Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  5372   OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.9550 of 2015

GREATER NOIDA IND. DEV. AUTHORITY                 …APPELLANT

VERSUS

SAVITRI MOHAN (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.    ...RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T   

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1. Leave  granted.   This  appeal  has  been  preferred  against

judgment  and order  dated 30th May,  2012 of  the  High Court  of

Judicature  at  Allahabad  in  Civil  Miscellaneous  Writ  Petition

No.13109 of 2009 whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition

and set aside the notification dated 12th March, 2008 under Section

4(1) and Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition  Act, 1894 (the Act)

and the notification dated 3rd February, 2009 under Section 6 read

with  Section 17(1)  of the 1894 Act.

Page 2

2

2. The  notified  purpose  for  acquisition  of  land  is  ‘planned

industrial  development’  of  Greater  Noida Industrial  Development

Authority  (GNIDA).   Land  of  the  respondents  is  in  Village

Chhapruala  and is part of larger area of land acquired falling in

many adjoining villages.  The Award was declared on 31st March,

2011.

3. The original petitioners did not receive the compensation as

they had already filed a petition in the High Court on 3 rd March,

2009 mainly on the ground that the urgency clause could not have

been invoked so as to deprive the land owners of their right to file

objections.  On coming to know of the proposed acquisition, the

respondents  made  representation  dated  11th April,  2008  stating

that they were running an agro based industry and floriculture for

producing hybrid seeds of flowers.  Case of the writ petitioners was

that  possession  was  wrongly  shown  to  have  been  taken  on  9th

March,  2009 as interim order  was already passed on 5th March,

2009.

4. The writ petitioners relied upon decisions of this Court inter

alia in Anand Singh versus State of U.P.1, Dev Sharan versus

State of  U.P.2,  Radhey Shyam (dead)  through Lrs.  versus

State of U.P.3, Devendra Kumar Tyagi & Ors. versus State of

1  (2010) 11 SCC 242 2  (2011) 4 SCC 769 3  (2011) 5 SCC 553

Page 3

3

U.P.4,  Devendra Singh & Ors. versus State of U.P. & Ors.5,

Greater  Noida  Industrial  Development  Authority  versus

Devendra Kumar & Ors.6,  and Darshan Lal  Nagpal  versus

Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.7  in support of their case.

5.    The stand of the State is that having regard to immediate need

for  development  and  likelihood  of  illegal  and  unauthorized

constructions, invocation of urgency clause was justified.  It  was

submitted that the power under Article 226 should not be exercised

so as to obstruct  development of  infrastructure which will  serve

larger public interest.  Instead, the relief could be moulded so to

compensate the writ  petitioners.  It was submitted that the land

was  part  and  parcel  of  larger  area.   In  view  of  substantial

development having taken place, the plea of the writ  petitioners

should not be considered in isolation.  Reliance was placed on a Full

Bench Judgment of the High Court in  Gajraj and others versus

State of U.P. and others.8  whereby 461 petitions were decided.

Acquisition  was  upheld  but  additional  compensation

of  64.70  per  cent  was  awarded  with  further  direction  to  allot

developed plots to the extent of 10 per cent of the acquired land

subject to maximum of 2500 square meters as against allotment of

abadi plots to the extent of 6 per cent.   This order was passed

4  (2011) 9 SCC 164 5  (2011) 9 SCC 551 6  (2011) 12 SCC 375 7  (2012) 2 SCC 327 8  (2011) 11 ADJ (1)

Page 4

4

having regard to  the extent  of  development,  which had already

taken place after the acquisition.  The said judgment also covered

land  of  village Chhapraula  as  a  part  of  group  No.18  (out  of  65

groups).  While discussing the writ petitions of village Chhapraula,

the  Full  Bench  judgment  noted  that  compensation  had  already

been disbursed to the extent of 76 per cent.

6. The Division Bench of the High Court, following the decisions

of  this  Court  referred  to  above,  held  that  power  of  dispensing

inquiry  under  Section  5A  could  be  exercised  in  exceptional

situations  and  not  without  real  urgency.   In  the  present  case,

invocation of urgency was not justified.  The judgment of the Full

Bench in  Gajraj (supra)   was distinguished on the ground that

therein the writ petition was filed with delay of two years and in

some cases where there was no delay, the acquisition had been

quashed.

