# M/s Shakuntla Educational & Welfare Society v. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority 312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 311
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-10
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 38069 of 2022
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Anish Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-shakuntla-educational-welfare-society-v-yamuna-expressway-industrial-52264
- **Pages:** 81

## Headnote

A. Land Acquisition Law - Additional
Compensation - Interest on compensation
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 17
& 5A - Societies Registration Act, 1860 -
Interest Act, 1978 - Section 2(c) -
Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act,
1993 - Section 2(g) - The Galgotias
University Uttar Pradesh Act, 2011 - Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 - Order II Rule 2 &
Section 11 Explanation IV.

On the recommendations submitted by the
Committee constituted under the chairmanship of
Hon'ble Jail Minister Sh. Rajendra Chaudhary, the
Government Order No. 1015/77-3-14-6C/12 dated
29.08.2014 has been issued by the Government,
vide which, directions to pay 64.7% extra
compensation as no litigation incentive on the
compensation paid towards the land acquisition or
direct purchase of land within the area of
Authority, have been received. (Para 11)

The G.O. in question provided that the
farmers should be offered 64.7% additional
amount on the condition that they withdraw
their petitions challenging the acquisition
proceedings and undertake not to institute
any litigation and create any hindrance in the
development work of YEIDA. It was also
clarified in the G.O. in question that the
Government would not bear the burden of the
additional amount. The G.O. in question was
placed before the Board of YEIDA in its 51st
Board Meeting held on 15.09.2014 and the
same was approved in the said meeting on
the very same day vide Resolution dated
15.09.2014. (Para 10)

Present writ petition is preferred against the
demand
of
Rs.33.04
crores
alleged
and
described as "No Litigation Incentive/ 64.7%
Additional Compensation" in the impugned letter
dated
20.09.2022
(consequential
demand
notice). It appears that some other demands
have also been mentioned by YEIDA in the
same letter, namely, Differential Amount @
Rs.1041/- per sq. m. and External Development
Charges (EDC). (Para 72)

It is obligatory on the St. to ensure that
people are adequately compensated for
the transfer of resource to the private
domain. When the change in the policy of
the St. is in public interest, it will override
all private agreements entered into by the
St.. (Para 75)

As an instrumentality of the St., YEIDA is
legally bound to implement the directives
of the Supreme Court, once the same
serve a public duty by ensuring the
equitable
distribution
of
additional
compensation among affected farmers.
This legal framework mandates YEIDA's
compliance to uphold social justice and
public interest, reinforcing the status of
G.O. in question as lawful enactment in
the pursuit of its statutory obligations.
Petitioner's attempt to contest the additional
compensation and the associated levy of
interest through repeated litigation is to be seen
in the light of these constitutional provisions.
Moreover,
once
the
Supreme
Court
had
validated the GO in question as well as the
Board Resolution in question, therefore, the
duty is cast upon YEIDA to enforce the GO and
Board Resolution in question in their entirety.
Pick and choose policy cannot be adopted by
YEIDA. (Para 80)

B. It is well settled that Order 2 Rule 2
CPC requires the unity of all claims based
on the same cause of action in one suit, it
does not contemplate unity of distinct and
separate cause of action. The earlier
proceeding, which were drawn by the petitioner
while filing the earlier writ petition, wherein he
has challenged the demand of 2014 and the GO
as well as Resolution in question, the same was
put at rest by the Supreme Court on 19.05.2022
in Yamuna Expressway (infra). Subsequently,
present proceeding has been drawn in the year

## Text

_Characters 0–39,893 of 281,069. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39893 for what follows._

7 All. M/S Shakuntla Educational & Welfare Society Vs. Yamuna Expressway Industrial
 Development Authority
311
authorities under the Act took the view
that the sale deed was not genuine
because no consideration appears to have
passed before the Sub-Registrar and that
it was a transfer between father and son
raising a dust of suspicion. Otherwise it
was not disputed on fact that the sale had
been effected by means of a registered
deed in which the passing of consideration
was mentioned as a recital. The existence
of the sale deed being not disputed and it
having taken place, as said before, on
February 24, 1969, prior to the appointed
day that is January 24, 1971, the inquiry
regarding the validity of the sale deed
under sub-section (6) of Section 5 was
totally misplaced. Thereunder, as it
appears to us, the appropriate authority
had no jurisdiction to be put the validity of
the sale deed to test since his jurisdiction
arose only when the deed of transfer had
been effected on or after the appointed
day. Not only the first and the appellate
authority under the Act persisted in that
view, but the High Court tooo proceeded
on that basis. The effort of the appellant to
have it declared that the authorities had
no jurisdiction to in validate the sale
under sub-section (6) of Section 5 when
read with Explanation II to sub-section
(1) of Section 5 also was a futile attempt
because the High Court followed the path,
as did the authorities under the Act, and
rejected the writ petition. We are of the
view that this was a wholly erroneous
approach. Sub-section (6) of Section 5 did
not confer jurisdiction on the authorities
to determine the validity of the sale and if
that is so any finding of theirs as to the
contents of the sale is of no assistance. In
the result the appeal must succeed.
Accordingly, allowing the same we set
aside all the orders of the authorities
below as also that of the High Court.

