NOIDA Land Acquisition Case: Supreme Court Reverses High Court's Decision

The case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) vs. Darshan Lal Bohra & Ors. is a significant ruling by the Supreme Court of India regarding land acquisition laws. The dispute centered on NOIDA’s acquisition of land in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The case highlights crucial aspects of land acquisition, including the right of landowners to object under Section 5A and the procedural fairness of such acquisitions.

The High Court had annulled the acquisition process citing procedural lapses. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision, upholding the acquisition and emphasizing that the process was conducted in substantial compliance with legal requirements.

Background of the Case

On 28.09.2013, NOIDA issued a Section 4(1) notification for acquiring 83.761 hectares of land in Village Badoli Banger, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar, for planned industrial development. The notification was published in newspapers, and public announcements were made to inform landowners about the proposed acquisition.

Respondent No. 1, Darshan Lal Bohra, and several other landowners raised objections under Section 5A, claiming that their land was within an ‘abadi’ area and should be exempted. The objections were reviewed, and a report recommending acquisition was submitted by the Collector.

Following this, on 14.01.2015, NOIDA issued a Section 6(1) declaration for acquiring 81.819 hectares of land. Dissatisfied with the decision, some landowners, led by Darshan Lal Bohra, approached the High Court, challenging the validity of the acquisition process.

Key Arguments by NOIDA

1. Challenge to the Maintainability of the Objections

NOIDA argued that the High Court had erred in setting aside the acquisition process. They classified the landowners into four categories:

Those who filed objections and contested the acquisition.
Those who did not file objections but later contested the acquisition.
Those who initially objected but later accepted compensation.
Subsequent purchasers who acquired the land after the notification.

NOIDA contended that the second, third, and fourth categories had no legal standing to challenge the acquisition, as they had either failed to raise objections within the stipulated time or had accepted compensation.

2. Significant Compensation and Development Expenditures

NOIDA highlighted that:

Compensation of approximately INR 147.72 crores had already been paid to 185 out of 210 landowners.
An additional INR 72.56 crores had been distributed as a ‘no litigation bonus’ to farmers.
Over INR 202.17 crores had been spent on infrastructure development in the acquired land.

They argued that canceling the acquisition at this stage would cause financial loss and disrupt development projects.

3. Compliance with Section 5A

NOIDA asserted that the Section 5A process was conducted fairly. They argued:

Written objections were submitted, and oral hearings were not mandatory.
The objections were consolidated due to their similarities and were duly considered.
The public purpose of acquisition was not challenged, making individual objections irrelevant.

Key Arguments by the Respondents

1. Violation of Section 5A

Respondents, represented by senior advocates, argued that NOIDA violated their rights under Section 5A by:

Not providing proper notice of hearings.
Consolidating objections arbitrarily without considering individual grievances.
Failing to conduct a fair hearing as mandated by the law.

2. Prior Exemption from Acquisition

Respondents highlighted that some landowners had previously obtained exemptions from acquisition. They argued that NOIDA acted with mala fide intent by attempting to re-acquire the same land.

3. Right to Compensation under the 2013 Act

The respondents sought compensation at market rates under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court held that the acquisition process was legally sound. The key findings were:

Those who did not file objections under Section 5A had waived their right to challenge.
Subsequent purchasers lacked legal standing to contest the acquisition.
The Section 5A process was conducted in substantial compliance with the law.
Landowners were entitled to seek enhanced compensation under the 2013 Act.

Thus, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s ruling and restored the acquisition.

Final Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directives:

The acquisition process was upheld.
Landowners who had not yet received compensation were to be paid within four weeks.
Landowners could seek enhanced compensation under the 2013 Act.

This ruling reaffirmed the importance of procedural compliance in land acquisition cases while ensuring that landowners were not deprived of their right to fair compensation.

Petitioner Name: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority.
Respondent Name: Darshan Lal Bohra & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Surya Kant, Justice K.V. Viswanathan.
Place Of Incident: Gautam Budh Nagar.
Judgment Date: 10-07-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: new-okhla-industrial-vs-darshan-lal-bohra-&-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-10-07-2024.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Judgment by Surya Kant
See all petitions in Judgment by K.V. Viswanathan
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category