Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition for Yamuna Expressway Development

The case of Kali Charan & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others revolves around the land acquisition process initiated by the State of Uttar Pradesh for planned development in Gautam Budh Nagar under the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA). The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated November 26, 2024, ruled in favor of the state authorities, upholding the invocation of urgency provisions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from land acquisition proceedings initiated in 2009 for the development of the Yamuna Expressway and associated industrial and residential townships. The state government invoked Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, bypassing the requirement for public objections under Section 5-A.

Several landowners filed writ petitions challenging the acquisition, arguing that the urgency provisions were misused. The Allahabad High Court delivered conflicting rulings in different cases, leading to appeals before the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issues

Whether the land acquisition was part of an integrated development plan for the Yamuna Expressway.
Whether the invocation of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) was legally justified.
Whether the decision in Kamal Sharma vs. State of U.P., which upheld the acquisition, was correct, or whether the ruling in Shyoraj Singh vs. State of U.P., which quashed the acquisition, should prevail.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The landowners, represented by their counsel, contended:

The High Court in Shyoraj Singh had correctly ruled that the urgency provisions were misused, depriving them of their right to object under Section 5-A.
The state took nearly a year to issue the final notification under Section 6, indicating a lack of urgency.
The land was being acquired not for immediate public use but for commercial purposes, making the urgency claim invalid.
The ruling in Radhy Shyam vs. State of U.P. established that planned industrial development alone does not justify bypassing Section 5-A.
The acquisition should be quashed, and compensation should be reconsidered.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of Uttar Pradesh and YEIDA, represented by the Solicitor General, countered with the following points:

The acquisition was part of an integrated development project, including the Yamuna Expressway, residential zones, industrial areas, and commercial hubs.
The project was of immense public importance, facilitating rapid transport, economic growth, and industrial expansion.
The urgency provisions were correctly invoked to prevent encroachments and delays in development.
Over 90% of the landowners had accepted compensation, demonstrating widespread agreement.
The ruling in Nand Kishore Gupta vs. State of U.P. upheld similar acquisitions for expressway projects and should be followed.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court analyzed previous rulings and the facts of the case, making the following key observations:

1. Integrated Development and Public Purpose

The Court emphasized that the Yamuna Expressway project was not merely a road but a comprehensive infrastructure initiative. The acquisition aimed at economic growth, not just transportation, making it a legitimate public purpose.

2. Justification for Urgency Provisions

The Court ruled that the large-scale nature of the project justified bypassing Section 5-A objections. Delays in individual hearings could have hampered the project, affecting thousands of stakeholders.

3. Differentiation from Previous Rulings

The Court distinguished this case from Radhy Shyam, noting that the latter involved standalone industrial acquisitions, while this case dealt with a highway-linked urban development initiative.

4. Majority Acceptance of Compensation

With over 90% of landowners having accepted enhanced compensation, the Court found no merit in nullifying the acquisition.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the land acquisition and ruled:

The appeals by landowners were dismissed.
The ruling in Kamal Sharma vs. State of U.P., which upheld the acquisition, was affirmed.
The judgment in Shyoraj Singh vs. State of U.P., which quashed the acquisition, was overruled.
The state was directed to ensure that the enhanced compensation of 64.7% granted by the High Court in Kamal Sharma was uniformly applied.
The matter of final award issuance remained open for further legal action if required.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling reinforces the principle that large-scale infrastructure projects, when integrated with urban planning, qualify for urgency provisions under the Land Acquisition Act. The decision also:

Provides clarity on the application of urgency clauses in land acquisition.
Upholds the government’s authority in balancing public interest with property rights.
Sets a precedent for future expressway-linked developments.

By affirming the legality of the acquisition, the Supreme Court ensures that developmental projects of national significance are not unduly delayed by procedural challenges.

Petitioner Name: Kali Charan & Others.
Respondent Name: State of Uttar Pradesh & Others.
Judgment By: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Sandeep Mehta.
Place Of Incident: Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 25-11-2024.

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

Download Judgment: kali-charan-&-others-vs-state-of-uttar-prade-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-25-11-2024.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by B R Gavai
See all petitions in Judgment by Sandeep Mehta
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 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