7. GNIDA has challenged the view of the High Court mainly on

the ground that the Division Bench has taken a view contrary to the

view taken by the Full Bench which by now stands affirmed by this

Court in Savitri Devi versus State of Uttar Pradesh9.  Subject

to the moulding of relief as above, the Full Bench had upheld the

acquisition relating to village Chhapraula covered by the very same

notification as in the present case.   It  was submitted that  large

9  (2015) 7 SCC 21

Page 5

5

scale  development  work  had  already  been  executed  on  the

acquired  land.   82  per  cent  land  owners  had  accepted

compensation which covered 76 per cent of the land in terms of the

area,  the  GNIDA  had  constructed  roads,  laid  down  sewer  lines,

electric  transmission  lines,  developed  green  belts,  provided

drinking  water  facility  and  other  infrastructure.   In  these

circumstances,  the  impugned  judgment  could  not  be  sustained.

Learned  counsel  for  the  respondents  supports  the  impugned

judgment.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and

perused the record including the lay out plan showing Sectors 13

and 16 (Ind.) in Greater Noida (West).

9. Only  question  for  consideration  is  whether  the  matter  is

covered by the judgment of this Court in Savitri Devi (supra), as

claimed by the appellant  in  which case the respondents  will  be

entitled  to  relief  of  higher  compensation  and  allotment  of  land

instead of quashing of acquisition proceedings.

10. Our attention has been drawn to the relevant part of the  full

Bench judgment of the High Court in Gajraj (supra)  as follows :

“50.  The  writ  petitions  of  Group-18  relate  to  village Chhapraula. In Writ Petition No.46775 of 2011 (Jai Pal And Others v. State of U.P. and others) pleadings are complete which  is  treated  as  leading  writ  petition  of  village

Page 6

6

Chhapraula. This writ petition has been filed by 48 tenure holders  challenging  the  notification  dated  12th  March, 2008  issued  under  Section 4 read  with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act proposing acquisition of  68.129  hectares  land  of  village  Chhapraula.  The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 3rd February,  2009.  The State Government by Government order dated 8th September, 1997 and 9th February, 2005 has issued specific directions to the acquiring bodies not to include the land covered by abadi in the acquisition and  in  case  it  is  utmost  necessary  for  acquisition displaced  person  be  given  comparable  land.  The petitioners claim to be in actual possession of the land. It has  been  pleaded  that  it  has  become  fashionable  to discriminatingly apply the provisions of  Section 17(4) of the Act in every case of acquisition. The land has been allotted  to  private  builders  whereas  the  purpose  of acquisition  was  planned industrial  development.  In  the counter affidavit filed by the State it has been stated that possession of the land was taken on 9th March, 2009 and award was declared on 21st March, 2011. Copies of the possession memo and award have been brought on the record.  According  to  paragraph  24  of  the  counter affidavit,  the land use of part of Sector Tech Zone was changed  from  institutional  to  residential  and  similarly land use of part of Sector Echotech-13 was changed from industrial  to institutional which changes were approved by the Board on 11th February, 2010 and also the same were approved by the Government on 30th March, 2010. The compensation has been disbursed to the extent of 76%.  An application  for  intervention  has  been filed on behalf of M/s Marion Biotech Private Limited which claim allotment of land by allotment letter dated 31st March, 2011 of an area of 10,000 square meters as an industrial plot  in  Echotech-16.  The applicant claims that 200-300 persons shall be employed in the project.”

11. Operative part of the order is as follows :

“21. ….. In view of the foregoing conclusions we order as follows:

1.  The  Writ  Petition  No.  45933  of  2011,  Writ  Petition  No. 47545 of  2011 relating  to  village Nithari,  Writ  Petition  No. 47522 of 2011 relating to village Sadarpur, Writ Petition No. 45196 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45208 of 2011, Writ Petition No.  45211  of  2011,  Writ  Petition  No.  45213  of  2011,  Writ Petition No. 45216 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45223 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45224 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45226 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45229 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45230

Page 7

7

of  2011,  Writ  Petition No. 45235 of  2011,  Writ  Petition No. 45238 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45283 of 2011 relating to village Khoda, Writ Petition No. 46764 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 46785 of 2011 relating to village Sultanpur, Writ Petition No. 46407 of 2011 relating to village Chaura Sadatpur and Writ Petition No. 46470 of 2011 relating to village Alaverdipur which have been filed with inordinate delay and laches are dismissed.

2(i). The writ petitions of Group 40 (Village Devla) being Writ Petition No. 31126 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 59131 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 22800 of 2010, Writ Petition No. 37118 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 42812 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 50417 of  2009,  Writ  Petition No. 54424 of  2009,  Writ  Petition No. 54652 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 55650 of 2009, Writ Petition No.  57032  of  2009,  Writ  Petition  No.  58318  of  2009,  Writ Petition No. 22798 of 2010, Writ Petition No. 37784 of 2010, Writ Petition No. 37787 of 2010, Writ Petition No. 31124 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 31125 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 32234 of  2011,  Writ  Petition No. 32987 of  2011,  Writ  Petition No. 35648 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 38059 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 41339 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 47427 of 2011 and Writ Petition No. 47412 of 2011 are allowed and the notifications dated 26.5.2009 and 22.6.2009 and all consequential actions are quashed. The Petitioners shall be entitled for restoration of their land subject to deposit of compensation which they had  received  under  agreement/award  before  the authority/Collector.

