YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ETC. versus SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2022] 5 S.C.R. 1034 · Decided: 19-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1034
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY ETC.
v.
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY
& ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4178-4197 of 2022)
MAY 19, 2022
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Land acquisition – Payment of
additional compensation of 64.7% to farmers –State of Uttar Pradesh
acquired vast area of land for the benefit of Yamuna Expressway
Industrial Development Authority-YEIDA – YEIDA allotted plots to
various allottees including respondent no.1 – On the same line, the
State acquired land for the benefit of NOIDA – As regards the NOIDA
acquisition the High Court in Gajraj case directed payment of
additional compensation of 64.7% to the farmers and the same was
confirmed in Savitri Devi’s case – As a result, the YEIDA farmers
raised the demand for additional compensation – On account of
the agitation by farmers, the development work stopped on the
acquired land – In view thereof, constitution of High-Level committee
which recommended for the payment of 64.7% additional amount
as “no litigation incentive” to the farmers and for its reimbursement
from the allottees in the appropriate proportion – State Government
accepted the same and issued a Government Order – Pursuant
thereto, additional demand notices issued to various allottees
including respondent no.1 – Challenge to – High Court held the
policy of the State Government asking for additional sum from
allottees as unfair and unreasonable – On appeal, held: Policy
decision of the State Government and the Resolution of the Board
of YEIDA were in the larger public interest, taking care of the
concerns of the allottees as well as the farmers – Had the said
decision not been taken, there were chances of the acquisition being
declared unlawful – Development of the entire project was stalled
on account of farmers’ agitation – Before taking the policy decision,
the State Government, through the Committee constituted, had done
a wide range of deliberations with all the stakeholders including
the allottees, farmers and YEIDA – Policy decision was taken after
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 1034
1034
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1035
taking into consideration all relevant factors and was guided by
reasons – In case of a conflict between public interest and personal
interest, public interest would outweigh the personal interest – Thus,
the High Court not justified in holding that the policy decision of
the State as unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary – Order passed by
the High Court quashed and set aside – Policy decision.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It could be seen that the recommendations of
the Chaudhary Committee were principally intended to resolve
the issue between the farmers and the allottees, and to find out a
workable solution to the problem. The Chaudhary Committee
recommended similar treatment to be given to the farmers whose
lands were acquired for YEIDA, as was given to the farmers whose
lands were acquired for the benefit of NOIDA and Greater NOIDA.
The Chaudhary Committee found that the same benefits as were
given to the farmers whose lands were acquired for the benefit of
NOIDA and Greater NOIDA in view of the judgment of the High
Court in the case of Gajraj’s case, as affirmed by this Court in the
case of Savitri Devi’s case should also be given to the farmers
whose lands were acquired for the benefit of YEIDA. However,
this was made conditional. Additional benefit was granted to the
landowners on the condition that they would handover the
physical possession of land to YEIDA and withdraw the writ
petitions/cases filed by them pending before the High Court. The
State Government vide the said G.O. gave effect to the
recommendations of the Chaudhary Committee. YEIDA too, in
its Board meeting dated 15th September, 2014, resolved to
implement the decision of the State Government. Accordingly,
demand notices came to be issued to the allottees. It could thus
be seen that the policy decision of the State Government is
preceded by various factors. Firstly, the farmers’ agitation, after
they were denied the benefits which were granted to the farmers
whose lands were acquired for the benefit of NOIDA and Greater
NOIDA; the report of the Commissioner, the appointment of the
Chaudhary Committee, the deliberations of the Chaudhary
Committee with various stakeholders, and thereafter the
recommendations of the Chaudhary Committee. [Paras 50-
52][1060-E-H; 1061-A-c]
YAMUNA EXPRESSW

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