14. Considering the findings
recorded by the Prescribed Authority under
Section 11 (2) Ceiling Act while allowing
the objection filed by the petitioner, there
was no occasion for the Commissioner to
allow the appeal filed by the State and
remand the matter back before Prescribed
Authority for fresh consideration of the
objection. The remand order passed by the
Commissioner in appeal is nothing, but
abuse of the process of law.

15. Considering the entire facts
and circumstances of the case as well as
ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court in Ramadhar Singh (Supra) the
impugned appellate order dated 31.05.2022
is hereby set aside and order of the
Prescribed Authority dated 03.05.1994 is
affirmed.

16. The writ petition stands
allowed.

17. No order as to costs.
---------
(2024) 7 ILRA 311
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ C No. 38069 of 2022
And
Writ C No. 2674 of 2023

M/s Shakuntla Educational & Welfare
Society ...Petitioner
Versus
Yamuna
Expressway
Industrial
Development Authority ...Respondent
312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashish Kumar, Sri Sunil Gupta (Sr.
Advocate),
Sri
Anurag
Khanna
(Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Raj Kishore, Sri Aditya Bhushan
Singhal, Sri Zain Mazbool, Sri Pranav
Tandon, Sri Abhay Pratap Singh, Sri Manish
Goyal (Sr. Advocate)

A. Land Acquisition Law - Additional
Compensation - Interest on compensation
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 17
& 5A - Societies Registration Act, 1860 -
Interest Act, 1978 - Section 2(c) -
Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act,
1993 - Section 2(g) - The Galgotias
University Uttar Pradesh Act, 2011 - Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 - Order II Rule 2 &
Section 11 Explanation IV.

On the recommendations submitted by the
Committee constituted under the chairmanship of
Hon'ble Jail Minister Sh. Rajendra Chaudhary, the
Government Order No. 1015/77-3-14-6C/12 dated
29.08.2014 has been issued by the Government,
vide which, directions to pay 64.7% extra
compensation as no litigation incentive on the
compensation paid towards the land acquisition or
direct purchase of land within the area of
Authority, have been received. (Para 11)

The G.O. in question provided that the
farmers should be offered 64.7% additional
amount on the condition that they withdraw
their petitions challenging the acquisition
proceedings and undertake not to institute
any litigation and create any hindrance in the
development work of YEIDA. It was also
clarified in the G.O. in question that the
Government would not bear the burden of the
additional amount. The G.O. in question was
placed before the Board of YEIDA in its 51st
Board Meeting held on 15.09.2014 and the
same was approved in the said meeting on
the very same day vide Resolution dated
15.09.2014. (Para 10)

Present writ petition is preferred against the
demand
of
Rs.33.04
crores
alleged
and
described as "No Litigation Incentive/ 64.7%
Additional Compensation" in the impugned letter
dated
20.09.2022
(consequential
demand
notice). It appears that some other demands
have also been mentioned by YEIDA in the
same letter, namely, Differential Amount @
Rs.1041/- per sq. m. and External Development
Charges (EDC). (Para 72)

It is obligatory on the St. to ensure that
people are adequately compensated for
the transfer of resource to the private
domain. When the change in the policy of
the St. is in public interest, it will override
all private agreements entered into by the
St.. (Para 75)

As an instrumentality of the St., YEIDA is
legally bound to implement the directives
of the Supreme Court, once the same
serve a public duty by ensuring the
equitable
distribution
of
additional
compensation among affected farmers.
This legal framework mandates YEIDA's
compliance to uphold social justice and
public interest, reinforcing the status of
G.O. in question as lawful enactment in
the pursuit of its statutory obligations.
Petitioner's attempt to contest the additional
compensation and the associated levy of
interest through repeated litigation is to be seen
in the light of these constitutional provisions.
Moreover,
once
the
Supreme
Court
had
validated the GO in question as well as the
Board Resolution in question, therefore, the
duty is cast upon YEIDA to enforce the GO and
Board Resolution in question in their entirety.
Pick and choose policy cannot be adopted by
YEIDA. (Para 80)

B. It is well settled that Order 2 Rule 2
CPC requires the unity of all claims based
on the same cause of action in one suit, it
does not contemplate unity of distinct and
separate cause of action. The earlier
proceeding, which were drawn by the petitioner
while filing the earlier writ petition, wherein he
has challenged the demand of 2014 and the GO
as well as Resolution in question, the same was
put at rest by the Supreme Court on 19.05.2022
in Yamuna Expressway (infra). Subsequently,
present proceeding has been drawn in the year
2022. Considering the relief, no fresh cause of
7 All. M/S Shakuntla Educational & Welfare Society Vs. Yamuna Expressway Industrial
 Development Authority
313
action arose between first proceeding and
second proceeding. (Para 93)

If the petitioner is entitled to seek relief
against YEIDA in respect of the same
cause of action, the petitioner cannot split
up the claim so as to omit one part to the
claim and sue for the other cause i.e.
interest in the subsequent petition.

