# RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA & ORS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS

- **Citation:** [2023] 2 S.C.R. 422
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2023-02-20
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 8819 of 2022
- **Bench:** Krishna Murari, S. Ravindra Bhat
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ramesh-chandra-sharma-ors-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-36832
- **Pages:** 49

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act, 1894- U.P. Land Acquisition
(determination of compensation and declaration of award by
agreement) Rules, 1997 - Payment of compensation - Classification
of landholders as Pushtaini or Gair-Pushtaini - Impermissibility of -
Held: Classification made by the GNOIDA authority for the purposes
of awarding differential compensation is bad in law - Land
Acquisition Act does not distinguish between classes of owners, and
uniformly provides compensation to all class of landowners -
Classification made between Pushtaini landowners and Gair-pushtaini
landowners is violative of the law laid down in the Nagpur Trust
case and Article 14 - Said classification made by the executive
actions is bad in law, and is liable to be set aside - However, since
the mischief lies only within the classification, it can be severed,
and the remaining part of the executive actions that set out to grant
compensation for the purpose of rehabilitation remains valid in law
- Impugned judgment passed by the Full Bench of the High Court
set aside - Appellants entitled to the reliefs claimed in the Writ Petition
filed before the High Court - Constitution of India - Art.14.
Constitution of India - Art.14 - Reasonable Classification
Test, Wednesbury Principle and Proportionality Test - Discussed -
Administrative Law.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Whether the Appellants are bound by the
compensation as per the agreement under the Land Acquisition
rules, and have waived off their right to seek enhanced
compensation?
The Respondent Authority argued that since the agreement
was consented to, no challenge could exist in the Court. This
argument in the facts of the case, has been raised only to be
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
423
rejected. The issue involved in adjudication is not in respect of
an agreement entered into by the appellants. Similar agreements
were also entered into with the Authority by such identically
situated landholders who have been granted additional
compensation subsequent to the agreement by carving out a
distinction on the basis of period of residence/occupation of the
land which was acquired by creating an artificial classification of
'Pushtaini' and 'Gair-Pushtaini' landholders. Furthermore, since
the issue of additional compensation by making an artificial
classification of 'pushtaini' and 'Gair-pushtani' was not in existence
at the time of the agreement, there was no occasion to challenge
the same. Further, specifically in the context of the grant of exgratia payment, it is to be noted that the said payment granted to
Pushtaini landowners through a separate notification, was
assessed, and given, after the agreement was signed by both,
Pushtaini and Gair-pushtaini Landowners. The Appellants herein,
under those circumstances, could not have challenged the
agreement vis a vis the exgratia payment on grounds of violation
of Article 14, when no such violation existed at the time of the
agreement. No man can be expected to predict a future violation
of their rights and file a pre-emptive appeal.The Appellants,
because of their signing of the agreement, have not forfeited their
right to seek revised compensation, because ,the cause of action
accrued to them much after entering into the agreement. The
issue no. 1 is answered accordingly in the negative and in favour
of the Appellants.[Paras 27-30][448-D-H; 449-A-B,D]
2.1 Whether the classification made by and executive fiat
between Pushtaini Landowners and Gair-pushtaini Landowners
for payment of compensation at different rates is liable to be struck
down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution?
REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION TEST
For any classification to survive the test of Article 14, the
classification must be based on intelligible differentia, and it must
have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the
law. The object sought to be achieved must also be lawful, and if
the object of the law itself is found to be discriminatory, then
such discrimination must be

## Text

_Characters 0–39,597 of 102,904. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39597 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
422
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
 [2023] 2 S.C.R. 422
422
RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA & ORS.
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8819 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 20, 2023
[KRISHNA MURARI AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894- U.P. Land Acquisition
(determination of compensation and declaration of award by
agreement) Rules, 1997 - Payment of compensation - Classification
of landholders as Pushtaini or Gair-Pushtaini - Impermissibility of -
Held: Classification made by the GNOIDA authority for the purposes
of awarding differential compensation is bad in law - Land
Acquisition Act does not distinguish between classes of owners, and
uniformly provides compensation to all class of landowners -
Classification made between Pushtaini landowners and Gair-pushtaini
landowners is violative of the law laid down in the Nagpur Trust
case and Article 14 - Said classification made by the executive
actions is bad in law, and is liable to be set aside - However, since
the mischief lies only within the classification, it can be severed,
and the remaining part of the executive actions that set out to grant
compensation for the purpose of rehabilitation remains valid in law
- Impugned judgment passed by the Full Bench of the High Court
set aside - Appellants entitled to the reliefs claimed in the Writ Petition
filed before the High Court - Constitution of India - Art.14.
