# YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ETC v. SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY & ORS. ETC

- **Citation:** [2022] 5 S.C.R. 1034
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-05-19
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 4178-4197 of 2022
- **Bench:** L. Nageswara Rao, B. R. Gavai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/yamuna-expressway-industrial-development-authority-etc-v-shakuntla-education-36364
- **Pages:** 38

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Land acquisition - Payment of
additional compensation of 64.7% to farmers -State of Uttar Pradesh
acquired vast area of land for the benefit of Yamuna Expressway
Industrial Development Authority-YEIDA - YEIDA allotted plots to
various allottees including respondent no.1 - On the same line, the
State acquired land for the benefit of NOIDA - As regards the NOIDA
acquisition the High Court in Gajraj case directed payment of
additional compensation of 64.7% to the farmers and the same was
confirmed in Savitri Devi's case - As a result, the YEIDA farmers
raised the demand for additional compensation - On account of
the agitation by farmers, the development work stopped on the
acquired land - In view thereof, constitution of High-Level committee
which recommended 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 - State Government
accepted the same and issued a Government Order - Pursuant
thereto, additional demand notices issued to various allottees
including respondent no.1 - Challenge to - High Court held the
policy of the State Government asking for additional sum from
allottees as unfair and unreasonable - On appeal, held: Policy
decision of the State Government and the Resolution of the Board
of YEIDA were in the larger public interest, taking care of the
concerns of the allottees as well as the farmers - Had the said
decision not been taken, there were chances of the acquisition being
declared unlawful - Development of the entire project was stalled
on account of farmers' agitation - Before taking the policy decision,
the State Government, through the Committee constituted, had done
a wide range of deliberations with all the stakeholders including
the allottees, farmers and YEIDA - Policy decision was taken after
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 1034
1034
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1035
taking into consideration all relevant factors and was guided by
reasons - In case of a conflict between public interest and personal
interest, public interest would outweigh the personal interest - Thus,
the High Court not justified in holding that the policy decision of
the State as unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary - Order passed by
the High Court quashed and set aside - Policy decision.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It could be seen that the recommendations of
the Chaudhary Committee were principally intended to resolve
the issue between the farmers and the allottees, and to find out a
workable solution to the problem. The Chaudhary Committee
recommended similar treatment to be given to the farmers whose
lands were acquired for YEIDA, as was given to the farmers whose
lands were acquired for the benefit of NOIDA and Greater NOIDA.
The Chaudhary Committee found that the same benefits as were
given to the farmers whose lands were acquired for the benefit of
NOIDA and Greater NOIDA in view of the judgment of the High
Court in the case of Gajraj's case, as affirmed by this Court in the
case of Savitri Devi's case should also be given to the farmers
whose lands were acquired for the benefit of YEIDA. However,
this was made conditional. Additional benefit was granted to the
landowners on the condition that they would handover the
physical possession of land to YEIDA and withdraw the writ
petitions/cases filed by them pending before the High Court. The
State Government vide the said G.O. gave effect to the
recommendations of the Chaudhary Committee. YEIDA too, in
its Board meeting dated 15th September, 2014, resolved to
implement the decision of the State Government. Accordingly,
demand notices came to be issued to the allottees. It could thus
be seen that the policy decision of the State Government is
preceded by various factors. Firstly, the farmers' agitation, after
they were denied the benefits which were granted to the farmers
whose lands were acquired for the benefit of NOIDA and Greater
NOIDA; the report of the Com

## Text

_Characters 0–39,754 of 87,243. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39754 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1034
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY ETC.
v.
