict by the High Court upheld the acquisition by the YEIDA, the another verdict quashed the land acquisition of farmers by the State invoking the urgency clauses.
Read More
Apex Court upheld High Court verdict upholding land acquisition
The apex court bench upheld the High Court verdict in the Kamal Sharma case upholding the acquisition and set aside the High Court verdict in the Shyoraj Singh case ruling in favour of the landowners.
The top court, while deciding the long-standing dispute over the application of urgency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, allowed the appeals filed by the YEIDA and dismissed the appeals filed by the landowners.
Purpose behind acquisition was unquestionably integrated development of lands abutting Yamuna Expressway: Apex Court
“The purpose behind the acquisition was unquestionably the integrated development of lands abutting the Yamuna Expressway. The acquisition of the lands for the Expressway could not be isolated or separated from the acquisition of the abutting lands,” the bench said.
The bench further said that the Yamuna Expressway is a vital heartline providing access to millions of commuters from National Capital Delhi to Agra and it also connects the prestigious upcoming Jewar Airport to adjoining areas.
“To assume that the Yamuna Expressway is a simple highway without any scope for simultaneous development of the adjoining lands for commercial, residential and other such activities would be unconceivable. A project of such magnitude and enormity would definitely require the involvement of the adjoining areas which would lead to an overall development of the State of Uttar Pradesh at large,” the bench said.
Acquisition part of integrated development plan of Yamuna Expressway: Apex Court
The bench on the question whether the acquisition is part of the integrated development plan of the ‘Yamuna Expressway’ undertaken by the YEIDA, said, the acquisition forms part of the integrated development plan for the Yamuna Expressway initiated by YEIDA and the 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. Consequently, the Expressway and the development of adjoining lands are considered to be inseparable components of the overall project,” the bench said.
The bench further said that the invocation of sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act was legal and justified in this case and the urgency clause was applied in accordance with the planned development of the Yamuna Expressway.
Overwhelming majority of landowners have refrained from seeking judicial intervention, Apex Court noted
The bench noted that overwhelming majority of landowners have refrained from seeking judicial intervention in this matter, as only 140 out of 12,868 landowners (covered in both batches of civil appeals @ special leave petitions) have opted to challenge the acquisition by approaching the top court and said that this indicates that the majority of the landowners have accepted the escalated compensation granted by the High Court in Kamal Sharma.
No scope to direct further enhancement in compensation: Apex Court
“The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, while delivering its decision in Kamal Sharma (case) 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 4th November, 2015, thus there is no scope to direct further enhancement in compensation,” the bench said.