The penal interest was shown in the first
demand as well as interest and penal interest
were also indicated in the second demand of the
year 2018 due to alleged default of the
petitioner. The subsequent (third) notice has
been challenged in the present proceeding.
Surprisingly earlier petition was filed in the year
2018 and at the same time it was known to the
petitioner qua interest and penal interest. After
finalisation of the earlier proceeding and
approval of demand of YEIDA based upon GO
and
the
Resolution
in
question,
present
proceeding has been drawn questioning the
validity of impugned demand letter dated
20.9.2022 sent by YEIDA to the extent that the
said letter pertains to demand of 64.7%
additional compensation (inasmuch as other
demands mentioned in the letter already stand
challenged by way of other legal remedies
adopted by the petitioner as St.d in the present
writ petition). Alternatively, it had also been
prayed for a direction to YEIDA not to recover
from the petitioner any amount other than the
amount of 64.7% additional compensation. The
impugned demand notice dated 20.9.2022
is only reiteration of earlier first and
second demand notices of the year 2014
and 2018 respectively. (Para 94)

Order 2 Rule 2 CPC provides that every
proceeding (suit) shall include the whole
of
the
claim,
which
the
petitioner
(plaintiff) is entitled to make in respect of
same cause of action. The petitioner is not
entitled to split the cause of action into
parts
by
filing
separate
proceedings
(suits). The petitioner had not omitted present
relief but infact challenged the demand letter in
the light of G.O. in question and resolution in
question in the previous litigation. Even in such
situation, it cannot be presumed that the
petitioner had omitted certain reliefs, which they
want to press in the present proceeding.
Present relief was available to the petitioner and
infact it had also been challenged in the
previous proceeding, therefore, it cannot be
permitted to reagitate the same cause of action
in the subsequent writ petition. The object of
Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings and not to vex the parties again
and again in a litigative process. The object is
very noble and laudable and it has a larger
public purpose to achieve by not burdening the
court with repeated proceedings. (Para 95)

C. The Principle of restitution is founded
on the ideal of complete justice, entitling
the successful party to compensation,
including interest, for the period it was
deprived of its lawful dues.

The rule in equity is that interest is
payable even in the absence of any
agreement or custom to that effect though
subject,
of
course,
to
a
contrary
agreement. At this stage, it is not amenable to
the petitioner to press the relief that the interest
cannot be charged except in accordance with
law. The G.O. in question, Resolution in
question and subsequent demand notice had
been approved by the Supreme Court and the
interest is also payable in equity in certain
circumstances. (Para 87)

In the present case, the petitioner is liable to
pay interest on additional compensation during
the pendency of litigation initiated by it, as per
the doctrine of restitution upheld by the Hon'ble
Supreme
Court.
The
interest
acts
as
compensation for the period during which the
petitioner was unjustly enriched by withholding
the lawful dues owed to YEIDA. Interest on the
additional compensation can be claimed by
YEIDA as part of equitable restitution, given that
the petitioner benefited from the interim relief
granted during the litigation. (Para 101)

D. The directives (GO and Resolution)
derive
their
legal
force
from
the
Constitution and must be treated with the
same deference as statutory law - G.O. in
question as well as Board Resolution in
question, having been held to serve a
larger public interest, constitute "law"
314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
within the meaning of Article 13(2) r/w
Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution.

In the present matter, the G.O. in question
as well as Board Resolution in question
are not only lawful but also essential qua
equitable and efficient administration of
public
policy.
Once
the
additional
compensation has decisively been settled by the
Supreme Court in Yamuna Expressway (infra)
and the Board Resolution in question does
contain a provision for payment of interest,
particularly in view of G.O., which entitles YEIDA
to levy not only interest but the penal interest
upon the allottees, the same were also reflected
from all the three demand notices, the same has
binding effect to be enforced by YEIDA in the
pursuit of its statutory obligations. (Para 80)

The first demand notice was given to the
petitioner on 15.12.2014 and once G.O. as well
as Board Resolution were upheld by the
Supreme
Court
in
Yamuna
Expressway
Industrial
Development
Authority
etc.
v.
Shakuntla Education and Welfare Society & ors.
(infra), which mandates the payment of
additional compensation as part of the land
allotment cost, therefore, the directives in the
said judgment are authoritative and legally
binding
and
established
the
petitioner's
obligation to pay both principal and interest on
the delayed payment. The conduct of the
petitioner was not bonafide as it never made
any payment, following the first demand notice
dated 15.12.2014. Only part payment of Rs.15
crores was made only in compliance of the
interim order dated 05.01.2023 (vide interim
order in question dated 05.01.2023, the
Coordinate Bench had dismissed the challenge
to the additional compensation on the ground of
proportionality and quantum and only on the
issue of interest, the response was asked from
YEIDA). The record clearly reflects that at no
point of time prior to interim order in question
the petitioner was ever inclined to deposit even
the additional compensation. (Para 84, 86)

