GREATER NOLDA IND. DEV. AUTHORITY versus SAVJTRI MOHAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 3 S.C.R. 187 · Decided: 29-06-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 3 S.C.R. 187 
GREATER NOlDA IND. DEV. AUTHORITY 
v. 
SAVJTRI MOHAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.5372of2016) 
JUNE 29, 2016 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4(1), 17(4) ands. 6(1) r!w 
17(1) - Land acquisition for planned industrial development -
Invocation of urgency clause - Challenge to, by the land owners -
High Court set aside the Notifications - On appeal, held: Even 
though invocation of urgency clause was uncalled for, relief of setting 
aside the acquisition was not granted having regard to the 
development already undertaken on substantial part of the land -
Also filing of prompt petitions by an individual is not the only 
consideration for grant of relief of quashing acquisition when almost 
entire land has already been developed - Further, after passing of 
award, compensation was already disbursed - In terms of Savitri 
Devi's case respondents entitled to increased compensation by 
64. 7% and allotment of I 0% developed Abadi land subject to 
maximum of 2500 sq. meters. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The compensation had already been disbursed 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
to the extent of 76 per cent. Thereafter, for the entire' land of 
village falling in Group No.18, the relief granted is payment of 
additional compensation and allotment of land. The part of the 
F 
order where relief of quashing of notification has been given is 
not of the category of the instant case. [Para 12) [195-F) 
1.2 In *Savitri Devi case it was held that in spite of the finding 
that invocation of urgency clause was uncalled for, the relief of 
setting aside the acquisition was not granted having regard to 
G 
the development that had already undertaken on substantial part 
of the land. However, to balance the equities higher compensation 
and allotment of land was ordered to .meet the ends of justice. 
[Para 13][195-H; 196-A] 
187 
H 
188 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 
1.3 Consideration for not granting the relief of quashing the 
acquisition is overall development on substantial part of the 
acquired land as noted by the Full Bench in **Gajraj's case. Filing 
of prompt petitions by al). individual is not the only consideration 
for grant of relief of quashing acquisition when almost entire land 
has already been developed. The Full Bench quashed acquisition 
only where substantial part of the land had not been developed. 
The category of the judgment where acquisition has not been 
quashed covers the entire village where land of the respondents 
is located. Thus, the respondents are entitled to be treated at 
par with other similarly placed persons. They are entitled to the 
following relief as per the *Savitri Devi case, increase in the 
compensation by 64.7%; allotment of developed abadi land to 
the extent of 10% of the land acquired of each of the landowners. 
[Paras 15, 16) [196-C-F) 
**Gajraj and others vs. State of U.P. and others. (2011) 
11 ADJ (1) - approved. 
*Savitri Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 7 SCC 
21: 2015 (7) SCR 512 - relied on. 
Anand Singh vs. State of U.P. (2010) 11 SCC 242:2010 
(9) SCR 133; Dev Sharan vs. State of U. P. (2011) 4 
SCC 769: 2011 (3) SCR 728; Radhey Shyam (dead) 
through Lrs. vs. State of U.P. (2011) 5 SCC 553: 2011 
(8) SCR 359; Devendra Kumar Tyagi & Ors. vs. State 
of U.P. (2011) 9 sec 164:2011 (15) SCR 641; 
Devendra Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2011) 
9 SCC 551: 2011 (9) SCR 772; Greater Naida Industrial 
Development Authority vs. Devendra Kumar & Ors. 
(2011) 12 SCC 375; Darshan Lal Nagpal vs. 
Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2012) 2 SCC 327: 
2012 (2) SCR 595 - referred to. 
· Case Law Reference 
2Q~O (9) SCR 133 
referred to 
Para4 
2011 (3) SCR 728 
referred to 
Para4 
. 
. 
200 (8) SCR 359 
referred to 
Para4 
2011 (15) SCR .641 
referred to 
Para4 
GREATER NOIDA IND. DEV. AUTHORITY v. SAVITRI 
189 
MOHAN (DEAD) THR. LRS. 
2011 (9) SCR 772 
referred to 
Para4 
(2011) 12 sec 375 
referred to 
Para4 
2012 (2) SCR 595 
referred .to 
Para4 
(2011) 11 ADJ (1) 
approved 
Paras 12,15 
2015 (7) SCR 512 
relied on 
Paras 13, 16. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5372 of 
2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.05.2012 in CMWP No. 
13 I 09 of 2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. 
L.N. Rao, Sr. Adv., Ravindra Kumar, Adv. for the Appellant. 
Ajay Kumar Misra, Sr. Adv., D. V. Singh, Anuradha Dubey Mishra, 
Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, K
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.