Constitution of India - Art.14 - Reasonable Classification
Test, Wednesbury Principle and Proportionality Test - Discussed -
Administrative Law.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Whether the Appellants are bound by the
compensation as per the agreement under the Land Acquisition
rules, and have waived off their right to seek enhanced
compensation?
The Respondent Authority argued that since the agreement
was consented to, no challenge could exist in the Court. This
argument in the facts of the case, has been raised only to be
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
423
rejected. The issue involved in adjudication is not in respect of
an agreement entered into by the appellants. Similar agreements
were also entered into with the Authority by such identically
situated landholders who have been granted additional
compensation subsequent to the agreement by carving out a
distinction on the basis of period of residence/occupation of the
land which was acquired by creating an artificial classification of
'Pushtaini' and 'Gair-Pushtaini' landholders. Furthermore, since
the issue of additional compensation by making an artificial
classification of 'pushtaini' and 'Gair-pushtani' was not in existence
at the time of the agreement, there was no occasion to challenge
the same. Further, specifically in the context of the grant of exgratia payment, it is to be noted that the said payment granted to
Pushtaini landowners through a separate notification, was
assessed, and given, after the agreement was signed by both,
Pushtaini and Gair-pushtaini Landowners. The Appellants herein,
under those circumstances, could not have challenged the
agreement vis a vis the exgratia payment on grounds of violation
of Article 14, when no such violation existed at the time of the
agreement. No man can be expected to predict a future violation
of their rights and file a pre-emptive appeal.The Appellants,
because of their signing of the agreement, have not forfeited their
right to seek revised compensation, because ,the cause of action
accrued to them much after entering into the agreement. The
issue no. 1 is answered accordingly in the negative and in favour
of the Appellants.[Paras 27-30][448-D-H; 449-A-B,D]
2.1 Whether the classification made by and executive fiat
between Pushtaini Landowners and Gair-pushtaini Landowners
for payment of compensation at different rates is liable to be struck
down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution?
REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION TEST
For any classification to survive the test of Article 14, the
classification must be based on intelligible differentia, and it must
have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the
law. The object sought to be achieved must also be lawful, and if
the object of the law itself is found to be discriminatory, then
such discrimination must be struck down. [Para 33][451-C-D]
RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
424
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
2.2 While prima facie, the classification and the object
sought to be achieved through the said classification seems
reasonable, however, the devil lies in the details. The justification
given by the GNOIDA Authority, and the Full-bench of the High
Court assumes that only Pushtaini landowners permanently reside
in the subject land or that the subject land is the primary source
of income only for Pushtaini landowners, and this assumption has
been backed by no empirical data produced by the authority. While
the classification made by Greater Noida has been based on the
object of giving fair compensation, however, such a laudable object
of the classification would stand breached by the effects of such a
classification, creating a dissonance between the object and its
effect. Many Gair-pushtaini landholders, whose main area of
residence or their main source of income is also the subject land,
would be subject to great discrimination and injustice, if the same
compensation that has been granted to the pushtaini landholders
is not extended to them. [Paras 38, 39][455-F-H; 456-A-B]
2.3 WEDNESBURY PRINCIPLE
The classification made by GNOIDA does not find its footing
in the Land Acquisition Act, or the UP-Land Acquisition Rules,
and hence is contrary to law. The said classification also suffers
from not taking into account relevant considerations. The
Authority, without taking into account any empirical data, or
calculating any possibility of Gair-pushtaini landowners being
rendered landless or without a primary source of income, made
the impugned classification. These relevant factors, by not being
taken into account, can and would cause great injustice to Gairpushtaini landowners. Further, GNOIDA, by arbitrarily classifying
the landowners as Pushtaini and Gair-pushtaini on the basis of a
cut-off date, have taken into account an irrelevant factor. The
cut-off date by itself, without any context of the landowners on
ground, is not indicative of who the most adversely affected
landowners are. By not complying with these three factors while
making the classification, this Court must strike down such a
classification. [Paras 44, 45][457-F-G; 458-A-B]
2.4 PROPORTIONALITY TEST
The interfering law, i.e. the impugned notification that
creates the classification, does not have a rational nexus to the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
425
object sought to be achieved, and thus, violates the first two
prongs of the proportionality test. Coming to the third and fourth
prong of the proportionality test, i.e whether the classification
created by the Authority was a necessity to achieve the state aim
of compensating those landowners that are either direct residents
46 of the land or the land exists as their primary source of income
and whether such measure was proportional to the object sought
to be achieved. For this, it is pertinent to refer to Section 23 of
the Act, which provides for matters to be taken into account while
determining the compensation. A bare perusal of Section 23 would
show that, the grounds for classification as purported by the
GNOIDA authority, have already been covered by Section 23 of
the Act. The fifth point of the said Section squarely covers the
requirement of compensating for rehabilitation of the affected
landowners. In the presence of an already existing provision in
the act, the classification created by the GNOIDA authority, must
exist in furtherance of the said Section, and not in contrast of.
