Summary
After Gajraj (affirmed in Savitri Devi) awarded farmers whose land was acquired for NOIDA and Greater NOIDA 64.7% additional compensation, farmers whose land was acquired for the Yamuna Expressway Authority agitated for parity and stalled development, and allottees themselves sought State intervention. On a High-Level Committee's recommendation, the State's Government Order of 29.08.2014, adopted by YEIDA's Board on 15.09.2014, offered farmers 64.7% additional compensation as a 'no litigation incentive' on withdrawing their petitions, recoverable proportionately from allottees. The Allahabad High Court quashed the additional demands as arbitrary and contrary to concluded leases. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals: the policy was a reasoned decision in the larger public interest overriding private contracts, and allottees who sought the solution could not approbate and reprobate.
Issues
- Whether the Government Order of 29.08.2014 and YEIDA's Board resolution of 15.09.2014, requiring allottees to bear proportionately the 64.7% additional compensation paid to farmers as a 'no litigation incentive', were arbitrary, irrational or contrary to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and whether the Gajraj/Savitri Devi formula could be applied to acquisitions for YEIDA under different notifications.
- Whether a change in Government policy in the public interest can override concluded lease deeds between a public authority and its allottees so as to permit recovery of an additional premium.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14 and 226 (judicial review of policy decisions), Constitution of IndiaA policy decision may be interfered with only if unconstitutional, dehors the statute, beyond delegated power, contrary to a larger policy, or palpably arbitrary, mala fide or irrational (Essar Steel; DDA v. Allottee of SFS Flats; Narmada Bachao Andolan). The G.O. followed a Commissioner's report and deliberations of the Chaudhary Committee with all stakeholders, rested on relevant and rational factors founded on ground realities, and was in the larger public interest; the High Court erred in holding it arbitrary. (¶¶ 52, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 70)
- Sections 5A and 17, Land Acquisition Act, 1894About 700 writ petitions by YEIDA farmers challenging the invocation of urgency and denial of Section 5A objections were pending with stay orders, so the acquisition was under a hanging sword of being declared unlawful as in Gajraj; the policy adopted the Gajraj/Savitri Devi/Savitri Mohan formula of additional compensation to balance equities and save the acquisitions on which third-party rights had been created. (¶¶ 9, 10, 36, 40, 49, 55, 57, 70)
Held
- Though Savitri Devi observed that the directions in Gajraj were given in a unique and peculiar background, this Court in Greater Noida IDA v. Savitri Mohan followed the same principle of balancing equities by directing higher compensation and allotment of land instead of quashing; the formula could therefore inform the State's policy for YEIDA acquisitions facing identical challenges, and the High Court erred in finding that no writ petitions were pending against the YEIDA acquisitions. (¶¶ 36, 37, 40, 57)
- The policy decision was preceded by the farmers' agitation over discriminatory compensation, representations by the allottees themselves (Supertech, Orris, Sunworld, Gaursons) agreeing to abide by whatever the Government and Authority decided, the Commissioner's report, and the Chaudhary Committee's deliberations with farmers, allottees and YEIDA; its recommendation of 64.7% additional compensation conditional on farmers handing over possession and withdrawing litigation, recoverable proportionately from allottees, took care of the interests of all stakeholders and was in the interest of the allottees as much as the farmers. (¶¶ 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 52, 55, 56)
- Promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine that must yield where equity so demands and cannot bind the Government where it would be inequitable to hold it to its promise (Kasinka Trading); a change in policy by the Government in the general public interest, guided by reason, has an overriding effect over private treaties between the Government and a private party (APM Terminals), and in a conflict between public interest and personal interest the former prevails (ITC Ltd.). The concluded lease deeds therefore did not preclude the additional demand. (¶¶ 53, 54, 61, 62, 63, 65)
- The allottees approbated and reprobated: having approached the State for a solution when their projects were stalled and having benefited from the policy that paved the way for development, they challenged the very same policy when called upon to pay. Over 98% of the individual residential plot owners, through their association, had agreed to pay the additional premium, asking only for instalments. The pending CIRP against one allottee is not a matter for these proceedings. (¶¶ 66, 67, 68, 69)
Result
Appeals allowed; the Allahabad High Court's judgment of 28.05.2020 in Writ-C No. 28968 of 2018 and connected petitions quashed; the allottees' writ petitions challenging the additional-premium demands under the G.O. of 29.08.2014 and YEIDA's resolution of 15.09.2014 dismissed; intervention applications allowed. No order as to costs.