Petitioner is also liable to pay penal interest
from the date of accrual of demand till the
date of actual payment, as mandated by the
Supreme Court in Yamuna Expressway (infra)
and non-compliance thereof attracts the
imposition of penal interest as a lawful
consequence. YEIDA's issuance of demand
notices and enforcement of the G.O. in
question
and
Board
Resolution
in
question constitute acts in aid of the
Supreme Court's order. YEIDA's actions
align with its constitutional obligation to
uphold the rule of law and facilitate the
implementation of judicial directives.
Conversely, the petitioner has consistently
disregarded the legal obligations inspite of the
mandate in Yamuna Expressway (infra). (Para
102)

E. While common law provisions like the
Interest Act and Contract Act provide a
supplementary framework, they do not
supersede the constitutional directives
governing the imposition of additional
compensation in this case. The G.O. in
question and Board Resolution in question,
upheld by the Supreme Court, override the
lease deed and establish a higher legal
authority integrating principles of justice,
equity, and public interest. The petitioner's
claim of unjust enrichment on YEIDA's part
is unsubstantiated and lacks merit. The
interest levied is a legitimate exercise of
YEIDA's rights under the law and serves as
compensation for the delay in fulfilling a
lawful obligation, rather than being an
unjust benefit. (Para 103)

F. The Petitioner's claim of charitable
status
and
financial
hardship
are
contradicted
by
their
operational
practices,
which
suggest
a
profitdriven approach. Nonetheless, these
claims
cannot
override
their
legal
obligations
or
the
constitutional
mandate in the public interest. In the
interest of justice, equity, and the larger
public good, it is imperative that the
petitioner adheres to the lawful demands.
(Para 105)

The educational institution cannot be
exempted
from
obligation
to
pay
additional compensation as this could
create an unfair disparity among farmers,
whose land has been acquired. Moreover
all the farmers are entitled to equal
compensation irrespective of any use of
land by the allottees. (Para 89)
7 All. M/S Shakuntla Educational & Welfare Society Vs. Yamuna Expressway Industrial
 Development Authority
315
Object of the 51st Board Resolution was to
pay additional compensation to the farmers and
even in case of allottees, who did not agree to
pay
additional
compensation,
leave
was
accorded to them to surrender the plot and get
refund of the deposited amount (other than
penal interest) along with interest @ 6% p.a.
However, no such endeavour or serious efforts
reflected from the record that the petitioner was
even
willing
to
pay
up
the
additional
compensation. (Para 90)

In view of the uncontroverted facts, the
issue w.r.t. liability of petitioner for
payment of additional compensation to be
paid to the farmers has been set at rest.
Therefore, the computation made by YEIDA
while raising the first demand in the year 2014
and later on through second demand of the year
2018 is no longer res integra in view of the
judgment in Yamuna Expressway (infra) (in
Yamuna Expressway (infra),
the G.O. in
question; resolution in question as well as the
demand notice of the year 2014 was approved
by the Supreme Court). (Para 92)

Petitioner's plea of being an educational institute
and the absence of an undertaking to pay future
liabilities cannot be considered valid, as this
argument was already dismissed by Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
Yamuna
Expressway
Industrial
Development
Authority
etc.
v.
Shakuntla Education and Welfare Society & ors.
(infra). The said judgment did not recognize any
exemption for educational institutions regarding
the liability to pay additional compensation.
Moreover, the Petitioner's claim of having
meagre sources of income contradicts the
information available on their official website,
which clearly suggests that the petitioner is
focused on profit making through undisclosed
fees for premium amenities. There is nothing on
record to convince us that the petitioner is not
indulged in profit making. Moreover, all the
farmers are entitled to equal compensation
irrespective of any use of land. (Para 36, 56, 59,
70, 104)

G. The principles of constructive res
judicata further reinforce the finality of
the matter, precluding the petitioner from
re-litigating
settled
issues
(issue
of
interest on additional compensation, as it
was an integral part of the cause of action
in the earlier litigation). Continued defiance
would not only undermine the authority of the
judiciary but also impede the timely fulfillment
of YEIDA's public duty to disburse the additional
compensation to the farmers. We find that
YEIDA's
actions
in
levying
interest
and
demanding additional compensation are legally
justified and essential for upholding legal
obligations in the public interest, and ensuring
equitable treatment of all stakeholders involved.
(Para 92, 103, 106)

The principle of res judicata fully operates
in the court proceeding. It is the courts,
which are prohibited from trying the issue,
which was directly and substantially in
issue in the earlier proceedings between
the same parties, provided the court
trying
the
subsequent
proceeding
is
satisfied
that
the
earlier
court
was
competent to dispose of the earlier
proceedings and that the matter had been
heard and finally decided by such court.
While deciding the matter by the Supreme
Court, not only G.O. in question and resolution
in question but the demand notices were also
under challenge and the matter had been heard
and finally decided by the Supreme Court. In
the instant case, the parties were the same.
Hon'ble Supreme Court was competent to
decide the issue, which it did with a reasoned
order on merits after the contested hearing. In
the earlier proceeding, the ground of interest
and penal interest were also the subject matter
in view of the first and second demand notice,
which the YEIDA claimed and the Supreme
Court had approved the G.O. in question and
the Resolution in question, therefore, the
decision was final and at present it is not open
to the petitioner to reagitate the issue. Since
the relief, as has been prayed for, is
already negated by the Supreme Court,
therefore, at this stage, the petitioner
cannot be permitted to turn back and
challenge the demand on the ground that
the liability, rate, period etc. of interest
had not been disclosed in G.O. in question,
Resolution
in
question
and
YEIDA's
demand notices. The principles of res
judicata laid down u/s 11 CPC including
316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the principles of constructive res judicata
are applicable in the present matter.
[Details of earlier litigation in Para 83, 91, 96]
(Para 97, 98, 99)

