Supreme Court Upheld the Urgency Provisions applied in YEIDA Acquisition

Facts of the Case:

The appeals stem from land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State of Uttar Pradesh for the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) under the urgency provisions of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land was acquired for planned industrial development, residential, and recreational purposes along the Yamuna Expressway. The appellants (landowners) and YEIDA filed appeals against conflicting decisions of the Allahabad High Court. The landowners claimed the urgency clause was misapplied, denying them the opportunity for objections under Section 5-A, while YEIDA defended the acquisition as part of an integrated development plan.

Contentions of the Appellants:

1. The State arbitrarily invoked the urgency clause, depriving landowners of their rights under Section 5-A.
2. There was no material urgency, as evidenced by significant delays in issuing Section 6 notifications.
3. The acquisition aimed at private interests under the guise of public purpose.
4. Compensation does not justify the violation of fundamental rights to challenge land acquisition.
5. The judgment in Kamal Sharma contradicted Shyoraj Singh without referring the matter to a larger bench, undermining judicial discipline.

Contentions of the Respondents:

1. YEIDA asserted the project involved integrated development, connecting the Yamuna Expressway with industrial and residential zones, benefiting public infrastructure.
2. The urgency clause was applied to prevent encroachments and expedite a project of national importance.
3. Previous judgments like Nand Kishore validated similar acquisitions, and judicial review of urgency provisions was limited.
4. Majority landowners accepted the escalated compensation, indicating general agreement with the acquisition terms.

Issues:

1. Whether the acquisition forms part of the integrated Yamuna Expressway development plan by YEIDA.
2. Whether the application of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act was justified.
3. Whether the judgment in Kamal Sharma upholding the acquisition correctly interprets the law compared to Shyoraj Singh.

Observations/Findings by the Supreme Court:

1. The acquisition was part of an integrated development plan linked to the Yamuna Expressway, aimed at overall public benefit.
2. The invocation of the urgency clause under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) was lawful, backed by adequate material and not arbitrary.
3. The judgment in Kamal Sharma aligns with precedents, particularly Nand Kishore, and correctly upheld the acquisition. Shyoraj Singh was deemed per incuriam for not considering earlier decisions.
4. The majority of landowners accepted the enhanced compensation, signifying the acquisition’s broader acceptance.

Principle of the Case:
The invocation of urgency provisions under the Land Acquisition Act is valid when it serves integrated public infrastructure projects of substantial public importance, provided the decision follows proper procedural safeguards and is not arbitrary.

Final Order:
The appeals by the landowners were dismissed. YEIDA’s appeals were allowed, affirming the land acquisition and the enhanced compensation formula of 64.7% provided in Kamal Sharma.

Case Citation:
Supreme Court of India, Kalicharan and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, Civil Appeal No(s). of 2024 (arising from SLP (Civil) No. 15782 of 2023), Judgment dated November 26, 2024.