The court upheld the legality of invoking urgency provisions in land acquisition for integrated development, emphasizing adherence to judicial precedents.

JUDGMENT :

Mehta, J.

1. Delay in filing application(s) for setting aside of abatement is condoned.

2. Abatement is set aside.

3. Delay in filing the application(s) for substitution is condoned.

4. Application(s) for substitution is allowed.

5. Application(s) for transposition is allowed.

6. Application(s) for intervention/impleadment is allowed.

7. Leave granted.

INTRODUCTION

8. The present batch of civil appeals @ special leave petitions arise out of the land acquisition proceedings initiated by respondent No.1- State of Uttar Pradesh¹[hereinafter being referred to as ‘State’] for planned development in the District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, through respondent No.3- Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority²[hereinafter being referred to as ‘YEIDA’] by invoking ‘urgency provisions’ incorporated in Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894³[hereinafter being referred to as “the Act”].

9. Arguments on all the appeals @ special leave petitions have been heard analogously and are being disposed of vide this common judgment.

10. In total, 35 civil appeals @ special leave petitions are preferred both by landowners and YEIDA which can be categorized into two batches as mentioned below:

BATCH NO. 1- LANDOWNERS’ APPEALS @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS

11. A total of 29 civil appeals @ special leave petitions have been filed by the landowners challenging the decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in “Kamal Sharma v. State of U.P. thru Special Secretary Industrial Development and Ors⁴[Writ-C No. 26767 of 2010; hereinafter referred to as ‘Kamal Sharma’]”. The appeal @ special leave petition titled “Kalicharan v. State of U.P. and others, SLP(C) No. 15782 of 2023” is being treated as the lead matter in this batch.

BATCH NO. 2- YEIDA APPEALS @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS

12. The YEIDA has filed 6 appeals @ special leave petitions challenging various decisions of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court invalidating the self-same land acquisition proceedings for integrated development of notified areas including the decision in “Shyoraj Singh and Others v. State of U.P., Writ-C No. 30747 of 2010; hereinafter referred to as ‘Shyoraj Singh’”. The appeal @ special leave petition titled “YEIDA v. Shyoraj Singh and Ors., SLP(C) Nos. 19512-19513 of 2023” is being treated as the lead matter in this batch.

BRIEF FACTS

13. The chronology of events leading to the filing of these civil appeals are as follows.

14. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the factual context as noticed in Writ-C No. 26767 of 2010 titled as “Kamal Sharma v. State of U.P. thru Special Secretary Industrial Development and Ors.[ Supra, Note 4](lead matter in Batch No.1) filed before the Allahabad High Court.

15. Upon receipt of a proposal from the Director, Land Acquisition Directorate, Rajswa, Uttar Pradesh, with prior approval of the State Government, a notification dated 26th February, 2009 was issued under Section 4(1) ⁹[4. Publication of preliminary notification and power of officers thereupon. –

(1) Whenever it appears to the [appropriate Government] the land in any locality [is needed or] is likely to be needed for any public purpose [or for a company], a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette [and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language], and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality [(the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter refe