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

Summary

The Supreme Court upheld the urgency acquisition of land in Gautam Budh Nagar by the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority. It held that the acquisition was part of the integrated development of the Yamuna Expressway covered by Nand Kishore Gupta, not a standalone project like that in Radhy Shyam. It approved the High Court's Kamal Sharma decision, set aside Shyoraj Singh as per incuriam, and extended the 64.7% enhanced compensation to all affected landowners.

Issues

1. Whether the acquisition formed part of the integrated development plan of the Yamuna Expressway undertaken by YEIDA.
2. Whether invoking Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to dispense with the Section 5-A inquiry was legal and justified.
3. Whether the High Court correctly applied Nand Kishore Gupta in Kamal Sharma, or Radhy Shyam was rightly applied in Shyoraj Singh to quash the same acquisition.
4. Whether a Division Bench could take a view different from an earlier coordinate Bench decision without a reference to a larger Bench.
5. Whether the landowners were entitled to compensation beyond the 64.7% enhancement granted by the High Court.

Provisions considered

• Section 17(1), Land Acquisition Act, 1894The State's invocation of the urgency power to take possession for planned development through YEIDA was held legal, since the land was part of the integrated Expressway project upheld in Nand Kishore Gupta. (¶¶ 8, 15, 28, 38)
• Section 17(4), Land Acquisition Act, 1894The direction dispensing with the Section 5-A inquiry was upheld as justified for the integrated development of the Yamuna Expressway. (¶¶ 15, 28, 38)
• Section 5-A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894The landowners' claim that they were wrongly denied a hearing on objections failed because the exclusion of the inquiry under Section 17(4) was held valid. (¶¶ 28, 38)
• Sections 4(1) and 6, Land Acquisition Act, 1894The notifications of 26.02.2009 under Section 4(1) and 19.02.2010 under Section 6 were sustained; the Court approved the High Court's examination of the original records in Kamal Sharma, which had found the delay explained. (¶¶ 15, 16, 20, 39)

Held

• Under the State's 2007 policy for planned development along the Taj Expressway, the Special Development Zone had to be developed in an integrated manner. As held in Nand Kishore Gupta, the land parcels for industry, residence and amusement are complementary to the Expressway, and acquiring land for the Expressway cannot be separated from acquiring the abutting lands. (¶¶ 29, 30, 33, 38)
• The landowners' attempt to confine Nand Kishore Gupta to the question of public purpose, and not to the invocation of the urgency clause for commercial, residential or industrial use, was rejected as an impermissible distinction. (¶ 31)
• Radhy Shyam concerned a standalone acquisition for planned industrial development through the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, not an integrated development of an Expressway and adjoining areas, and did not govern this acquisition; the Yamuna Expressway, linking Delhi to Agra and the Jewar Airport, could not be treated as a simple highway without development of adjoining land. (¶¶ 32, 34)
• The invocation of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) and the dispensing with the Section 5-A inquiry were legal and justified for the planned development of the Yamuna Expressway. (¶ 38)
• The objection that the Kamal Sharma Bench should have followed Shyoraj Singh or referred the question to a larger Bench was rejected: three earlier Division Benches (Natthi, Narendra Road Lines and Yogesh Kumar), whose decisions the Supreme Court had affirmed by dismissing SLPs, had upheld the urgency clause in the same acquisition, and Shyoraj Singh, which ignored them, was itself per incuriam. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 38)
• Kamal Sharma correctly stated the law after examining the State's original records and acted equitably in granting additional compensation; Shyoraj Singh did not lay down good law and was set aside. (¶¶ 37, 38, 39)
• Unlike Savitri Devi and similar cases, where the urgency clause was held illegal but the acquisition was saved by enhancing compensation, the urgency clause here was lawfully invoked. As the High Court had already granted 64.7% additional compensation as a No Litigation Bonus under the Government order of 04.11.2015, no further enhancement was warranted, but the enhancement was directed to apply in rem to all affected landowners. (¶¶ 41, 42, 43, 44)
• The question of non-issuance of the final award and its effect on the acquisition was left open for any affected party to pursue in accordance with law. (¶ 45)

Result

Landowners' appeals (Batch No. 1) dismissed and YEIDA's appeals (Batch No. 2) allowed; Kamal Sharma affirmed and Shyoraj Singh set aside; 64.7% enhanced compensation to apply in rem to all affected landowners; effect of non-issuance of the final award left open; abatement set aside and substitution allowed; no order as to costs.