NAND KISHORE GUPTA & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 11 S.C.R. 356 · Decided: 08-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 11 S.C.R. 356 
NANO KISHORE GUPTA & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7468 of 2010) 
SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, J.J.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894- s. 4(1) r!w. ss. 17(1) and (4); 
s. 6(1) rlw ss. 17(1) and (4); s. 5A and Parts II and VII -
C Acquisition of land on urgent basis for a project of 
development and construction of Expressway- Project granted 
to a company -
Validity of acquisition under Part II and 
validity of invoking urgency provision dispensing with enquiry 
uls. 5A - Held: acquisition of the land under Part II was correct 
o as the same was for the public purpose and was not for a 
private company - In the facts and circumstances of the case, 
the acquisition cannot be said to be a colourable exercise of 
power -
The Government only used the company for 
implementing its policy - Invocation of urgency provision ul 
E 
s. 17(1) and (4) and dispensing with enquiry uls. 5A was also 
necessary in view of the facts of the case - Constitutionalism 
- Colourable exercise of power. 
F 
In the year 2001 Taj Expressway Industrial 
Development Authority [which was later named as 
Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority 
(YEIDA)] was constituted under the U.P. Industrial Area 
Development Act, 1976, with intent to develop the eastern 
side of the river Yamuna by construction of a 6 lane 
Expressway joining Noida and Agra. Tenders were 
G 
issued inviting bids from interested parties desirous of 
implementing the project. Respondent No.5-company 
(the successful bidder) was given the project work. 
Concession Agreement was executed between the 
H 
parties in 2003. The project was challenged before High 
356 
NANO KISHORE GUPTA & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & 357 
ORS. 
Court in Public Interest Litigation. Commission of Enquiry 
A 
was also appointed by the State which submitted its 
report. Ultimately, the PIL was dismissed by the High 
Court. 
Thereafter, the notification was issued by the State 
8 
Government u/s. 4(1) r/w. ss. 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Land 
• Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of the C()nstruction 
of the interchange under the Yamuna Expressway Project 
through Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development 
Authority. Ultimately, the State issued notification u/s. 6(1) 
C 
r/w. ss. 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act. Writ petitions were filed 
challenging the acquisition. The High Court dismissed the 
writ petitions. 
In the instant appeals, the following were the main 
questions which arose for consideration: 
D 
1. 
The acquisition could not be said to be for the 
public purpose: 
(a) 
as the object of the acquisition was not 
covered by the definition of 'public purpose' in 
E 
Section 3(f) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; 
(b) 
the acquisition must be considered to be 
under Part VII of the Act and not under Part II, 
since it virtually amounted to acquisition of 
F 
land for a private person i.e. respondent No.5; 
(c) 
as the compensation for the land acquisition 
was coming wholly from respondent No. 5 and 
not from the Government or from YEIDA, it was 
G 
not an acquisition for public purpose; 
(d) 
the acquisition for the so-called interchange 
was not at all necessary and it was actually a 
colourable exercise of powers. 
H 
358 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
2. 
Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land 
Acquisition Act were not applicable and, 
therefore, the Government could not have 
dispensed with the enquiry u/s. 5A of the Act. 
B 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court was right in holding that 
the acquisition was made for the public purpose. The 
High Court has considered the question of public purpose 
keeping in mind the correct principles of law. Therefore, 
C it cannot be said that the acquisition was not for the 
public purpose. [Para 37) [396-A-C] 
1.2. The High Court rightly found that the acquisition 
was not for the Company but was for the public purpose. 
0 
The Expressway is a work of immense public importance. 
The State gains advantages from the construction of an 
Expressway and so does the general public. Creation of 
a corridor for fast moving traffic resulting into curtailing 
the traveling time, as also the transport of the goods, 
E would be some factors which speak in favour of the 
Project being for the public purpose. The creation of the 
five zones for industry, residence, amusement etc., would 
be complimentary to the creation of the Expressway. The 
creation of land pa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.