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY
& ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4178-4197 of 2022)
MAY 19, 2022
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Land acquisition - Payment of
additional compensation of 64.7% to farmers -State of Uttar Pradesh
acquired vast area of land for the benefit of Yamuna Expressway
Industrial Development Authority-YEIDA - YEIDA allotted plots to
various allottees including respondent no.1 - On the same line, the
State acquired land for the benefit of NOIDA - As regards the NOIDA
acquisition the High Court in Gajraj case directed payment of
additional compensation of 64.7% to the farmers and the same was
confirmed in Savitri Devi's case - As a result, the YEIDA farmers
raised the demand for additional compensation - On account of
the agitation by farmers, the development work stopped on the
acquired land - In view thereof, constitution of High-Level committee
which recommended 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 - State Government
accepted the same and issued a Government Order - Pursuant
thereto, additional demand notices issued to various allottees
including respondent no.1 - Challenge to - High Court held the
policy of the State Government asking for additional sum from
allottees as unfair and unreasonable - On appeal, held: Policy
decision of the State Government and the Resolution of the Board
of YEIDA were in the larger public interest, taking care of the
concerns of the allottees as well as the farmers - Had the said
decision not been taken, there were chances of the acquisition being
declared unlawful - Development of the entire project was stalled
on account of farmers' agitation - Before taking the policy decision,
the State Government, through the Committee constituted, had done
a wide range of deliberations with all the stakeholders including
the allottees, farmers and YEIDA - Policy decision was taken after
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 1034
1034
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1035
taking into consideration all relevant factors and was guided by
reasons - In case of a conflict between public interest and personal
interest, public interest would outweigh the personal interest - Thus,
the High Court not justified in holding that the policy decision of
the State as unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary - Order passed by
the High Court quashed and set aside - Policy decision.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It could be seen that the recommendations of
the Chaudhary Committee were principally intended to resolve
the issue between the farmers and the allottees, and to find out a
workable solution to the problem. The Chaudhary Committee
recommended similar treatment to be given to the farmers whose
lands were acquired for YEIDA, as was given to the farmers whose
lands were acquired for the benefit of NOIDA and Greater NOIDA.
The Chaudhary Committee found that the same benefits as were
given to the farmers whose lands were acquired for the benefit of
NOIDA and Greater NOIDA in view of the judgment of the High
Court in the case of Gajraj's case, as affirmed by this Court in the
case of Savitri Devi's case should also be given to the farmers
whose lands were acquired for the benefit of YEIDA. However,
this was made conditional. Additional benefit was granted to the
landowners on the condition that they would handover the
physical possession of land to YEIDA and withdraw the writ
petitions/cases filed by them pending before the High Court. The
State Government vide the said G.O. gave effect to the
recommendations of the Chaudhary Committee. YEIDA too, in
its Board meeting dated 15th September, 2014, resolved to
implement the decision of the State Government. Accordingly,
demand notices came to be issued to the allottees. It could thus
be seen that the policy decision of the State Government is
preceded by various factors. Firstly, the farmers' agitation, after
they were denied the benefits which were granted to the farmers
whose lands were acquired for the benefit of NOIDA and Greater
NOIDA; the report of the Commissioner, the appointment of the
Chaudhary Committee, the deliberations of the Chaudhary
Committee with various stakeholders, and thereafter the
recommendations of the Chaudhary Committee. [Paras 5052][1060-E-H; 1061-A-c]
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v.
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1036
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
1.2 It has been held in Kasinka's case that the doctrine of
promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in the abstract and the
courts are bound to consider all aspects including the results
sought to be achieved and the public good at large; that while
considering the applicability of the doctrine, the courts have to
do equity and the fundamental principles of equity must forever
be present to the mind of the court, while considering the
applicability of the doctrine; that the doctrine being an equitable
doctrine, it must yield when the equity so requires, if it can be
shown by the Government or Public Authority that having regard
to the facts and circumstances as they have transpired, it would
be inequitable to hold the Government or the Public Authority to
the promise, assurance or representation made by it. If the
principle as laid down in the case of Kasinka Trading applied to
the facts of the instant case, it would be clear that the policy
decision of the State Government was not only in the larger public
interest but also in the interest of the respondents. The projects
were stalled on account of the farmers' agitation. The farmers
felt discriminated as they found that the compensation paid to
them was much lesser than the one being paid to the equally
circumstanced farmers in NOIDA and Greater NOIDA. It was
the allottees of the land who had approached the State Government
for redressal of the problem. In these circumstances, the
Government took cognizance of the problem and appointed the
Commissioner to look into the issue. Since the Commissioner
recommended appointment of a High-Level Committee, the
Chaudhary Committee was appointed. The Chaudhary Committee
had threadbare discussions with all the stakeholders. It also took
into consideration that on account of stay orders passed by the
High Court in various writ petitions, the development of the
project was stalled. On account of pendency of the writ petitions,
there was always a hanging sword over the entire acquisition of it
being declared unlawful. In this premise, in order to find out a
workable solution and that too, on the basis of the law laid down
by the High Court in the case of Gajraj's case as affirmed by this
Court in the case of Savitri Devi's case and followed by this Court
in the case of Savitri Mohan (Dead), recommendations were made
by the Chaudhary Committee. The Chaudhary Committee
specifically recommended that the additional compensation and
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1037
other incentives would be paid only if the landowners agree to
handover physical possession of the land to YEIDA and withdraw
all the litigations. It could be seen that the recommendations,
which were accepted by the State Government and formulated in
the policy, were made taking into consideration the interests of
all the stakeholders. It is not only the interest of a small section
of the allottees which should weigh with the Government, but
the Government should also give due weightage to the interest
of the large section of farmers, whose lands were acquired. The
High Court fell in error in observing that no writ petitions were
filed challenging the acquisition for YEIDA. The report of the
Chaudhary Committee itself would clarify that YEIDA had itself
submitted that insofar as the residential plots are concerned,
there were stay orders operating in majority of the writ petitions
due to which the development of the project work was stalled.