[Paras 52-54][465-B-D; 466-C-D]
2.5 The classification if allowed to exist, can lead to several
Gair-pushtaini landowners who may also need to be rehabilitated,
cannot rehabilitate themselves without compensation for the
same. This circumstance alone besides being discriminatroy pits
the said classification against Section 23 of the Act, causing an
insubordination to the 1894 Act. Such a mischief, if allowed to
exist, would not only nullify the purpose of the Act, but also violate
the third and fourth principle of the proportionality test, and hence
is liable to be struck down. Further, it is also important to note
that the classification, even if allowed to exist, does not come
with any safeguards against its potential abuse. As mentioned
above, the said notification by way of its classification creates
disastrous mischief, and the notification does nothing to remedy
such potential abuse. No guidelines for the said classification exist,
nor are there any bars placed. If such classification is left
unchecked, it may lead to bad precedence, and disastrous
ramifications in the future. This lack of substantive guidelines
also violates the fifth prong of the proportionality test. The
impugned classification is liable to be struck down as violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. [Paras 55-57][466-D-H]
RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
426
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
State Of West Bengal Vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) AIR
75 : [1952] SCR 284; Rustom Cavasjee Cooper (Banks
Nationalisation) v. Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 248 :
[1970] 3 SCR 530; Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. Vs.
Union of India Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Law and
Justice (2018) 10 SCC 1 : [2018] 7 SCR 379; K. S.
Puttaswamy & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors (2017) 10
SCC 1 : [2017] 10 SCR 569 - followed.
Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
(2020) 10 SCC 459 - relied on.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited v.
Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 - referred
to.
3. Whether the classification made by the Full-Bench of
the High Court between Pushtaini landowners and Gair-pushtaini
landowners is in contravention to the law laid down by this Hon'ble
Court in the case of Nagpur Improvement Trust and another vs.
Vithal Rao and others (1973) 1 SCC 500?
The classification made by the GNOIDA authority for the
purposes of awarding differential compensation is bad in law, and
it is precisely this kind of classification that has been barred.
When the purpose of the acquisition of the land is for the benefit
of the public at large, then the nature of the owner of the said
land is inconsequential to the purpose. If such a classification on
the basis of the nature of owner is allowed, then on the same
grounds, there might be a possibility of future classifications where
powerholding members of the society may get away with a larger
compensation, and the marginalized may get lesser compensation.
This is precisely what this Court in the abovementioned judgment
predicted, and to preempt such arbitrary classification, clarified
the position in law. The Land Acquisition Act does not distinguish
between classes of owners, and uniformly provides compensation
to all class of landowners. The classification made between
Pushtaini landowners and Gair-pushtaini landowners, on the basis
of the reasoning mentioned above, is violative of the law laid
down in the Nagpur Trust case and Article 14 of the Constitution.
[Para 59, 60][468-B-F]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
427
Nagpur Improvement Trust and Another Vs. Vithal Rao
and Ors. (1973) 1 SCC 500 : [1973] 3 SCR 39 - relied
on.
4.1 The classification made by both the executive actions
is bad in law, and is liable to be set aside. The Land Acquisition
Act does not envisage any differential compensation on the basis
of such classification, and hence, this Court must infer the
compensation to be provided by the executive actions within the
confines of Section 23 of the Act. Section 23 of the Land
Acquisition Act states out the grounds for granting compensation
in cases of acquisition of land under the Act. One such reason for
the grant of compensation is rehabilitation, and it is this need for
granting compensation for rehabilitation under the Act that is
echoed by the impugned notification. A bare reading of both the
executive actions in consonance with the Act would show that
the need for giving compensation for rehabilitation is valid in law
and is backed by the parent statute. The mischief then, is only
limited to the arbitrary classification made by such actions. In
such a case, since the mischief lies only within the classification,
it can be severed, and the remaining part of the executive actions
that sets out to grant compensation for the purpose of
rehabilitation remains valid in law. Once the classification is
removed, and the executive actions are read in consonance with
the parent act, it would be seen that since the Act, and now even
the executive actions do not discriminate in terms of
compensation, the ex gratia payment and the increased base
amount, as enunciated by the executive actions, must be given
to all landowners in the subject area. [Paras 62, 63][468-H; 469A-C]
4.2 Further, in cases of administrative action, even if the
classification has a rational nexus to the objective of the
notification, the classification must also be legitimized by the
parent statute. If the parent statute does not allow for a
classification, then, even if the classification vis-à-vis the
notification is able to pass the tests of Article 14, it would still be
liable to struck down if the parent statute does not allow for the
same. The impugned judgment passed by the Full Bench of the
High Court is not liable to be sustained and stands set aside. As
RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
428
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
a consequence, the Writ Petition filed by the appellants before
the High Court stands allowed and the appellants are held entitled
to the reliefs claimed in the said Writ Petition. [Paras 65, 67][469F-H; 470-A-B]
Om Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union Of India (2001) 2 SCC
386 : [2000] 4 Suppl. SCR 693; Smt. Madhuri
Srivasatava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2016) 6 SCC
OnLine AII 2832; Gajraj Vs. State of U.P (2011) SCC
OnLine AII 1711; Radheyshyam (Dead) through L.Rs
& Ors. Vs. State Of UP & Ors. (2011) 5 SCC 553 :
[2011] 8 SCR 359; Greater Noida Industrial
Development Authority Vs. Devendra Kumar & Ors.
