Invocation Of Urgency Clause For Planned Development Of Yamuna Expressway By State In Consonance With Law: SC Dismisses Landowner’s Plea
The Supreme Court observed that the invocation of the urgency clause for the planned development of the Yamuna Expressway by the State was in consonance with the law while dismissing the landowner’s appeal challenging the decision of the Allahabad High Court.
The Court upheld the invocation of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (the Act) which allowed the State of Uttar Pradesh to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5-A for the Yamuna Expressway Project. The Court also affirmed the compensation formula applied by the Allahabad High Court, granting a 64.7% increase to landowners. The Division Bench of the High Court while upholding the acquisition proceedings also held that it could not be accepted that the entire exercise for invocation of the urgency clause was "mechanical."
The Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “It cannot be gainsaid that Yamuna Expressway is a vital heartline providing access to millions of commuters from National Capital Delhi to Agra. The Expressway also connects the prestigious upcoming Jewar Airport to adjoining areas. To assume that the Yamuna Expressway is a simple highway without any scope for simultaneous development of the adjoining lands for commercial, residential and other such activities would be unconceivable. A project of such magnitude and enormity would definitely require the involvement of the adjoining areas which would lead to an overall development of the State of Uttar Pradesh at large.”
Senior Advocates Jayant Bhushan, Niranjan Reddy, V.K. Shukla and Chinmoy Pradip Sharma represented the Appellants, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocates Ranjit Kumar, Gopal Jain, Rajive Bhalla and Mohd Shoeb Alam appeared for the Respondents.
The appeals arose from conflicting judgments of the Allahabad High Court in Shyoraj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Kamal Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh. While one Bench quashed acquisition notifications, another upheld them as essential for an integrated development plan.
The landowners challenged the acquisition proceedings, arguing that the invocation of urgency provisions under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act deprived them of the opportunity to object. They also questioned the compensation formula and alleged improper justification for bypassing the inquiry process.
The Supreme Court upheld the acquisition, relying on its earlier decision in Nand Kishore Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010), which validated similar acquisitions for the Yamuna Expressway. The Bench noted that the invocation of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act was justified by the nature and scale of the project. It observed that delaying the process would have led to encroachments and increased costs, impacting public interest.
“The purpose behind the acquisition was unquestionably the integrated development of lands abutting the Yamuna Expressway. The acquisition of the lands for the Expressway could not be isolated or separated from the acquisition of the abutting lands. This was precisely held in the case of Nand Kishore,” the Court stated.
The Bench stated that the objective of the acquisition was to integrate land development with the Yamuna Expressway’s construction, thereby promoting overall growth serving the public interest. “Consequently, the Expressway and the development of adjoining lands are considered to be inseparable components of the overall project,” it remarked.
Consequently, the Court held that “in the present case, we have concluded that the action of the State in invocation of the urgency clause is in consonance with the law.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeals by the landowners.
Cause Title: Kali Charan & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 898)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocates Jayant Bhushan, Niranjan Reddy, V.K. Shukla and Chinmoy Pradip Sharma; Advocates Vandita Nain, Ayushi Rajput, Amar Gupta, Pranav Tanwar, Mohit Sharma, Shubhangi Pandey, Vineet Nagar, Kshitiz Ahuja, Shekhar Bhatia, Kapil Chaudhary, Samyak Jain, Rajat Sehgal, Anurag Rawal, Amit Singh, Akash Nagar, Jaibir Singh Nagar, Suresh Chand Nagar, Ruchi B Nagar, Kuldeep Nagar, Nafees Chaudhary, Surender Kumar, Yashpal Bhati, Vijender Kumar, Ankit Bhati, Arvind Tanwar, Pankaj Dubey, Rishu Mishra, D.N. Dubey and Ambuj Sharma; AOR Anand Mishra-1, Divyam Agarwal, Parul Shukla, Divya Jyoti Singh, Vandana Anand, Siddhartha Jha and Rakesh Mishra
Respondents: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta; Senior Advocates Ranjit Kumar, Gopal Jain, Rajive Bhalla and Mohd Shoeb Alam; AAG Sharan Dev Singh Thakur; Advocates Amar Gupta, Pranav Tanwar, Mohit Sharma, Sanjay Sarin, Tarun Rana, Gagan Deep Kaur, Lavanya Paul, Susheel Tomar, Siddharth Thakur, Adit Jayeshbhai Shah, Sharanya Singh, Mustafa Sajad, Yogesh Tiwari, Sarthak Nema, Abhinav Singh Parihar, Syed Imtiyaz Ali, Moazzam Khan, Sheetal Rawat, Mumtaz Alam Siddiqui, Ali Safeer Farooqi, Phaguni Bajpayi, Mansur Ali Khan, Rahat Ali Chaudhary, Siddharth Thakur, Adit Jayeshbhai Shah, Sharanya Singh, Mustafa Sajad, Ankita Kashyap, Nimisha Swarup, Nitin Gaur, Arjun Singh Tomar, Alok Shankar, Deepesh Srivastava, Rachana Sharma, Vikrant Singh Bais and Neema; AOR Divyam Agarwal, Dinkar Kalra, Sanjeev Malhotra, Nischal Kumar Neeraj, Anand Mishra-1, Sanjay K. Agrawal, Aftab Ali Khan, Ruchira Goel, Vikrant Singh Bais, Vikas Upadhyay, Vivek Sharma.