[Paras 54-57][1064-A-H; 1065-A-D]
1.3 The policy decision of the State Government was in the
larger public interest. It was taken considering entire material
collected by the Chaudhary Committee after due deliberations
with all the stakeholders. The factors which were taken into
consideration by the State Government were relevant, rational
and founded on ground realities. Thus, the finding of the High
Court that the policy decision of the State Government was
arbitrary, irrational and unfair, is totally incorrect. [Para 58][1065E]
1.4 An interference with the policy decision would not be
warranted unless it is found that the policy decision is palpably
arbitrary, mala fide, irrational or violative of the statutory
provisions. The High Court was also not right in interfering with
the policy decision of the State Government, which is in the larger
public interest. It could thus be seen that it is more than settled
that a change in policy by the Government can have an overriding
effect over private treaties between the Government and a private
party, if the same was in the general public interest. The additional
requirement is that such change in policy is required to be guided
by reason. [Paras 60 and 62][1068-H; 1069-A, D-E]
1.5 When a policy is changed by the State, which is in the
general public interest, such policy would prevail over the
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v.
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1038
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
individual rights/interests. The policy of the State Government
as reflected in the said G.O. was not only in the larger public
interest but also in the interest of the respondents. [Para 65][1069G-H; 1070-A]
1.6 The respondents have indulged into the conduct of
approbate and reprobate. They have changed their stance as per
their convenience. When their projects were stalled on account
of the farmers' agitation, it is they who approached the State
Authorities for finding out a solution. When the State Government
responded to their representations and came up with a policy
which was equitable and in the interest of both, the farmers and
the allottees and when the said policy paved the way for
development, when called upon to pay the additional
compensation, the respondents-allottees somersaulted and
challenged the very same policy before the High Court, which
benefitted them. [Para 66][1070-B-D]
1.7 Insofar as the individual plot owners are concerned, it
will be worthwhile to mention that the residential plot owners in
Sectors 18 and 20 of Yamuna Expressway city have formed an
association, viz., Yamuna Expressway Residential-Plot-Owners
Welfare Association (hereinafter referred to as "the YERWA").
The communication addressed by the president of the YERWA
to the CEO of YEIDA would reveal that 98.5% of the allottees/
owners have voted in favour of paying the additional premium
demanded by the Authority. The only request made by the YERWA
is with regard to making a provision for paying additional premium
in installments. Insofar as the individual residential plot owners
are concerned, more than 98% of the plot owners do not have
any objection to the payment of the additional compensation.
[Paras 67 and 68][1070-D-F]
1.8 The policy decision of the State Government as reflected
in the said G.O. dated 29th August, 2014 and the Resolution of
the Board of YEIDA dated 15th September, 2014 were in the
larger public interest, taking care of the concerns of the allottees
as well as the farmers. Had the said decision not been taken,
there was a hanging sword of the acquisition being declared
unlawful. The development of the entire project was stalled on
account of farmers' agitation. Before taking the policy decision,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1039
the State Government, through the Chaudhary Committee, had
done a wide range of deliberations with all the stakeholders
including the allottees, farmers and YEIDA. The policy decision
was taken after taking into consideration all relevant factors and
was guided by reasons. In any case, it is a settled position of law
that in case of a conflict between public interest and personal
interest, public interest will outweigh the personal interest. The
High Court was thus not justified in holding that the policy decision
of the State was unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary. The High
Court erred in allowing the writ petitions, thus, the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court is quashed and set
aside. [Para 70][1070-H; 1071-A-C]
Gajraj and Others v. State of U.P. and Others 2011
SCC OnLine All 1711; Savitri Devi v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others (2015) 7 SCC 21 : [2015] 7 SCR
512; Centre for Public Interest Litigation and others v.