(2011) 12 SCC 375; Savitri Devi Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors. (2015) 7 SCC 21 : [2015] 7 SCR 512 - referred
to.
Case Law Reference
[1973] 3 SCR 39
referred to
Para 4
[2011] 8 SCR 359
referred to
Para 10
[2015] 7 SCR 512
referred to
Para 10
[1952] SCR 284
followed
Para 34
[1970] 3 SCR 530
followed
Para 35
[2018] 7 SCR 379
followed
Para 36
[2000] 4 Suppl. SCR 693
referred to
Para 43
[2017] 10 SCR 569
followed
Para 48
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.8819
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.03.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in WC No.49326 of 2009.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 8820 And 8821 of 2022.
Salman Khurshid, S.G. Hasnain, Pradeep Kant, Ravindra Kumar
Raizada, Ravindra Kumar, Sr. Advs., Prashant Kanha, Gaurav Srivastava,
Aftab Ali Khan, Syed Mohd. Fazal, M.Z. Chaudhary, Ms. Azra Rehman,
Ms. Aadya Mishra, Ms. Saba Baby Khan, Rohit Kumar Singh, Simranjeet
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
429
Singh Rekhi, Harsh Jain, Anuvrat Sharma, Arun Kumar Singh, Ms. Alka
Sinha, Binay Kumar Das, Ms. Priyanka Das, Ms. Neha Das, Ajai Kumar,
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Omanakuttan K. K., Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order
dated 30.03.2018 passed by a Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the High Court'), The
reference to Full Bench came to be made under the following
circumstances: -
1.1 Writ Petition No. 61449 of 2009, Smt. Madhuri Srivasatava
Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.1 along with other connected petitions were
filed by certain landholders whose land was acquired by NOIDA
challenging the decision of the Board of Directors of NOIDA dated
07.01.1998 as also the approval granted to the said resolution by the
State Government dated 02.03.2009 whereby a distinction was carved
out in the matter of payment of compensation by creating a classification
between "Pushtaini" and "Gair-pushtaini" landholders. The 'Pushtaini'
landholders whose lands were acquired, were given additional
compensation @ Rs.3 per sq. yard along with 15% as rehabilitation
bonus on the compensation already awarded, as also the 10% area of
the acquired land, whereas those who were declared as 'Gair-pusht
xcaini' were denied this additional benefit. A Division Bench of the High
Court vide Judgment and order dated 10.05.2016 dismissed the Writ
Petition holding the classification to be reasonable having direct nexus
with the object sought to be achieved i.e., rehabilitation of the original
residents who are likely to become landless due to the acquisition of
their land.
2. Another bunch of Writ Petitions were filed by the present
appellants challenging a similar classification made by the Greater Noida
Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'G Noida') in payment of
compensation on the basis of the landholder being 'Pushtaini' and 'GairPushtaini'.
3. While considering the Writ Petitions, another Division Bench
disagreed with the views expressed in the case of Smt. Madhuri (Supra)
and vide order dated 07.07.2017 referred the matter to be decided by a
larger Bench.
1 (2016) 6 SCC OnLine AII 2832
RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
430
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
4. The Full Bench constituted in pursuance to the reference
framed the following questions for adjudication :-
(i)
Whether the law laid down by a Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Smt. Madhuri Srivastava reported in
(2016) 6 ADJ 1 is in conflict to the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of Nagpur Improvement Trust
and Another Vs. Vithal Rao and Ors.2 and also with the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
(ii)
Whether the classification made under the U.P. Land
Acquisition (determination of compensation and declaration
of award by agreement) Rules, 1997, the distinction made
among 'Pushtaini' and 'Gair-Pushtaini' farmers, is a
classification having reasonable nexus with the object sought
to be achieved?
5. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.03.2018, the Full
Bench answered question No. 1 in negative and question No. 2 in
affirmative and upheld the view taken by the Division Bench in the case
of Smt. Madhuri Srivastava (Supra). As a consequence of the answers
to the questions framed, the Full Bench held that nothing remains to be
decided in the Writ Petitions filed by the present appellants and the same
were dismissed.
6. Before we enter into the factual matrix of the case, we find it
expedient to first trace out the etymology of the words "Pushtaini" and
"Gair Pushtaini" used in the impugned classification, for language, once
adopted inside the realm of law, materializes itself a much more powerful
being, one which must be understood in the right historical context.
7. The word 'Pushtaini' is a Persian word and finds its origin from
the word 'Pusht', which means 'back'. The said word has been historically
used in the context of ancestry. Any possession, tale or legend, that has
roots to a particular ancestry, to denote it's significance to the said
ancestry, the word 'Pushtaini' is used. As is obvious, since the word
'Gair' which finds its origin in Urdu language means 'other than', thus,
'Gair-Pushtaini' would mean one which is not 'Pushtaini'.
8. What we find most interesting however, is that ancestry as a
concept, especially before times of modern private property ownership,
2 (1973) 1 SCC 500
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
431
had remained to be a tool for inclusivity and not exclusion. In such a
context, the use of the word "Pushtaini" by the Authority, to exclude
compensation might be a historically inaccurate interpretation. While
this is not consequential to the merits of the case, it is in our opinion a
worthwhile observation, for law has to power to legitimize the meaning
of words and can change the context in which a word used, and in turn
can change the course of history itself.
Background Facts
9. Since the early 1970s, Liberalization took over India by storm,
and it brought with it the promise of massive economic growth. A huge
amount of money was infused in the Indian Economy with the purpose
of developing Indian cities into massive global hubs of capital and
business. In line with this, Delhi began its journey of becoming a global
city. This influx of capital into the city also brought with it massive
employment opportunities, and people from all over the country started
migrating to Delhi. To contain such influx of migrants and ensure dignified
living for all who came to the city with the hopes of improving their lives,
the government of India planned to develop residential and industrial
areas around the capital. For this, Gurgaon was developed across the
border of Haryana, and New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
(NOIDA) was developed by the Uttar Pradesh Government in the
adjoining district of Gautam Budh Nagar. In this period, the city enjoyed
massive growth, both in terms of influx of capital and migration. This
growth was so unprecedented, that it even exceeded the planning estimates
as envisaged by the authorities. As a measure to accommodate such
growth, the Uttar Pradesh Government, exercising its powers under
Section 3 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, by
notification dated 28.01.1991 created the township of Greater Noida, in
an area of 38000 hectare, comprising of 124 villages of Gautam Budh
Nagar.
10. For its planned development, the Respondent- G. Noida started
acquisition of land within its territorial area of operation under the
provisions of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as '1894
Act'). In the same connection, notifications dated 03.10.2005 and
05.01.2006 were issued under Sections 4(1) and Section 6(1) of 1894
Act for acquisition of total area of 580.1734 hectares of the land for plan
development situate in different villages falling within the jurisdiction of
G. Noida. The said notifications, which also included the land of the
RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
432
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
present appellants, were subject matter of challenge before the High
Court in a bunch of Writ Petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings
mainly on the ground of arbitrarily invoking urgency clause under Sections
17(1) read with Section 17 (4) of the 1894 Act. The bunch of the said
Writ Petitions came to be decided by the another Full Bench of the High
Court titled as Gajraj Vs. State of U.P3. The High Court concluded that
the urgency clause was wrongly invoked, but saved the acquisition for
the reason that much development had already taken place over the said
land and the nature of land stands completely changed. The Full Bench
further in order to compensate the landholders directed an additional
compensation to be paid to the landholders at the rate of 64.70% of the
already paid compensation and a further direction was issued to allot
developed Abadi land to the extent of 10% of their acquired land, subject
to a cap of Rs.2,500/- square meter. The Full Bench never made any
distinction between 'Pushtaini' and 'Gair-Pushtaini' farmers for payment
of the additional compensation or allotment of land. The Full Bench also
relying upon the decisions rendered in the case of Radheyshyam (Dead)
through L.Rs & Ors. Vs. State Of UP & Ors.4, Greater Noida
Industrial Development Authority Vs. Devendra Kumar & Ors.5,
further held that merely because the farmers had received compensation
under an agreement, it cannot be said that they have waived off the right
to challenge the same. The Full Bench judgment in Gajraj (Supra)
came to be affirmed by this Court in Savitri Devi Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors.6
11. The present appellants had also filed a Writ Petition being
Writ Petition No. 62056 of 2011 challenged the notification issued under
Sections 4 and 6 read with Section 17 of the Act. The said Writ Petition
came to be disposed of in terms of the directions issued by the Full
Bench in the case of Gajraj (Supra) vide judgment and order dated
01.11.2011.
