'Yamuna Expressway A Vital Heartline' : Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition For Yamuna Expressway Invoking Urgency Clause

The Supreme Court today upheld the land acquisition proceedings commenced under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act), for the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) project in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. The Court justified the State's act to invoke the urgency provisions under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act to bypass the hearing of objections under Section 5-A of the Act.

The bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard a batch of civil appeals filed by two sets of appellants. One set of appellants (landowners) assailed the correctness of Allahabad's High Court decision in the Kamal Sharma v. State of UP (2010) which upheld the acquisition under urgency provisions, citing the project's importance. Whereas, another set of appellants (YEIDA) challenged another Division Bench judgment of the same High Court passed in Shyoraj Singh v. State of UP (2010) where the High Court set aside the acquisition, holding that the urgency clause was improperly invoked.

Approving Kamal Sharma's dictum, Mehta J. in the judgment, rejected the landowner's contention that land acquisition proceedings stand vitiated because the land acquisition was not a part of an integrated development plan involving the Yamuna Expressway.

In Kamal Sharma's case, the High Court referred to the Supreme Court's case of Nand Kishore Gupta and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2010) where the Court observed that if there exists sufficient material that the acquisition was done for an integrated development then the State's power to invoke Section 5-A to dispense with the inquiry cannot be challenged.

The Court observed that since the Yamuna Expressway is a vital heartline providing access to millions of commuters from the National Capital Delhi to Agra, thus it would be unjustifiable to question the acquisition that it was not for integrated development of lands abutting the Yamuna Expressway.

“However, it cannot be gainsaid that Yamuna Expressway is a vital heartline providing access to millions of commuters from National Capital Delhi to Agra. The Expressway also connects the prestigious upcoming Jewar Airport to adjoining areas. To assume that the Yamuna Expressway is a simple highway without any scope for simultaneous development of the adjoining lands for commercial, residential and other such activities would be unconceivable. A project of such magnitude and enormity would definitely require the involvement of the adjoining areas which would lead to an overall development of the State of Uttar Pradesh at large.”

The Court held the High Court's decision in Shyoraj Singh's case to be per incuriam because it didn't consider the ratio of the previous decision where the Division Bench of the High Court already affirmed the validity of invocation of the urgency clause in the land acquisition notifications for the integrated development plan of 'Yamuna Expressway' by respondent No.3-YEIDA, and the challenge to the three decision via SLP resulted into dismissal.

“The view expounded by the Division Bench in Kamal Sharma, which relied upon Nand Kishore, sets forth the correct proposition of law, and the judgment of the High Court in Shyoraj Singh, which relied on Radhy Shyam, did not present a correct legal interpretation. The judgment in Shyoraj Singh is set aside as it does not lay down good law and was passed while overlooking at the earlier precedents, rendering it per incuriam.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the Court justified the State's invocation of Section 5-A for land acquisition for an integrated development plan of the Yamuna Expressway initiated by the YEIDA.

“As observed in the case of Nand Kishore, the development of land parcels for industrial, residential, and recreational purposes is complementary to the construction of the Yamuna Expressway. The objective of the acquisition is to integrate land development with the Yamuna Expressway's construction, thereby promoting overall growth serving the public interest. Consequently, the Expressway and the development of adjoining lands are considered to be inseparable components of the overall project.”

“the invocation of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was legal and justified in this case. The urgency clause was applied in accordance with the planned development of the Yamuna Expressway, as held in Nand Kishor.”, the court added.

As a result of the above discussion, the appeals filed by the landowners i.e. Batch No. 1, were dismissed, and the appeals filed by YEIDA i.e. Batch No. 2, were allowed.

Case Title: KALI CHARAN AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS (and connected matters)

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 922

Click here to read/download the judgment