Union of India and Others (2012) 3 SCC 1 : [2012] 3
SCR 147; Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
and Others (2000) 10 SCC 664 : [2000] 4 Suppl. SCR
94; ITC Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
(2011) 7 SCC 493 : [2011] 7 SCR 66; Greater Noida
Industrial Development Authority v. Savitri Mohan
(Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others
(2016) 13 SCC 210 : [2016] 3 SCR 187; Kasinka
Trading and Another v. Union of India and Another
(1995) 1 SCC 274 : [1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 448; Essar
Steel Limited v. Union of India and Others (2016) 11
SCC 1 : [2016] 4 SCR 326; APM Terminals B. V. v.
Union of India and Another (2011) 6 SCC 756 : [2011]
8 SCR 600 - referred to.
Prof. S.A. de Smith "Judicial Review of Administrative
Action" - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2015] 7 SCR 512
referred to
Para 10
[2012] 3 SCR 147
referred to
Para 22
[2000] 4 Suppl. SCR 94
referred to
Para 22
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v.
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1040
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
[2011] 7 SCR 66
referred to
Para 30(ix)
[2016] 3 SCR 187
referred to
Para 38
[1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 448
referred to
Para 53
[2016] 4 SCR 326
referred to
Para 59
[2011] 8 SCR 600
referred to
Para 61
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 41784197 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.05.2020 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-C No.28968 of 2018, 68724 of 2015,
45929 and 46993 of 2016, 17609, 23357 and 25359 of 2017, 2452 of
2018, 40702, 52310 and 61882 of 2017, 7142, 9247, 14730, 20053, 20158,
20217, 25994, 36669 and 28956 of 2018.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 4198-4217, 4218 and 4219 of 2022.
 Vinod Diwakar, AAG, C. A. Sundaram, C. U. Singh, Maninder
Singh, Sr. Advs., Amar Gupta, Divyam Agarwal, Kunal Mimani, Aniket
Aggarwal, Zafar Inayat, Anuvrat Sharma, Ms. Alka Sinha, B. N. Dubey,
Rakesh U. Upadhyay, Ms. Aarti U. Mishra, Rishabh Kumar Pandey,
Dr. Surat Singh, Ashok K. Mahajan, Advs. for the Appellants.
Nakul Dewan, Sunil Gupta, Ravindra Srivastava, Ravi Sikri, Sanjiv
Sen, Sr. Advs., Lokesh Bhola, Kapil Bakshi, Archit Upadhyay, Ajay K.
Jain, Akshat Kumar, Ms. Saroj Tripathi, Ishan Dewan, Ms. Garima Tiwari,
Lokesh Malik, Ms. Priyal Bapna, Ms. Sukriti Chauhan, Nitin Singh, Shashi
Kumar, Ankur Yadav, Abhisth Kumar, Anurag Rawat, Ms. Samita Mann,
Raj Kamal, Mudit Sharma, Tarun Gupta, Ms. Vagisha Nandini, Gaurav
Kumar, Inderjeet Kumar, Ms. Richa Yadav, Ravi Prakash, Sandeep Malik,
VIshal Mani, Alok Kumar, Vikalp Mudgal, Vishal Gupta, Tanzen Tashi
Negi, Santosh Kumar-I, Arjun D. Singh, Sandeep Kumar Jha, Avneesh
Garg, Muddam Thirupathi Reddy, Vaibhav Manu Srivastava, Prithviraj
Singh, Umang Mahindra, Ujjal Banerjee, Akash Khurana, Advs. for the
Respondents.
Ravinder Srivastava, Sr. Adv., Shekhar Gupta, Nitin Saluja,
Ms. Priyanka Prasanth, Advs. for the Intervenors.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1041
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B. R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This batch of appeals challenge the judgment and order dated
28th May, 2020, passed by the Allahabad High Court in various writ
petitions filed by the allottees of plots of land. The writ petitions were
filed challenging the demand of additional amount made by the appellant
herein-Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority
(hereinafter referred to as "YEIDA") in respect of plots of land leased
out to the allottees; the resolution of the Board of YEIDA dated 15th
September, 2014, and the Government Order dated 29th August, 2014,
vide which the State Government had permitted YEIDA to recover the
additional amount from the allottees.
3. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. For the sake of
convenience, we will refer to the factual details as are found in Writ
Petition No.28968 of 2018, filed before the High Court of Allahabad by
M/s Shakuntla Education and Welfare Society (the respondent No.1
herein).
