SC upholds land acquisition for Yamuna Expressway development

The cases arose from 2 conflicting verdicts of the Allahabad High Court. One judgement upheld the acquisition by the YEIDA and different quashed authorities enactment of taking the onshore of farmers by invoking the urgency clauses.

A seat comprising Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta dismissed appeals by the landowners portion allowing the appeals filed by the YEIDA, resolving a long-standing quality implicit the exertion of urgency provisions successful the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Writing a 49-page judgement for the bench, Justice Mehta said the acquisition was deemed integral to the Yamuna Expressway’s development.

The judgement emphasized that the expressway’s operation and the improvement of adjoining areas were inseparable components of a unified public-interest project.

It upheld the invocation of urgency clauses of the law, saying it was justified nether the planned improvement argumentation for the region.

It noted that concerns astir unauthorized encroachments and the request for accelerated improvement warranted bypassing the accustomed enquiry nether the applicable law.

The seat acknowledged that bulk of affected landowners had accepted the compensation awarded by the Allahabad High Court and endorsed the 64.7 per cent enhanced compensation granted arsenic a “No Litigation Bonus”.

It ruled retired further enhancement, emphasizing uniformity successful benefits for each affected parties. The seat dealt with 3 cardinal questions successful the case.

“Whether the contiguous acquisition is simply a portion of the integrated improvement program of ‘Yamuna Expressway’ undertaken by responsive No.3-YEIDA,” work the archetypal issue.

Answering successful affirmative, the seat held, “The contiguous acquisition forms portion of the integrated improvement program for the Yamuna Expressway initiated by YEIDA.” “The nonsubjective of the acquisition is to integrate onshore improvement with the Yamuna Expressway’s construction, thereby promoting wide maturation serving the nationalist interest. Consequently, the Expressway and the improvement of adjoining lands are considered to beryllium inseparable components of the wide project,” it held.

The 2nd contented was whether the exertion of sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act was ineligible and warranted successful the instant case, thereby justifying the government’s determination to dispense with the enquiry nether the onshore acquisition law.

“Yes, the invocation of sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was ineligible and justified successful this case. The urgency clause was applied successful accordance with the planned improvement of the Yamuna Expressway, arsenic held successful the Nand Kishore case,” it said.

The 3rd contented was whether the presumption taken by the Allahabad High Court successful the Kamal Sharma lawsuit lays down the close proposition of instrumentality oregon whether the instrumentality laid down successful the Shyoraj Singh lawsuit was justified.

The apex tribunal affirmed that the judgement successful the Kamal Sharma case, which relied connected earlier precedents, correctly interpreted the instrumentality and upheld the acquisition.

The seat acceptable speech the conflicting judgement of the High Court successful the Shyoraj Singh lawsuit arsenic “per-incuriam’ and frankincense invalid. This had ruled successful favour of the landowners.

The lawsuit stemmed from onshore acquisition initiated successful 2009 nether the urgency provisions of sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act for the planned improvement of the Yamuna Expressway region.

The landowners opposed the acquisition, citing misuse of the urgency clause and claiming that their lands, classified arsenic Abadi Bhoomi (residential land), were unsuitable for acquisition without owed inquiry.

The precocious tribunal had issued divergent rulings successful related cases.

In Kamal Sharma vs State of UP, the tribunal upheld the acquisition and granted enhanced compensation, portion successful Shyoraj Singh vs State of UP, different seat quashed the acquisition, citing arbitrary exertion of the urgency provisions.