The
principles
of
restitution,
public
interest, and the rule of law converge to
uphold YEIDA's demand for additional
compensation and the interest thereon.
Petitioner's contentions lack legal and factual
merit, as they disregard the binding nature of
the Supreme Court's judgments and the
constitutional framework governing YEIDA's
actions. The petitioner's repeated attempts to
evade its lawful obligations jeopardize the
distribution of additional compensation intended
for the affected farmers. The government
directives, validated by the Hon'ble Apex Court,
serve as a bulwark against such actions,
ensuring that the benefits reach their rightful
beneficiaries. (Para 105)

H. Words and Phrases - (1) 'Debt' - 'Debt'
has been defined in Section 2 (c) of Interest
Act, to be a 'liability for an ascertained sum'
and has been held by the courts to mean a fixed
and determined sum agreed and known to both
the parties i.e. known not only to the party
claiming the sum but also known from before to
the party said to be liable so that it constitutes
an obligation of the latter party to pay the sum.
Such pre-existing knowledge of both the parties
can be either owing to an agreement or
adjudication of a dispute. An ascertained or
known 'debt' is a jurisdictional pre-condition for
the grant of interest u/s 3 of Interest Act. If
there is no such 'debt', no interest can be
awarded.
A
demand
of
any
sum
unsupported by any statute, contract,
usage or implied agreement and made
unilaterally by any person would not be
covered by the word 'liability' in Section 2
(c) r/w Section 3 of interest Act for award
of interest. (Para 26)

Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act,
1993: Section 2 (g) - 'debt' means any
liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed as
due from any person by a bank or a financial
institution.....". (Para 27)

(2)
'law'
-
Article
13(3)(a)
of
the
Constitution of India elaborates that "law"
includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule
regulation, notification, custom, or usage having
the force of law in India. (Para 52)

Both the writ petitions dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Gajraj Vs St. of U.P., 2011 SCC OnLine All
1711 (Para 7)

2. Savitri Devi Vs St. of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 21
(Para 7)

3. Shakuntla Educational and Welfare Society Vs
St. of U.P. & ors., 2020 SCC OnLine All 676 (Para
16)

4. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development
Authority etc. v. Shakuntla Education and
Welfare Society & ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 655
(Para 17)

5. Eureka Forbes Ltd. Vs Allahabad Bank, (2010)
6 SCC 193 (Para 27)

6. Jyothi Ltd. Vs Boving Fouress, 2000 SCC
OnLine Karn 832 (Para 27)

7. Viva Highways Vs MP RDC, AIR 2017 MP 103
(Para 27)

8. U.O.I.Vs A.L. Rallia Ram, 1963 SCC OnLIne
SC 132 (Para 27)

9. Central Bank of India Vs Ravindra & ors.,
(2002) 1 SCC 367 (Para 27)

10.
Secretary,
Irrigation
Department,
Government of Orissa & ors. Vs G.C. Roy,
(1992) 1 SCC 508 (Para 28)

11. LIC of India & anr. Vs S. Sindhu, (2006) 5
SCC 258 (Para 29)

12. Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. Vs Ruttanji
Ramji, AIR 1938 PC 67 (Para 31)

13. Seth Thawardas Pherumal Vs U.O.I., AIR
1955 SC 468 (Para 31)

14. U.O.I.Vs A.L. Rallia Ram, AIR 1965 SC 1685
(Para 31)
7 All. M/S Shakuntla Educational & Welfare Society Vs. Yamuna Expressway Industrial
 Development Authority
317
15. U.O.I.Vs West Punjab Factories, AIR 1966
SC 395 (Para 31)

16. V.V.S. Sugars Vs St. of AP (CB), (1999) 4
SCC 192 (Para 34)

17. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills Vs CCE,
(2016) 3 SCC 643 (Para 34)

18. Celir LLP Vs Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt.
Ltd. & ors., (2024) 2 SCC 1 (Para 35)

19.NTPC Ltd. Vs M.P. St. Electricity Board & ors.,
(2011) 15 SCC 580 (Para 35)

20. T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs St. of Karn., (2002)
8 SCC 481 (Para 35)

21. S.B.I. Vs Gracure Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,
(2014) 2 SCC 959 (Para 44)

22.
Indore
Development
Authority
Vs
Manoharlal & ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 (Para 48)

23. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs St. of M.P.,
(2003) 8 SCC 661 (Para 49)