4. A vast area of land was acquired by the State of Uttar Pradesh
in Gautam Budh Nagar district 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 of land in the area
developed by it. In response to the notice inviting applications for such
allotment, various allottees including the respondent No.1 herein applied
and were allotted plots admeasuring different sizes.
5. The respondent No.1 was informed by letter dated 14th
September, 2009, that a plot of 50 acres of land has been reserved for it.
Subsequently, a letter of allotment dated 10th December, 2009 was issued
to the respondent No.1, allotting plot No.2 in Sector 7-A, having an area
of 50 acres, i.e., equivalent to 2,02,350 sq. meter. In the allotment letter,
it was stated that the premium of the land allotted was Rs.1,055/- per sq.
meter. It was also mentioned that the respondent No.1 had deposited
10% of the premium amount and the balance 90% of the premium amount
was payable in monthly installments as specified in the chart contained
therein. The allotment letter further stated that the lease deed shall be
executed and the possession of the land shall be handed over after
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v.
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1042
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
completion of the acquisition proceedings. It was stated that the land
was already in possession of YEIDA.
6. It was the contention of the respondent No.1 that on the basis
of the aforesaid allotment letter, a lease deed came to be executed in
favour of the respondent No.1 on 22nd January, 2010 for a period of 90
years after the respondent No.1 had made substantial compliance with
the terms and conditions of the allotment and had deposited the necessary
amount. The lease deed provided that in addition to the amount payable
by the respondent No.1, 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.
7. It was further the case of the respondent No.1 that during
measurement, it was found that the plot allotted to it, had an excess area
of about 2 acres. The said excess land was also leased out to it on the
same terms and conditions. It was further the case of the respondent
No.1 that it was thereafter given possession of the aforesaid land and on
it, a University known as Galgotias University was developed.
8. It was further the case of the respondent No.1 that subsequently
YEIDA came out with a policy and gave an option to the respondent
No.1 to deposit the entire premium amount in lump-sum rather than in
installments. This was subject to certain rebate. It was stated that in
accordance with the said policy, a lump-sum amount was worked out by
YEIDA and the same was also paid by the respondent No.1. An
undertaking was also taken from the respondent No.1 on an affidavit on
7th June, 2012, that in the event there was any clerical error or
miscalculation of the lump-sum amount, the respondent No.1 would make
good the deficiency.
9. The State of Uttar Pradesh had also made large-scale acquisition
of lands for the benefit of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
("NOIDA" for short) and Greater NOIDA. A number of writ petitions
came to be filed by farmers challenging the said acquisition on various
grounds before the Allahabad High Court. The main ground of challenge
was that there was no urgency for acquiring the land and as such, invoking
Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as
"the L.A. Act") was not warranted. It was contended that on account
of invoking of Section 17 of the L.A. Act, a valuable right available to
the writ petitioners under Section 5A of the L.A. Act was taken away.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1043
All the said writ petitions came to be decided vide the judgment and
order dated 21st October, 2011. In the leading case, i.e., Gajraj and
others vs. State of U.P. and others1, the Full Bench of the Allahabad
High Court came to a finding 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, wherein they could raise objections to the
acquisition of the land. However, taking into consideration the subsequent
developments that the lands had already been developed and third party
rights had accrued, the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the
case of Gajraj (supra) considered it appropriate not to disturb the
acquisition. In order to balance the equities, the Full Bench of the
Allahabad High Court directed payment of additional compensation of
64.7% plus some other benefits to certain class of farmers. It also directed
certain other benefits to be given to the farmers. The aforesaid additional
compensation of 64.7% was worked out by the Court taking into
consideration the fact that in respect of one of the villages, i.e., Patwari,
NOIDA itself had entered into negotiations with the farmers and had
extended the benefit of additional compensation at the aforesaid rate
over and above the compensation awarded.
10. The aforesaid judgment and order of the Full Bench of the
Allahabad High Court in the case of Gajraj (supra) came to be confirmed
by this Court in the case of Savitri Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and others2.
11. Since the farmers, whose lands were acquired for the benefit
of NOIDA and Greater NOIDA, were being paid additional
compensation of 64.7%, there was unrest amongst the farmers whose
lands were acquired for YEIDA. It appears that on account of agitation
by the farmers, vast stretches of lands could not be developed. As such,
the Chief Executive Officer (hereinafter referred to as "CEO") of
YEIDA addressed a letter dated 10th April, 2013, to the State Government,
requesting to find a solution. The State Government, acting on the said
letter, instructed the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, vide its
letter of the same day, i.e., dated 10th April, 2013, to meet various groups
of farmers and submit a report.