12. It is also pertinent to mention at this stage that even before the
land acquisition proceedings were initiated and notification under Sections
4 and 6 of the 1894 Act, were issued, the Respondent-Greater Noida in
its 26th Board meeting dated 28.10.1997 decided to classify the
landholders for the purposes of payment of compensation for acquisition
3 (2011) SCC OnLine AII 1711
4 (2011) 5 SCC 553
5 (2011) 12 SCC 375
6 (2015) 7 SCC 21
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
433
of their land as 'Pushtaini', namely, those landholders who had purchased
the land prior to the date of establishment of authority i.e., 28.01.1991 or
thereafter got the land by partition or family settlement and 'GairPushtaini' being those persons who purchased the land after its
establishment. Thus, two classes of landholders were carved out for
payment of compensation and those who were classified as 'Pushtaini'
landholders, a higher amount of compensation was decided to be awarded
to them in the name of their rehabilitation.
13. Subsequently, on 15.07.2006, an agreement was entered into
between Greater Noida and the appellants and other landholders under
Rule 4(2) of the Land Acquisition Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to
as '1997 Rules') and in accordance with the resolution passed by Greater
Noida in its 26th Meeting, the 'Pushtaini' landholders were paid
compensation @ Rs. 322 per sq. yard and the 'Gair-Pushtaini' landholders
including the appellants herein were paid a lesser amount of compensation
@ Rs.280 per sq. yard.
14. The landholders continued with their agitation making demand
of further compensation at the enhanced rate which resulted in
constituting a Committee to consider the demand of enhanced rate of
compensation in the form of bonus/ex-gratia compensation. The
Committee submitted its report after making a recommendation for
payment of the amount @ Rs.310 per square metre on account of Exgratia to the Ancestral Agriculturists of the land situate in 8 Villages.
15. The report of the Committee dated 25.10.2008 is being
reproduced hereunder for a ready reference :-
"
 ANNEXURE P-4
25.10.2008
Recommendation of the Committee constituted in connection
with making consideration on the demands of bonus/ex- gratia/
compensation enhancement at the enhanced rate in
connection with the land of Village Ghodi Bachheda and other
Villages as per Order No.4/4/1/2008 -C.X. (1) Lucknow dated
4.09.2008 of the Government of Uttar Pradesh
Following Committee has been constituted in connection with
making consideration on these types of demands and bonus /
ex-gratia /compensation enhancement at the enhanced rate
in connection with the land of Village Ghodi Bachheda and
RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
434
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
other Villages vide Order No.4/4/1/2008 C.X. (1) Lucknow
dated 4.09.2008 of the Government of Uttar Pradesh:-
1. Shri Thakur Jaibir Singh, Hon'ble Minister, Rural
Engineering Service, Agricultural Foreign Trade and
Agriculture Export Chairman
2. Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida - Member
3. District Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar - Member
Coordinator Examined and perused the records made
available in evidence of the Memos submitted by the
representatives of agriculture is organizations / Agriculturists
and perused the background of the and its different aspects
by the Committee and while convening Committee Meeting of
the Committee of Villages / their representatives, even
consideration was made in respect of the above matter,
particulars of which is given below:-
1. Background- this decision was taken in the 26th meeting
dated 28.10.1997 of the Greater Noida Authority Board that
the rate of compensation be assessed on the basis of agreement
by the Authority for each financial year and those
Agriculturists, who are agreed for executing the consent at
the rates of the questioned Financial Years, they while
executing the agreement/consent, may receive compensation
under contract/consent regulation and those Agriculturists,
who are not agreed with the prescribed rate, the compensation
will be payable to them at the rate prescribed by the learned
District Magistrate under provisions of Section 23 of the Land
Acquisition Act 1994. On the basis of above sequence, for
the year of 1997-98, the rate of compensation was assessed
@ Rs.110 per square and in future, it will be enhanced in
accordance with cost inflation index in each financial year.