2(ii).  Writ  petition  No.  17725  of  2010  Omveer  and  Ors.  v. State  of  U.P.  (Group  38)  relating  to  village  Yusufpur  Chak Sahberi  is  allowed.  Notifications  dated  10.4.2006  and 6.9.2007  and  all  consequential  actions  are  quashed.  The Petitioners  shall  be  entitled  for  restoration  of  their  land subject  to return  of  compensation received by them under agreement/award to the Collector.

2(iii). Writ Petition No. 47486 of 2011 (Rajee and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.) of Group-42 relating to village Asdullapur is allowed.  The  notification  dated  27.1.2010  and  4.2.2010  as well  as  all  subsequent  proceedings  are  quashed.  The Petitioners shall be entitled to restoration of their land.

3. All other writ petitions except as mentioned above at (1) and (2) are disposed of with following directions:

Page 9

9

6.  We  direct  the  Chief  Secretary  of  the  State  to  appoint officers not below the level of Principal Secretary (except the officers  of  Industrial  Development  Department  who  have dealt with the relevant files) to conduct a thorough inquiry regarding  the  acts  of  Greater  Noida  (a)  in  proceeding  to implement  Master  Plan  2021  without  approval  of  N.C.R.P. Board,  (b)  decisions  taken  to  change  the  land  use,  (c) allotment  made  to  the  builders  and  (d)  indiscriminate proposals  for  acquisition  of  land,  and  thereafter  the  State Government shall taken appropriate action in the matter.”

12. Perusal of the above shows that compensation had already

been disbursed to the extent of 76 per cent.  Thereafter, for the

entire land of village Chhapraula falling in Group No.18, the relief

granted is payment of additional compensation and allotment of

land.   As  already  noted,  the  part  of  the  order  where  relief  of

quashing of notification has been given is not of the category of

the present case.   In  these circumstances,  we find merit  in  the

contention raised on the behalf of the appellant that the division

bench  was  in  error  in  distinguishing  the  present  case  from the

judgment in Gajraj (supra).

13. As observed by this Court in Savitri Devi (supra),  in spite

of the finding that invocation of urgency clause was uncalled for,

the relief of setting aside the acquisition was not granted having

regard  to  the  development  that  had  already  undertaken  on

substantial  part  of  the  land.   However,  to  balance  the  equities

higher compensation and allotment of land was ordered to meet

Page 10

10

the ends of justice.10

14. Learned counsel  for the respondents vehemently submitted

that present case calls for the relief of quashing the acquisition as

in the present case, the writ petitioners have approached the Court

without any delay.

15. This argument cannot be accepted in view of the fact that Full

Bench judgment as upheld by this Court is not based on the extent

of  delay in  individual  cases.   Consideration for  not  granting the

relief  of  quashing  the  acquisition  is  overall  development  on

substantial part of the acquired land as noted in para 50 of the Full

Bench  judgment  already  quoted  hereinabove.   Filing  of  prompt

petitions by an individual is not the only consideration for grant of

relief of quashing acquisition when almost entire land has already

been  developed.   The  Full  Bench  has  quashed  acquisition  only

where substantial part of the land had not been developed.  The

category of the judgment where acquisition has not been quashed

covers the entire village where land of the respondents is located.

16. The respondents are, thus, entitled to be treated at par with

other similarly placed persons.  They are entitled to the following

relief  as per para  48.1 to  48.3 of  the judgment of  this  Court in

Savitri Devi (supra):

10  para 17 of the judgment

Page 11

11

“ 48.1. Increasing the compensation by 64.7%;

48.2. Directing allotment of developed abadi land to the extent of 10% of the land acquired of each of the landowners;

48.3. Compensation  which  is  increased  @64.7%  is payable  immediately  without  taking away the rights  of  the landowners  to  claim  higher  compensation  under  the machinery provided in the Land Acquisition Act wherein the matter  would  be  examined  on  the  basis  of  the  evidence produced to arrive at just and fair market value. ”

17. As earlier noted in para 11 earlier, allotment of 10% of the

acquired land to the concerned land owners is subject to maximum

of 2500 sq. meters.

18. In  view  of  the  above,  we  allow this  appeal,  set  aside  the

impugned judgment and direct disposal of the writ petitions of the

respondents in terms of the judgment of this Court in Savitri Devi

(supra).  There will be no order as to costs.

…………………………………..J.                           [ ANIL R. DAVE ]

…………………………………..J.        [ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]

NEW DELHI; JUNE 29 , 2016.