Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority Etc. - Appellants
Versus
Shakuntla Education And Welfare Society & Ors. Etc. - Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos.4178-4197 of 2022 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.10015-10034 of 2020], Civil Appeal Nos.4198-4217 of 2022 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.9891-9910 of 2020], Civil Appeal No. 4218 of 2022 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14141 of 2020], Civil Appeal No.4219 of 2022 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.300 of 2022]
Decided on : 19-05-2022
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - SECTION 17 - URGENCY CLAUSE - ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION - POLICY DECISION - PUBLIC INTEREST - JUDICIAL REVIEW - WRIT PETITION - DISCRETIONARY RELIEF - EQUITABLE RELIEF - ESTOPPEL - PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - PUBLIC AUTHORITY - GOVERNMENT - CONTRACTS - COVENANTS - IMPLIED TERMS - GENERAL DISCRETIONARY POWERS - PUBLIC GOOD - JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION - POLICY DECISIONS - JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE - SCOPE - GROUNDS - UNCONSTITUTIONALITY - DELEGATION OF POWERS - STATUTORY OR LARGER POLICY - ARBITRARINESS - MALA FIDES - IMPROPER MOTIVES - COMMERCIAL OR BUSINESS DECISIONS - ECONOMIC POLICY - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE - WISDOM AND ADVISABILITY - PUBLIC PROJECTS AND POLICIES - GOVERNMENT DECISIONS - WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE - JUDICIAL SCRUTINY - POLICY REGARDING COMMERCIAL MATTERS OF THE COUNTRY - EXPERT BODIES - CHANGE IN POLICY - GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST - REASON - PRIVATE TREATIES BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE PARTY - PUBLIC INTEREST - CONFLICT BETWEEN PUBLIC INTEREST AND PERSONAL INTEREST - PUBLIC INTEREST PREVAILS - CONCLUDED CONTRACTS - UNILATERAL INCREASE IN PREMIUM - POLICY IN LARGER PUBLIC INTEREST - APPROBATE AND REPROBATE - CONDUCT OF ALLOTTEES - INDIVIDUAL PLOT OWNERS - CONSENT TO ADDITIONAL PREMIUM - CIRP - INITIATION OF CIRP - NOT A CONCERN IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
Farmers whose lands were acquired for the benefit of YEIDA agitated against the demand of additional amount made by 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. Various writ petitions were filed by the allottees challenging the demand of additional compensation.
Finding of the Court:
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.
Issues: Whether the policy decision of the State Government was arbitrary, irrational and unfair.
Ratio Decidendi: 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 (supra) as affirmed by this Court in the case of Savitri Devi (supra) and followed by this Court in the case of Savitri Mohan (Dead) (supra), recommendations were made by the Chaudhary Committee. The Chaudhary Committee specifically recommended that the additional compensation and other incentives would be paid only if the landowners agree to handover physical possession of the land to YEIDA and withdraw all the litigations.
Final Decision: The appeals are allowed; The impugned judgment and order dated 28th May, 2020, passed by the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 28968 of 2018 and companion matters is quashed and set aside; The writ petitions filed by the respondents covered by the impugned judgment and order dated 28th May, 2020 passed by the Allahabad High Court are dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized with appropriate references:
The policy decision by the State Government was made in the larger public interest, after considering extensive deliberations with stakeholders, including reports from committees and relevant factors (!) (!) .
The decision was guided by reasons rooted in ground realities and was found to be rational, relevant, and non-arbitrary, with the objective of balancing development needs and stakeholders' interests (!) (!) .
The government’s policy was in accordance with legal standards for administrative decision-making, including considerations of fairness, reasonableness, and the larger public good (!) (!) .
The policy was not found to be arbitrary or irrational, and the courts are not justified in interfering unless it violates constitutional provisions, statutory law, or is manifestly unjust or mala fide (!) (!) .
The decision to grant additional compensation and incentives was based on the necessity to address farmers’ agitation, prevent legal challenges, and facilitate development projects, taking into account the interests of all stakeholders (!) (!) .
The policy included conditions such as withdrawal of pending litigations and handing over physical possession of land, which were considered essential for implementing the benefits and ensuring smooth development (!) (!) .
The legal doctrine recognizes that judicial review of policy decisions is limited and courts should exercise restraint, intervening only when decisions are unconstitutional, beyond authority, or made with malafide intent (!) (!) .
The courts have consistently held that economic and policy decisions are within the domain of the executive, and their wisdom cannot be lightly scrutinized unless they violate legal principles or constitutional mandates (!) (!) .
The doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable against the government only if there is a clear, positive, and lawful representation, and it cannot be invoked in cases where it would conflict with public interest or statutory provisions (!) (!) .
The courts emphasize that decisions involving economic policies and large public projects are to be respected unless they are arbitrary or mala fide, and that judicial review should not encroach upon the domain of policy formulation (!) (!) .
The High Court erred in holding that no relevant writ petitions were pending and in interfering with the policy, as the decision was based on comprehensive reports and considerations of public interest, including the interests of farmers and allottees (!) (!) .
Overall, the appellate court found that the policy decision was well-reasoned, in accordance with legal principles, and in the larger interest of public development, thereby justifying its reversal of the High Court’s order (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
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 7A, 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 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 lumpsum rather than in installments. This was subject to certain rebate. It was stated that in accordance with the said policy, a lumpsum 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 lumpsum amount, the respondent No.1 would make good the deficiency.
9. The State of Uttar Pradesh had also ma
A policy decision by the State 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 and provided s....
Public policy prevails over private interests; interest on delayed payments for additional compensation is lawful as per principles of restitution and upheld by judicial precedents.
The benefit granted by the Full Bench cannot be extended to similarly situated persons. The relief in the case of Gajraj Singh was granted by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdict....
The court upheld the legality of invoking urgency provisions in land acquisition for integrated development, emphasizing adherence to judicial precedents.
The doctrine of promissory estoppel applies against the government, preventing it from changing policy arbitrarily after creating legitimate expectations in individuals.
The court established that higher authorities cannot exercise statutory powers of lower authorities, and actions against interim orders are illegal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