12. Accordingly, the Commissioner held a meeting with various
groups of farmers and the concerned District Magistrates, and submitted
1 2011 SCC OnLine All 1711
2 (2015) 7 SCC 21
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v.
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1044
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
a report to the State Government on 16th July, 2013, recommending
constitution of a High-Level Committee.
13. The State Government vide Office Memo dated 3rd September,
2013, constituted a High-Level Committee under the Chairmanship of
Sri Rajendra Chaudhary, Minister of Prison, State of Uttar Pradesh
(hereinafter referred to as "the Chaudhary Committee"). The Chaudhary
Committee also consisted of the Divisional Commissioner of the
concerned Division and the Collector of concerned District. The
Chaudhary Committee submitted its recommendations to the State
Government, inter alia, 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.
14. The State Government accepted the recommendations of the
Chaudhary Committee and issued a Government Order dated 29th August,
2014 (hereinafter referred to as "the said G.O."). The said G.O. 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 clarified in the
said G.O. that the Government would not bear the burden of the additional
amount.
15. The said G.O. was placed before the Board of YEIDA in its
meeting, held on 15th September, 2014, and the same was approved in
the said meeting on the very same day, vide Resolution dated 15th
September, 2014.
16. In pursuance to the said G.O. and the Resolution dated
15th September, 2014 of the Board of YEIDA, additional demand notices
were issued to various allottees. In case of the respondent No.1, an
additional premium at the rate of Rs.600/- per sq. meter, for the land
allotted and leased out, came to be demanded, totaling to
Rs.12,14,10,000/-.
17. It was in this background that various writ petitions came to
be filed before the Allahabad High Court, including Writ Petition No.28968
of 2018, filed by the respondent No.1.
18. By the impugned judgment and order dated 28th May, 2020,
the Allahabad High Court allowed the said writ petitions holding that:-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1045
(i)
the decision in the case of Gajraj (supra), as approved by
this Court in the case of Savitri Devi (supra), was not a
judgment in rem and could not have been applied to
proceedings for acquiring the land under different
notifications or for YEIDA;
(ii)
the said G.O. and the Resolution of the Board of YEIDA
dated 15th September, 2014 were violative of the provisions
of the L.A. Act; and
(iii)
the policy of the State Government was unfair, unreasonable,
arbitrary and in violation of the provisions of the Transfer
of Property Act, 1882.
19. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeals by way of special
leave have been filed on behalf of YEIDA, State of Uttar Pradesh and
farmers whose lands were acquired.
20. We have heard Shri C.A. Sundaram, Shri C.U. Singh and Shri
Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of YEIDA,
Shri Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on
behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh, Shri Rakesh U. Upadhyay and
Dr. Surat Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the farmers
whose lands were acquired, Shri Nakul Dewan, Shri Sunil Gupta, Shri
Ravindra Srivastava and Shri Sanjiv Sen, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondents-original allottees of land.
21. The main contention of the appellants in the present appeals is
that the said G.O. was a policy decision of the State Government, taken
in public interest. It is submitted that the said policy decision was taken
after taking into consideration the farmers' agitation, the report of the
Chaudhary Committee and all other relevant factors. It is submitted that
in order to avoid acquisitions from being declared illegal, the Cabinet of
Ministers of the State Government had taken a considered decision to
adopt a formula, which was carved out by the judgment of the Full Bench
of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Gajraj (supra) and approved
by this Court in the case of Savitri Devi (supra).
22. It is also the contention on behalf of the appellants that the
policy of the State Government was in consonance with the decision of
this Court in the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation and
others vs. Union of India and others3, wherein this Court has held that
3 (2012) 3 SCC 1
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v.
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1046
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
it is obligatory on the State to ensure that people are adequately
compensated for the transfer of resource to the private domain. Relying
on the judgment of this Court in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan
vs. Union of India and others4, it is submitted that the policy of the
State Government was formulated by looking at the welfare of the people
at large rather than restricting the benefit to a small section of the society.
Relying on various judgments of this Court, it is submitted that when the
change in the policy of the State is in public interest, it will override all
private agreements entered into by the State.
23. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellants that, as a
matter of fact, on account of agitation of the farmers, development could
not take place in the concerned area. It is submitted that various plot
owners had approached the State Government and its authorities for
finding out a solution to these problems, so that the development could
proceed further. It is submitted that the proceedings of the Chaudhary
Committee would itself reveal that all the stakeholders including the
representatives of allottees were heard by the Chaudhary Committee.
