In a significant decision, the Supreme Court of India today resolved a prolonged legal dispute concerning the invocation of urgency provisions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the Yamuna Expressway project. A bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta delivered the judgment, upholding the acquisition process and emphasizing the critical importance of integrated land development for public infrastructure projects.
Case Background
The appeals emerged from conflicting rulings by the Allahabad High Court. The case revolved around the acquisition of approximately 2,979 hectares of land in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, by the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA). The acquisition aimed to support the planned development of the Yamuna Expressway and its adjoining areas for residential, industrial, and recreational purposes.
Landowners challenged the acquisition, arguing that the urgency clause invoked by the government deprived them of their right to object under Section 5-A of the Act. This clause allows bypassing the objection process if urgency is demonstrated.
The Legal Issues
1. Urgency Clause Invocation: Whether the application of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to dispense with landowners’ objections was justified.
2. Public Purpose: Whether the acquisition served a genuine public purpose or primarily benefited private entities.
3. Precedent and Judicial Discipline: Divergent views from the High Court in cases of Kamal Sharma v. State of U.P. and Shyoraj Singh v. State of U.P. raised questions of consistency in judicial decisions.
The Court’s Findings
The Supreme Court concluded that:
1. Integrated Development Validated: The land acquisition formed part of an integrated development plan, with residential and industrial development being complementary to the expressway.
2. Justified Invocation of Urgency: The Court observed that the scale and complexity of the project necessitated expedited procedures, citing the interconnected nature of the expressway and adjoining development.
3. Judicial Precedent Upheld: The Court endorsed the Kamal Sharma ruling, terming the earlier Shyoraj Singh judgment “per incuriam” for failing to consider precedents, including the apex court’s decision in Nand Kishore Gupta v. State of U.P.
The bench remarked, “A project of this magnitude, connecting millions, cannot be subjected to delays caused by protracted hearings that serve to impede development.”
Compensation for Landowners
Acknowledging the rights of affected landowners, the Supreme Court upheld the Allahabad High Court’s directive to provide an escalated compensation of 64.7%, labeled as a “No Litigation Bonus.” This provision ensures fairness while allowing the project to proceed.
Key Observations
– On Urgency: “The urgency provisions can only be invoked where delay of even a few weeks may frustrate the public purpose. Here, the enormity of the project justified the invocation.”
– On Integrated Development: “The development of adjoining lands is an inseparable part of the Yamuna Expressway’s overarching objective to serve public interest.”
– Judicial Discipline: “A subsequent coordinate bench cannot override an earlier ruling without referring the matter to a larger bench.”
Representation
– For Landowners: Advocates argued against procedural violations and highlighted the delayed execution of the project as evidence undermining urgency.
– For YEIDA: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocates contended that the acquisition process was transparent and indispensable for the region’s economic and infrastructural growth.
