KALI CHARAN AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

Citation: [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1064 · Decided: 26-11-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1064 : 2024 INSC 898
Kali Charan and Others 
v. 
State of U.P. and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 13119 of 2024)
26 November 2024
[B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the present acquisition is a part of the integrated 
development plan of ‘Yamuna Expressway” undertaken by 
respondent No.3-Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development 
Authority (YEIDA); Whether the application of Sections 17(1) and 
17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was legal and justified 
in the instant case, thereby justifying the decision of the State 
Government to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A of 
the Act; Whether the view taken by the Division Bench of the 
Allahabad High Court in Kamal Sharma validating the questioned 
acquisition while relying upon Nand Kishore 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.
Headnotes†
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]
* Author
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
1065
Kali Charan and Others v. State of U.P. and Others
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]
1066
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Case Law Cited
Shyoraj Singh and Others v. State of U.P. Writ-C No. 30747 of 
2010 – held not good law; per incuriam.
Kamal Sharma v. State of U.P. thru Special Secretary Industrial 
Development and Ors Writ-C No. 26767 of 2010 – held good law.
Kalicharan v. State of U.P. and others SLP(C) No. 15782 of 
2023; Nand Kishore Gupta and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.