Vide Order No.902/778 3-0 7-1 43 N/04. of the Government
of Uttar Pradesh, a High Level Committee under
Chairmanship of the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut
was constituted. Committee has recommended its compensation
value @ Rs.800-850 per square metre, in sequence thereto,
in the meeting of Greater Noida Authority Board held on
5.01.2008, while assessing the compensation @ Rs.850 per
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
435
square metre, decision was taken to enforce this rate with
effect from 1.04.2007.
Even the particulars of these types of Memos are also
mentioned in the recommendation dated 4.01.2008 of the
Committee constituted under chairmanship of the
Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut vide Order dated
31.12.2007 of the Government issued previously, whereby it
is clear that at that time also, The Villagers of the above
Villages were making demand for enhancement in
compensation. The certain Memos of the Villagers were
forwarded to the Government for appropriate guidelines/
directions while enclosing them as per Authority letter No.931
/ land-record / L.P./2008 dated 7.03.2008/ 903/ land-record /
LP/2008 dated 10.03.2008, Land Record/1 a/2008 dated
13.03.20081038/land-record/L.A./2008 dated 29.04.2008,
1055/ land-record/ LA / 2008 dated 5.05.2008/ 1069/landrecord/ LA/2008 dated 9.05.2008, 1113, 1115/land-record/L
A/2008 dated 06.06.08. Thereafter, by Order dated
10.05.2008 of the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Greater Noida, for examination of the demand of
compensation enhancement raised by the Agriculturists, a
Committee of District Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar,
Chief Executive Officer, Deputy Chief Executive Officer,
Greater Noida was constituted and in its report dated
21.07.2008, recommendation was made to make consideration
for additional amount @ Rs. 175 -200 square metre to the
Agriculturists of the land acquired in the Financial Years
2006-2007 of the Village Ghodi Bachheda including other
Villages. Such directions were given while making perusal of
the Recommendation of the Committee in the 72nd Meeting
dated 11.08.2008 of the Authority Board, that while making
calculation of the situation of its financial source and its
management, the case be referred to the Government. Vide
Order No.4/4/1/2008 -C.X. (1) Lucknow dated 4.09.2008 of
the Government of Uttar Pradesh, the above Committee was
constituted for giving recommendation in connection with
making consideration on the demands of bonus / ex-gratia/
enhancement of compensation and etc. at the enhanced rate
in connection with the Village Ghodi Bachheda and other
RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
436
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
Villages.
2. Meetings of the Committee - That first meeting of the
Committee was convened on 15.09.2008 in the conference
room of Uttar Pradesh Sadan, New Delhi, in addition to the
Chairman of Committee, following officers have taken part1. Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Chief Executive Officer, Greater
Noida
2. Shri Shravan Kumar Sharma, District officer, Gautam
Buddha Nagar
In addition to above, following officers of the Greater Noida
Authority were appeared in the above meeting1. Shri Shailendra Chaudhary, Deputy Chief Executive
Officer, Greater Noida.
2. Shri Shishir, Special Executive Officer, Greater Noida
Consideration and consultation was made in connection with
the work area, operation and process of the constitution of
the Committee in the meeting land this decision was taken
that while convening a meeting with the Agriculturists and
their representatives affected with the acquisition, their
opinions and demands may be known by way of receiving
representations from them and discussion may be made from
them in this regard.
In sequence of above, the meeting of Committee was convened
on 22.09.2008 and 11.10.2008 respectively in the Conference
Room of the Greater Noida Authority, wherein, while receiving
the memo from the Agriculturists of Village and their
representatives, the matter was discussed and consulted in
detail, wherein, mainly, following people have taken part1. Ramesh Singh Rawal,
2. Yogendra Singh Rawal,
3. Subedar Ramchandra,
4. Omprakash,
5. Mahi Singh Bhati,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
437
6. Lokesh Bhati,
7. Maha Singh Bhati,
8. Pratap Singh Bhati,
9. Pratap Singh Sarpanch,
10. Prem Mukhiya,
11. Inder Singh (Advocate),
12. Ajit Singh Nagar,
13. Kamal Bhati,
14. Mange Ram Bharti
15. Bhule Singh,
16. Rakesh
17. Braham Singh,
18. Atmender,
19. Maharaj Singh,
20. Mehndi Hassan,
21. Umesh,
22. Vikram Singh,
23. Satbir Pradhan,
24. Naresh Upadhyay,
25. Ajith Mukhiya,
26. Rampal Havaldar,
27. Nemvir, Pradhan, Garba
and etc. etc.
3. Grounds of the demand and memo submitted by the
Agriculturist - There records were received in support of
detailed Memos and particulars in connection with the
demands from the Villages in their meeting by the Committee.
