Delve into the intricate legal analysis provided by the court in a significant land acquisition dispute. The case sheds light on the implications of a policy decision made in the public interest, addressing farmer unrest and development obstacles. Stay tuned for a detailed breakdown of the court’s perspective on policy decisions and their impact on such disputes.
Facts
- A plot of 50 acres of land was reserved for respondent No.1 by YEIDA.
- Writ petitions were filed by farmers challenging the land acquisition.
- Farmers were paid additional compensation of 64.7% causing unrest among the others.
- YEIDA issued an allotment letter for a 50-acre plot to respondent No.1 in Sector 7-A.
- A lease deed was executed for 90 years after compliance with terms and conditions and deposit.
- Chaudhary Committee recommended payment of 64.7% additional amount to farmers.
- YEIDA demanded additional premium from respondent No.1 as per government order.
- Allottees were issued additional demand notices, leading to appeals by YEIDA and state.
- Chaudhary Committee recommended reimbursement of additional amount from allottees.
- Judgment on urgency clause in land acquisition case was delivered on October 21, 2011.
- Lands were also leased out to respondent No.1 for developing Galgotias University.
- Allottees applied for plots post land acquisition by YEIDA.
- Measurement revealed an excess area in the plot allotted to respondent No.1.
- CEO of YEIDA requested a solution from the State Government for the excess area issue.
- Commissioner recommended the formation of a High-Level Committee after meetings with farmers.
- The allotted land’s premium was mentioned in the allotment letter as Rs.1,055/- per sq. meter.
- The Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in the case of Gajraj, held that the decision in Gajraj was not a judgment in rem and could not be applied to land acquisition proceedings under different notifications or for YEIDA.
- The G.O. and Resolution of the Board of YEIDA were deemed violative of the provisions of the L.A. Act by the High Court.
- The State Government’s policy was found to be unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary, and in violation of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
- Additional compensation of 64.7% was granted by the Court, considering the compensation negotiation done by NOIDA with farmers in the village of Patwari.
- The judgment and order of the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj was confirmed by the Court in the case of Savitri Devi vs State of Uttar Pradesh.
- To balance equities, the High Court directed the payment of additional compensation of 64.7% and other benefits to certain class of farmers.
Also Read: Presumption of Genuine Endorsements in Cheque Case
Arguments
- The appellants argue that the G.O. in question was a policy decision taken in the public interest to address the hindrance in development caused by farmer agitation.
- They claim that the respondents benefited from the measure and should therefore not refuse to pay the additional compensation.
- The appellants assert that many acquisitions were made through private negotiations and thus, Sections 17 or 5A of the L.A. Act do not apply.
- It is contended that the State’s policy aimed at the welfare of the general population rather than a specific group.
- The appellants state that the lease deed allowed for modifications and additions, giving the allotees options to make extra payments or seek refunds.
- To prevent illegal acquisitions, the State Cabinet adopted a formula based on the Gajraj judgment, which was approved by the Supreme Court in the Savitri Devi case.
- They argue that this policy aligns with the Court’s decision in the Centre for Public Interest Litigation case.
- The appellants claim that the change in policy, prompted by the farmers’ agitation and Chaudhary Committee’s report, overrides previous private agreements.
- Various plot owners approached the State for solutions to aid development, and the Chaudhary Committee included inputs from all stakeholders, including allotee representatives who agreed to pay additional compensation.
- The appellants assert that over 600 writ petitions were pending when the policy decision was made to save the acquisitions from potential invalidation.
- Respondents had not given any undertaking to pay additional compensation
- The term ‘modification/addition’ was restricted only to clerical or technical errors in concluded contracts
- Elaborate arguments were advanced on behalf of the respondents regarding these points
Also Read: Medical Negligence and Compensation: A Landmark Decision
Analysis
- High Court held that Gajraj (supra) and Savitri Devi (supra) applied only to the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases
- In Gajraj (supra), the High Court categorized cases into three types
- The State Government’s policy decision was in the larger public interest and aimed at resolving the grievances of both farmers and allottees.
- Farmers demanded increased compensation, which the Authority planned to collect from builders.
- Most residential plot owners did not object to paying additional compensation towards farmers.
- Consideration was given for potential payments in installments or developed land if lump sum was not feasible.
- The proceedings regarding various proposed amendments and decisions by the Authority were to be conducted as per the Government’s directives.
- The High Court’s observation on writ petitions challenging land acquisitions for YEIDA was disputed.
- Greater Noida and its allottees were instructed to halt development until incorporating NCRPB’s observations in the Master Plan 2021.
- A thorough inquiry was mandated by the Chief Secretary to investigate Greater Noida’s actions regarding Master Plan 2021 decisions.
- The Chaudhary Committee recommendations aimed at resolving issues between farmers and allottees.
- Representation by various stakeholders regarding the policy decisions and actions taken in response to farmer unrest were highlighted.
- The need for out-of-court settlements with affected farmers was emphasized.
- The Court found merit in the appellant’s contention that the Division Bench erred in distinguishing the present case from the judgment in Gajraj v. State of U.P.
- In the case of Savitri Devi v. State of U.P., relief of setting aside the acquisition was not granted due to the development already undertaken on substantial part of the land, but higher compensation and allotment of land was ordered to balance the equities.
- The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in the abstract, and the courts must consider all aspects, including public good and equity, before applying the doctrine.
- The ambit, scope, and amplitude of the doctrine of promissory estoppel have evolved through successive decisions of the Court.
- Courts may interfere with policy decisions subject to judicial review on specific grounds like unconstitutionality, exceeding delegated powers, or conflict with statutory provisions.
- Interference with policy decisions requires clear demonstration of arbitrariness, mala fide intent, or violation of statutory provisions.
- Courts should exercise caution and restraint in matters related to commercial and economic policies, unless they are enacted in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or mala fide manner.
- A change in policy should be guided by reason and not arbitrary factors, and wisdom of economic policies is not amenable to judicial review.
- The courts should not sit in judgment over commercial or business decisions taken by parties unless they are in clear violation of statutory provisions or taken for improper motives.
- Public interest overrides personal interest in case of conflict.
- High Court deemed state policy unfair, unreasonable, and arbitrary.
- The High Court’s decision to allow the writ petitions was considered an error.
Also Read: Remand of Writ Petition for Restoration and Decision on Merits
Decision
- Petitioners entitled to restoration of their land upon returning the compensation received under agreement/award to the Collector.
- Appeals allowed in Writ Petition No 47486 of 2011 (Rajee v. State of U.P.) for Village Asdullapur.
- Intervention applications allowed.
- Compensation must be deposited before Authority/Collector for restoration of land in this case.
- Additional compensation increased to 64.7% for remaining 61 villages, with entitlement for abadi plot allotment to landowners.
- Notifications dated 26-5-2009 and 22-6-2009, along with consequential actions, quashed.
- Impugned judgment and order dated 28 May, 2020, by Allahabad High Court dismissed.
- Notifications dated 10-4-2006 and 6-9-2007, along with consequential actions, quashed.
- Direction from High Court given regarding Writ Petition No 45933 of 2011 and others relating to various villages.
- Writ petitions for Group 40 (Village Devla) dismissed due to delay and laches.
- Petitioners entitled to restoration of land and additional compensation as per specified ratio for Village Patwari.
- Payment of compensation and additional compensation to be ensured by the Authority promptly.
- Writ Petition No 17725 of 2010 (Omveer v. State of U.P.) allowed for Village Yusufpur Chak Sahberi.
Case Title: YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. M/S SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY (2022 INSC 594)
Case Number: C.A. No.-004178-004197 / 2022