24. Pradeep Kumar Biswas Vs Indian Institute of
Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111 (Para 52)

25. H.C. Narayanappa Vs St. of Mysore, AIR
1960 SC 1073 (Para 53)

26. Smyth Vs U.S., 302 U.S. 329 (Para 63)

27. Bangley Const. Development & Engineering
Inc. Vs All Phase Elec. & Maintenance, Inc., 562
So. 2d 800 (Para 63)

28. Arnold Rodricks Vs St. of Mah., 1966 SCC
OnLine SC 62 (Para 66)

29. St. of Bombay Vs BhanjiMunji, (1954) 2 SCC
386 (Para 66)

30. Forward Constructions Co. Vs Prabhat
Mandal (Regd.), (1986) 1 SCC 100 (Para 67)

31. Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers'Assn.
Vs St. of Mah., (1990) 2 SCC 715 (Constitution
Bench) (Para 67)

32. Sarguja Transport Service Vs S.T.A.T., (1987)
1 SCC 5 (Para 67)

33. Kantaru Rajeevaru (Sabarimala Temple
Review -5 J.) Vs Indian Young Lawyers Assn.,
(2020) 2 SCC 1 (Para 68)

34. Spencer & Co. Ltd. Vs Vishwadarshan
Distributors (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 259 (Para 68)

35. St. of Tamil Nadu Vs St. of Karn. & ors.,
(2016) 10 SCC 617 (Para 68)

36. U.O.I.Vs Colonel L.S.N. Murthy & anr.,
(2012) 1 SCC 718 (Para 69)

37. Pharmacy Council of India Vs Rajeev
College, (2023) 3 SCC 502 (Para 69)

38. Bijoe Emmanuel Vs St. of Kerala, (1986) 3
SCC 615 (Para 69)

39. U.O.I.Vs Naveen Jindal, (2004) 2 SCC 510
(Para 69)

40. Unni Krishnan, J.P. Vs St. of U.P., (1993) 1
SCC 645 (Para 70)

41. South Eastern Coal Fields Vs St. of M.P.,
(2003) 8 SCC 648 (Para 71)

42. Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs
U.O.I., (2012) 3 SCC 1 (Para 75)

43. Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs U.O.I., (2000)
10 SCC 664 (Para 75)

44. Dr. Sham Lal Narula Vs Commissioner of
IncomeTax, Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 1878 (Para
86)

45. T.N. General & Distribution Corpn. Ltd. Vs
PPN Power Generating Co. (P) Ltd., (2014) 11
SCC 53 (Para 88)

46. M.P. Palanisamy & ors. Vs A Krishnan & ors.,
58 (2009) 6 SCC 428 (Para 97)

47. Pondicherry Khadi & Village Industries Board
Vs P. Kulothangan & ors. (2004) 1 SCC 68 (Para
97)
318 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
48. K. Ethiajan (dead) by Lrs. Vs Lakshmi & ors.,
(2003) 10 SCC 578 (Para 99)

49. Gorte Gouri Naidu (minor) and Anr. Vs
Thandrothu Bodemma & ors., (1997) 2 SCC 552
(Para 99)

Present petition assails demand letter
dated 20.09.2022 sent by YEIDA to the
extent that the said letter pertains to the
demand
of
64.7%
Additional
Compensation
(inasmuch
as
other
demands mentioned in the letter already
stand challenged by way of other legal
remedies adopted by the petitioner).

 (Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra
Tripathi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Sunil Gupta & Sri
Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocates
assisted by Shri Ashish Kumar for the
petitioner in Writ-C No.38069 of 2022 and
Shri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Shri Ashish Kumar for the
petitioner in connected Writ-C No.2674 of
2023; Shri Manish Goyal, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by S/Sri Aditya Bhushan
Singhal, Zain Mazbool, Pranav Tandon and
Abhay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for
Yamuna
Expressway
Industrial
Development Authority1 and Shri Ambrish
Shukla, learned Addl. Chief Standing
Counsel along with Shri Fuzail Ahmad
Ansari, learned counsel for the State
respondents in both the writ petitions.

2. The Writ-C No.38069 of 2022
has been preferred by the petitioner under
Art.226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking the following reliefs:-

 "(i) Issue a writ of certiorari
calling for the records of the petitioner and
quashing demand letter dated 20.09.2022
sent by YEIDA (Annexure 1) to the extent
that the said letter pertains to the demand
of
64.7%
Additional
Compensation
(inasmuch as other demands mentioned in
the letter already stand challenged by way
of other legal remedies adopted by the
petitioner as stated in para 5 of the present
writ petition).

(ii) Issue a writ of declaration
that YEIDA is not entitled to recover any
amount as 64.7% additional compensation
unless it has first fixed the factors and,
applying those factors, decided the sum, if
any, for collecting such compensation from
the petitioner on the basis of the principle
of proportionality as enunciated in the Full
Bench judgment of High Court dated
25.8.2011 in the Gajraj case and mandated
in GO dated 29.8.2014 read with judgment
of Supreme Court dated 19.05.2022 in the
case of YEIDA v. Shakuntala Educational
Welfare Society

AND

In the alternative, issue a writ of
mandamus directing YEIDA not to recover
from the petitioner any amount other than
an
amount
of
64.7%
additional
compensation @ Rs.517.60 per sq. mtr. for
its plot of 2023500 sq. m."