Not only that, but various allottees had, in writing, agreed that they are
willing to pay the additional compensation so that the hindrance in the
development is removed. It is therefore submitted that it does not lie in
the mouth of the respondents to question the said G.O. and oppose the
payment of additional compensation.
24.Relying on various judgments of this Court, it is further submitted
on behalf of the appellants that the lease deed itself permitted additions,
alterations or modifications in the terms and conditions of the lease. As
such, even as per the lease deed, the appellants were entitled to modify
or alter the terms and conditions of the lease. It is submitted that the
word "modify" has to be used in a broader sense and not in a narrower
sense.
25. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the
High Court fell in great error in holding that no writ petitions were pending.
It is submitted that, as a matter of fact, more than 600 writ petitions
were pending when the policy decision was taken by the State
Government. It is submitted that the policy decision was taken so as to
save the acquisition, which was otherwise liable to be quashed and set
aside. It is submitted that it is, in fact, the respondents, who are the
beneficiaries of the said measure and as such, having taken benefit of
4 (2000) 10 SCC 664
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1047
the said measure, they cannot be permitted to refuse to pay the additional
compensation.
26. It is also submitted on behalf of the appellants that the allotees
had an option, either to make additional payment or to take refund with
interest. Having opted not to seek refund with interest, it does not lie in
the mouth of the respondents to refuse to pay the additional compensation.
27. It is also submitted on behalf of appellant-YEIDA that it had
specifically submitted that stay orders passed by the High Court were in
force in most of the cases related to residential plots, due to which the
development work could not be completed.
28. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the farmers also
support the stand of YEIDA. It is submitted that the builders had already
recovered additional compensation from the homebuyers. As such, the
additional compensation was already passed on by the builders to the
homebuyers. It is submitted that if the contention of the respondents is
accepted, it will amount to nothing else but allowing of unjust enrichment.
29. It is further submitted that the respondents were not entitled
to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petitions filed by them before the Allahabad High Court were
filed without impleading the farmers who were necessary parties as
respondents to the writ petitions.
30. Elaborate arguments have been advanced on behalf of the
respondents. To summarize, they are as under:
(i)
The respondents had not given any undertaking to pay
additional compensation, as stated;
(ii)
The term "modification/addition" with regard to payment
was restricted only to any clerical or technical error;
(iii)
The High Court has rightly held that Gajraj (supra) and
Savitri Devi (supra) applied only to the peculiar facts and
circumstances of those cases. In the case of Gajraj (supra),
the High Court had done elaborate exercise of categorizing
the cases into three types. In any case, it is submitted that
the State itself was aggrieved by the decision in Gajraj
(supra), which has been challenged by it before this Court;
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v.
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1048
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
(iv)
In the present case, many of the acquisitions were by private
negotiations and as such, there is no question of applicability
of either Section 17 or Section 5A of the L.A. Act;
(v)
There were concluded contracts entered between the
allottees and YEIDA. As such, it was not open for YEIDA
to unilaterally change the terms and conditions of the
contract and enhance the lease premium;
(vi)
The High Court has rightly held that the so-called policy of
the State Government was arbitrary, irrational and therefore
not sustainable in law;
(vii)
On behalf of the respondent No.19-Supertech Limited, an
additional submission was made that the appropriate
authority has already passed an order admitting the petition
filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,
2016;
(viii) On behalf of the individual plot owners, it is submitted that
the said plot owners, who belong to the middle class section
of the society cannot be burdened with the additional amount.
(ix)
The respondents also placed reliance on the judgment of
this Court in the case of ITC Limited vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others5 to support the proposition that
concluded contracts cannot be interfered with or reopened.
31. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we
have perused the material on record.
32. The main reasons that weighed with the High Court while
allowing the writ petitions are thus:
(i)
That the lands which were acquired for YEIDA in the
present case were under different notification than the
notification which fell for consideration in the case of Gajraj
(supra);
(ii)
That this Court in the case of Savitri Devi (supra) has
categorically held that the directions given in the case of
Gajraj (supra) were issued by the High Court in the peculiar
5 (2011) 7 SCC 493
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1049
facts and circumstances of the case and therefore, the same
could not have been applied to the facts of the present case;
(iii)
That some other petitions filed before the High Court
claiming the benefit on the basis of Gajraj (supra) were
ultimately rejected by the High Court;
(iv)
That the State Government has to strictly act in accordance
with the law or statutory provisions. It cannot act arbitrarily
or in an unfair manner in breach of specific provisions of
law;
(v)
That it is only for the Courts to grant equitable relief and
the Government is not entitled to pass order on equitable
ground of law.