The agriculturist of the land acquired in the year of 20062007 of Village Ghodi Bachheda and including other Villages
RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
438
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
have collectively produced detailed and factual Memos
including necessary records before the Committee and even
grounds were also raised by the Agriculturists orally in
support of their demand, wherein, main grounds are included,
which are as under:-
1. The farmers of questioned Villages have given value
enhancement Memo on 2.04.2006, whereon, the Greater
Noida Development Authority gave Assurance letter in written
on 5.01.2007 after 10 days, that, after calling the rates of
Tronica City and etc. in the GDA, till the last week of the
February 2007, decision will be taken in connection with
enhancing the compensation. In support of their statements
copy of letter dated 5.01.2007 of the Deputy Chief Executive
Officer, Greater Noida addressed to Ashok Pradhan,
respected member, Lok Sabha and Sri Nawab Singh Nagar, is
enclosed.
2. They had also revealed their demand in connection with
compensation enhancement in the meeting of committee
constituted under chairmanship of the Commissioner, Meerut
Division, Meerut, but nothing benefit has been given to the
Agriculturists of the acquired land in the financial year 20062007.
3. The Villagers have produced their demand, while disclosing
detailed grounds before the Committee constituted under
chairmanship of the learned District Magistrate vide Order
dated 10.06.2008 of the Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Greater Noida but, even then, the Committee, without
making intensive consideration thereon, has given
recommendation for enhancement @ Rs. 175- 200 per square
metre, which is not in practical and it is against the principle
of natural justice and that this enhancement is insufficient.
4. Analysis - The Notification was issued on 5.01.2006 under
Section 6/17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the proposal
of acquisition of 580.1730 hectare land of Village Gonda
Bachheda and that the possession of the acquired land was
handed over to the Greater Noida Authority on 14.05.2006
by the Additional Collector (L A). After approving the value
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
439
of compensation @ Rs.385 per square metre on 28.06.2006
from the Divisional Commissioner, Meerut, the compensation
amount was distributed @ Rs.385 per square metre to the
Ancestral Agriculturists and @ Rs.334.78 per square metre
to the ancestral Agriculturists. That the land of the following
Villages were acquired for well-planned development of the
Greater Noida in the Financial Years 2006-2007 including
Village Gonda, Bachada and other Villages and that the
possession of the above land was taken after 01.04.2006 and
the Agriculturists of the above land are making demand for
enhancement of compensation.
Agriculturist organization, Agriculturists of these Villagers
have also given a number of Memos for demanding
enhancement of compensation at the time of constitution of
the Committee under chairmanship of the Divisional
Commissioner, Meerut vide Order dated 31.12.2007 of the
Government and even prior to it.
The copy of consent letter dated 5.01.2007 signed by the then
Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida and
consideration and consultation made on the Memos submitted
on 5.01.2007 in the matter by the Villagers with Member of
Parliament Shri Ashok Pradhan and the then MLA Shri
Nawab Singh Nagar was also provided to the agriculturists,
wherein, it is mentioned that this decision has been taken in
connection with enhancing the compensation of the acquired
land that after calling the rates of compensation of the land
being acquired by the Ghaziabad Development Authority and
the land of Tronica City of Housing Development Board, till
the last week of February, decision will be taken in connection
RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
440
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
with enhancing the compensation. It is clear by it that the
Agriculturists were raising demand of enhancing the
compensation even in the month of February 2007, whereon,
the Assurance was given at the Competent Level of Authority.
The Committee constituted under chairmanship of the learned
District Magistrate has revealed the facts in detail in its report
dated 31.07.2008 on the above overall points raised by the
Agriculturists. The Committee has perused the recommendation
dated 21.07.2008 of the Committee constituted under the
chairmanship of the learned District Magistrate, Gautam
Buddha Nagar. Such finding has been concluded in its report
dated 21.07.2008 that it is not possible to make any change
in the rate of compensation in accordance with law, because
of receiving the compensation after fulfillment of the
agreement under the Agreement Regulation after acquisition
of the land by the concerned Agriculturists, but, the Committee
has recommended in its report dated 21.07.2008 to award
certain amount in the detailed circumstances on account of
ex-gratia.
5. Recommendation - As per the information provided by the
Special Executive Officer (L A), Greater Noida, most of the
Agriculturist of the acquired land in the financial year 2006
2007 of Village Ghodi Bachheda, including other Villages,
as per the Government Order dated 29.09.2001, under the
provisions of Uttar Pradesh Land Acquisition (Determination
of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement)
Rules, 1997, have received Compensation. Therefore, it would
not be possible under the rule to make any enhancement/
change in the compensation rates of the award to be declared.
Accordingly, it would be appropriated only to give additional
amount on account of Ex gratia to be awarded as relief to the
Agriculturists of these Villages.