3. The Writ-C No.2674 of 2023
has been preferred by the petitioner under
Art.226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for following reliefs:-

 "(I) To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari calling
for the records of the case and quashing
the
impugned
demand
notice
dated
20.09.2022 (Annexure 1) sent by the
Respondent no.2 to the extent that the said
notice pertains to the demand of 64.7%
Additional Compensation.

(II) To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of a writ of
mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to
not to recover from the petitioner any
7 All. M/S Shakuntla Educational & Welfare Society Vs. Yamuna Expressway Industrial
 Development Authority
319
amount by way of interest on the alleged
amount of Additional Compensation."

4. Since the controversy involved
in both the writ petitions are similar, with
the consent of parties, they are being
decided by this common judgment and the
facts of Writ-C No.38069 of 2022 are being
taken as a leading case for deciding the
controversy.

BRIEF
HISTORY
OF
THE
LITIGATION

5. This much is averred that a vast
area of land was acquired by the State of
Uttar Pradesh in District Gautam Budh
Nagar for public purposes. The said area of
land was acquired for the benefit of
YEIDA. After the land was acquired,
YEIDA
invited
applications
for
the
allotment of plots in the area developed by
it. In response to the notice inviting
applications for such allotment, various
allottees including the petitioner applied.

6. The petitioner is a society
registered under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860 having the aim and object of
imparting education. The YEIDA allotted a
plot of land viz. Plot No.02, Sector 17A to
the petitioner having an area of 50 acres,
which is equivalent to 2,02,350 sq. mtr. (@
Rs.1055/- per sq. mtr.) situated on Yamuna
Expressway, Gautam Budh Nagar by
means
of
Allotment
Letter
dated
10.12.2009. Finally in terms of the
allotment letter, lease deed was executed in
favour of the petitioner-institution on
22.01.2010 for a period of 90 years for
institutional purpose namely establishing a
private University. The lease deed further
provided that in addition to the amount
payable by the petitioner, as mentioned in
the allotment letter, a further amount i.e.
2.5% of the total premium of the plot was
payable as annual lease rent. Consequently,
over the said plot, Galgotias University was
constructed as per the purpose for which
the plot was allotted.

7. The State of U.P. had also made
large scale acquisition of lands for the
benefit
of
New
Okhla
Industrial
Development
Authority2
and
Greater
Noida. Against the said acquisition, a large
number of writ petitions were filed before
this Court by the farmers on various
grounds. The ground of attack in the said
proceeding was invocation of urgency
clause under Section 17 of the Land
Acquisition
Act,
18943
and
the
dispensation of enquiry under Section 5A
of the L.A. Act. All the said writ petitions
were decided by the Full Bench of this
Court vide its judgment and order dated
21.10.2011 with leading case viz. Gajraj v.
State of U.P.4. The Full Bench had held
that the urgency clause ought not to have
been invoked and the farmers were
unlawfully denied the benefit of Section 5A
of the L.A. Act as there was no plausible
reason for invocation of Section 17 of the
L.A.
Act.
However,
taking
into
consideration the subsequent developments
that the lands had already been developed
and third party rights had accrued, the Full
Bench in Gajraj (Supra) considered it
appropriate not to disturb the acquisition. In
order to balance the equities, the Full
Bench directed payment of additional
compensation of 64.7% plus some other
benefits to the farmers. The aforesaid
judgment of Full Bench in Gajraj (Supra)
was approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Savitri Devi v. State of Uttar
Pradesh5.

8. As the farmers, whose lands
were acquired for the benefit of Noida and
320 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Greater
Noida,
were
paid
additional
compensation of 64.7%, there was unrest
amongst the farmers, whose lands were
acquired for YEIDA. They also started
agitating and demanding similar treatment.
In this connection, more than 600 writ
petitions were filed in the High Court and
various interim orders were also passed. As
a result of which, vast stretches of lands
could not be developed. The said factual
situation was communicated to the State
Government by the then Chief Executive
Officer on 10.04.2013 apprising the ground
realities and the agitations launched by the
affected farmers.

9. On 03.09.2013, the State
Government had constituted a High-Level
Committee under the Chairmanship of Shri
Rajendra Chaudhary, Minister of Prison,
State of U.P.6. The Chaudhary Committee
submitted its recommendations to the State
Government
recommending
for
the
payment of 64.7% additional amount as
"no litigation incentive" to the farmers and
for its reimbursement from the allottees in
the appropriate proportion. The State
Government
had
accepted
the
recommendations
of
the
Chaudhary
Committee and issued a Government Order
dated 29.08.20147.