33. We are called upon to examine the correctness of these findings.
34. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Full Bench of the
High Court in the case of Gajraj (supra) is reproduced by this Court in
the case of Savitri Devi (supra). It will be apposite to refer to following
observations in the case of Savitri Devi (supra):
"20. In a nutshell, relief was categorised in three compartments.
In the first instance, those writ petitions which were filed belatedly
were dismissed. In the second category, three villages, namely,
Devala (Group 40), Village Yusufpur Chak Sahberi (Group 38)
and Village Asdullapur (Group 42) the acquisition was set aside.
Land acquisition in respect of remaining 61 villages is concerned,
the acquisition was allowed to remain but the additional
compensation was increased to 64.7%with further entitlement for
allotment of development abadi plot to the extent of 10%of the
acquired land of those landowners subject to maximum of 2500
sq m.
21. We now reproduce the exact nature of direction [2011 SCC
OnLine All 1711] given by the High Court, which reads as follows:
(Gajraj case [2011 SCC OnLine All 1711] , SCC OnLine All)
"In view of the foregoing conclusions we order as follows:
1. Writ Petition No. 45933 of 2011, Writ Petition No.
47545 of 2011 relating to Village Nithari, Writ Petition No. 47522
of 2011 relating to Village Sadarpur, Writ Petition No. 45196 of
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v.
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1050
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
2011, Writ Petition No. 45208 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45211
of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45213 of 2011, Writ Petition No.
45216 of 2011, Writ Petitions Nos. 45223-24 of 2011, Writ
Petition No. 45226 of 2011, Writ Petitions Nos. 45229-30 of
2011, Writ Petition No. 45235 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45238
of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45283 of 2011 relating to Village
Khoda, Writ Petition No. 46764 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 46785
of 2011 relating to Village Sultanpur, Writ Petition No. 46407
of 2011 relating to Village Chaura Sadatpur and Writ Petition
No. 46470 of 2011 relating to Village Alaverdipur which have
been filed with inordinate delay and laches are dismissed.
2. (i) The writ petitions of Group 40 (Village Devla)
being Writ Petition No. 31126 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 59131
of 2009, Writ Petition No. 22800 of 2010, Writ Petition No.
37118 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 42812 of 2009, Writ Petition
No. 50417 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 54424 of 2009, Writ
Petition No. 54652 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 55650 of 2009,
Writ Petition No. 57032 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 58318 of
2009, Writ Petition No. 22798 of 2010, Writ Petition No. 37784
of 2010, Writ Petition No. 37787 of 2010, Writ Petitions Nos.
31124-25 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 32234 of 2011, Writ Petition
No. 32987 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 35648 of 2011, Writ Petition
No. 38059 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 41339 of 2011, Writ Petition
No. 47427 of 2011 and Writ Petition No. 47412 of 2011 are
allowed and Notifications dated 26-5-2009 and 22-6-2009 and
all consequential actions are quashed. The petitioners shall be
entitled for restoration of their land subject to deposit of
compensation which they had received under agreement/award
before the Authority/Collector.
(ii) Writ Petition No. 17725 of 2010 Omveer v. State of
U.P. (Group 38) relating to Village Yusufpur Chak Sahberi is
allowed. Notifications dated 10-4-2006 and 6-9-2007 and all
consequential actions are quashed. The petitioners shall be
entitled for restoration of their land subject to return of
compensation received by them under agreement/award to the
Collector.
(iii) Writ Petition No. 47486 of 2011 (Rajee v. State of
U.P.) of Group 42 relating to Village Asdullapur is allowed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1051
Notifications dated 27-1-2010 and 4-2-2010 as well as all
subsequent proceedings are quashed. The petitioners shall be
entitled to restoration of their land.
3. All other writ petitions except as mentioned above at
(1) and (2) are disposed of with the following directions:
(a) The petitioners shall be entitled for payment of
additional compensation to the extent of same ratio (i.e.
64.70%) as paid for Village Patwari in addition to the
compensation received by them under the 1997 Rules/award
which payment shall be ensured by the Authority at an early
date. It may be open for the Authority to take a decision as to
what proportion of additional compensation be asked to be paid
by the allottees. Those petitioners who have not yet been paid
compensation may be paid the compensation as well as
additional compensation as ordered above.