10. The G.O. in question provided
that the farmers should be offered 64.7%
additional amount on the condition that
they withdraw their petitions challenging
the acquisition proceedings and undertake
not to institute any litigation and create any
hindrance in the development work of
YEIDA. It was also clarified in the G.O. in
question that the Government would not
bear the burden of the additional amount.
The G.O. in question was placed before the
Board of YEIDA in its 51st Board Meeting
held on 15.09.2014 and the same was
approved in the said meeting on the very
same
day
vide
Resolution
dated
15.09.20148. For ready reference, the G.O.
in question is reproduced as under:-
"Important
No. 1015/77-3-14-6C/12
From,
Anil Kumar
Under Secretary
Government of U.P.
To,
The Chief Executive Officer
Yamuna Industrial Development
Authority
Sector- Omega-1, Greater Noida
City
Gautambudhnagar.

Industrial Development Section-1
Lucknow,
Dt. 29th August,
2014

Subject: Regarding grant of 64.7%
additional compensation to the farmers
affected by land acquisition in Notified
Area of Yamuna Expressway Industrial
Development Authority.

Sir,
After due consideration, regarding
the implementation of recommendations of
Committee
constituted
under
the
chairmanship of Sh. Rajendra Chaudhary,
Hon'ble
Minister,
Jail
vide
Office
Memorandum No 4/4/2/2013-C.X.(1) dated
03.09.2013 of Confidential Section-1 for
giving
recommendations
regarding
resolving the problems of the villagers of
notified areas of the Noida, Greater Noida,
Yamuna
Expressway
Industrial
Development
Authority
i.e.
District-
Gautambudhnagar,
Bulandshahar,
Hathras, Aligarh, Mathura and Agra,
demands
raised
by
the
farmers'
7 All. M/S Shakuntla Educational & Welfare Society Vs. Yamuna Expressway Industrial
 Development Authority
321
representatives/organizations
and
the
problems of farmers related to acquisition
of land of any particular industry or any
other
Industrial
Area,
the
following
decision
has
been
taken
by
the
Government:-

(1) In the common order passed
in the different Writ Petitions filed by
Noida and Greater Noida Authorities, the
Hon'ble High Court by not finding the
proceedings conducted under Section 17 of
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to be proper,
had directed that the Authority shall pay
64.7% additional compensation to the
farmers and return them 10% developed
land. Also in the Yamuna Expressway
Authority, around 700 Writ Petitions have
been filed by the farmers by challenging the
different notifications, wherein, stay orders
have been passed in the most of the
Petitions, the circumstances which were
existing in the acquisition made by Noida
and
Greater
Noida
Authority,
same
circumstances are also existed in the most
of the cases of acquisition of Yamuna
Expressway. The lands acquired by the
Authority, have been allotted to the
different allottees for different projects, due
to which, the third party rights have been
created in this acquired land and if order is
passed against the Authority in the
Petitioners filed against the Acquisition
Proceedings, then, many difficulties would
arise Therefore, keeping in view the legal
expected legal complications, it is required
to do the out of court settlement with the
affected farmers. At the time of discussion,
it
was
assured
by
the
farmers'
representatives that if the Government/
Authority agrees to give 64.7% additional
compensation, then, the farmers will
withdraw the Petitions filed in the Court,

 (2) If, all the farmers/ Petitioners
of a village related to the land acquired/
purchased by the Yamuna Expressway
Authority, withdraw their Petitions filed in
the Hon'ble High Court or in any other
Court and if they give written assurance for
future that they will not file any claim
against the Authority or it's allotee in any
Court and will not cause any obstruction in
the Development Works, then, like the
Greater Noida Authority, the Authority may
consider to give amount equivalent to
64.7% additional compensation in the form
of
No
Litigation
Incentive/Additional
Compensation, which may be concerned
allottees and same may also be imposed
proportionally in the costing of allotment of
land available with the Authority.

(3) These benefits will be allowed
also to those farmers, whose' lands have
been purchased by the Authority vide Sale
Deed on mutual consent basis.

(4) The process of payment of
additional compensation, be completed
Villagewise
in
accordance
with
the
Schemes/Priorities
of
Authority
after
obtaining physical possession of on the
spot and after withdrawal of all the Writ
petitions/ Cases of concerned village after
doing settlement with the farmers. In view
of the financial condition of Authority, if
the payment of additional compensation is
not possible
in
lumpsum,
then,
the
consideration
could
also
be
made
regarding payment in installments or in the
form of developed land)

(5)
The
aforementioned
additional benefits be granted to the
landowners only in that case when they will
handover the physical possession of land to
the
Authority
and
withdraw
Writ
Petition/Case pending in Hon'ble High
Court or any other Court and agreement
for not causing any obstruction in future in
the development works of allottees and for
not filing any claim in any Court against
the acquisition of land in future. The
expenses to be accrued on the additional
322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compensation will be borne by the
Authority itself from it's own sources and
no financial aid will be granted by the State
Government.

(6) If, the Government receives
other recommendations of the Committee
constituted under the chairmanship of Sh.
Rajendra Chaudhary, Hon'ble Minister,
Jail
vide
Office
Memorandum
No
4/4/2/2013-C.X.(1) dated 03.09.2013 of
Confidential
Section-1
for
giving
recommendations regarding resolving the
problems of the villagers of notified areas
of the Noida, Greater Noida, Yamuna
Expressway
Industrial
Development
Authority i.e.