NARENDRA ROAD LINES PVT. LTD. vs STATE OF U. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 Supreme(All) 2064

[2010(7) ADJ 329 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUNIL AMBWANI AND VIRENDRA SINGH, JJ.
NARENDRA ROAD LINES PVT. LTD. ….Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS …Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 29682, 65202, 65203, 41773, 41514, 36101, 41770, 61450, 36100, 36204, 41216, 41217, 42022, 42027, 42030, 42397, 53026, 39057, 60300, 37682, 37683, 37911, 36294, 39059, 49217, 53032, 55658, 57296, 55656, 53034, 53036, 53037, 30123, 53028, 51263, 30800, 30794, 53938, 30386, 30101, 30159, 53927, 60124, 62491, 62495, 63309, 36531, 36700, 33468, 33647, 61454, 43841, 45125, 46002, 46010, 46613, 46615, 46616, 46618, 47308, 48481, 48483, 48486, 48589, 48593, 52962, 35013, 35019, 35021, 35022, 33466, 37678, 37680, 32085, 32476, 34093, 31342, 48506, 58302, 61491, 69162 of 2009; 3038, 8484, 8038, 681, 697, 9488, 13045 and 13046 of 2010; decided on 2nd July, 2010)

Advocates:
Counsel :
B.D. Mandhyan, Sanjeev Kumar, Shail Kumar Rai, Uma Nath Pandey and Smt. Sarita Shukla for the Petitioner; Satish Chaturvedi, Additional Advocate General; M.C. Chaturvedi, Chief Standing Counsel, M.C. Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel and J.N. Maurya, S.C. for the State; Shashi Nandan and Ramendra Pratap Singh for the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) and Navin Sinha and Yashwant Verma for the Jaypee Infratech Ltd.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4(1), 5-A, 6, 6 Proviso Explanation 2, 17(1) and 17(4)—Land Acquisition For Company Rules, 1963—Rule 4—Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Section 11, Explanation VI—Acquisition of land for "Yamuna Expressway Project"—Through Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority—By invoking urgency provisions—Project of Yamuna Expressway was of for six lane road, running over 160 Kms—Entire cost of acquisition was to be paid by Company M/s. Jaypee Infratech Ltd.—Contract therefor was awarded after extensive bidding and negotiations—Entire acquisition was challenged earlier and found valid—Therefore, it was not open for petitioners to challenge acquisition on grounds that there was no public purpose or it was for benefit of one company or was malafide etc.—Such grounds were already taken in earlier writ petitions and decided—As such, bar of res-judicata applies—High Court in the instant writ petition examined there aspects again and found that by earlier decisions everything was decided and cannot be agitated again and again. [Paras 79 to 81, 83 and 85 to 88]
       Cases cited :
       2009 (10) ADJ 535 (DB) (Para 8); 2009(10) ADJ 441 (DB) : 2010(1) ALJ 427 (DB) (Para 6); 2008(3) ADJ 427 (DB) (Para 5)-Referred and Followed; (2006) 4 SCC 683 : AIR 2006 SC 1846 (Para 47); (1999) 1 KLD 224 (DB) (Para 82); (1986) 1 SCC 100 (Para 81)-Relied on.
       (B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4(1), 5-A, 6, 6 Proviso Explanation 2, 17(1) and 17(4)—Land Acquisition For Company Rules, 1963—Rule 4—U.P. Industrial Development Areas Act, 1976—Sections 2(d) and 3—Acquisition of land—Yamuna Expressway Project—Decision for—Taken by State Government in 2001—Initial notification had to face three rounds of litigation, which delayed proceedings—In these litigations it was found that acquisition is for public purpose—Selection of land was strictly in accordance with law and was from land notified under Sections 2(d) and 3 of Act, 1976—Public purpose for which acquisition was done and notifications issued therefor—Do not suffer from vaguness—Decision of Government to invoke urgency provisions—Can be reviewed by Court only in exceptional circumstances, without stepping into field of appraisal of evidence—In the instant case, State Government has produced materials from stage of begining of proposal for acquisition, showing that it had applied mind and was satisfied that land in question was urgently required for the project, as possibility of real threat of encroachment for putting entire project into difficulty—Decision of State Government for invoking urgency provisions—As such, was not against law—Moreover, tenure-holders have signed settlements and accepted compensation—Therefore, there is no ground for interference with such acquisition. [Paras 39, 42, 43, 90, 91, 93 to 96 and 106 to 111]
       Result; Petition Dismissed.
       Cases cited :
       2009(10) ADJ 679 (DB) (Para 16); JT (2009) 13 SC 99 : (2009) 10 SCC 115 (Para 16); (2009) 10 SCC 689 (Para 70); JT 2009 (8) SC 339 (Para 64); (2009) 2 SCC 377 (Par 16); 2009 (4) AWC 3464 (SC) : AIR 2009 SC 3220 (Para 36); (2009) 2 SCC 377 (Para 16); 2009 (2) SCALE 740; (Para 36); 2009(8) ADJ 360 (DB) (Para 103); (2008) 14 SCC 716 : AIR 2008 SC 2284 : 2008 (1) ADJ 307 (SC) (Para 101); (2008) 9 SCC 552 (Para 7); 2008 (3) ADJ 289 (DB) (Para 103); (2008) 1 SCC 728 (Para 16); 2007(9) ADJ 447 (Para 103); (2007) 1 SCC 641 (Para 29); AIR 2006 SC 1846 : (2006) 4 SCC 683 (Para 47); (2005) 7 SCC 627 (Para 36); (2004) 8 SCC 453 (Para 36); (2004) 8 SCC 14 : AIR 2004 SC 4307 (Para 31); (2003) 10 SCC 626 (Para 20); (2002) 4 SCC 160 (Para 99); 2000(1) Ker LJ 224 (Para 64); (1998) 6 SCC 1 (Para 36); (1998) 1 SCC 591 (Para 15); AIR 1996 SC 1051 (Para 105); (1996) 10 SCC 632 (Para 52); (1996) 1 SCC 250 (Para 95); (1996) 1 SCC 9 (Para 105); 1995 ACJ 200 (FB) (Para 67); (1994) 4 SCC 675 (Para 23); AIR 1992 SC 168 (Para 29); (1992) 2 SCC 384 (Para 53); 1990 (180) ITR 130 (Para 66); AIR 1985 SC 736 (Para 26); (1983) 4 SCC 535 (Para 89); (1980) 2 SCC 471 (Para 34); (1975) 2 SCC 747 (Para 95); (1975) 1 SCC 824 (Para 89); AIR 1974 SC 2077 (Para 53); AIR 1973 SC 1150 (Para 29); AIR 1973 SC 1033 : (1971) 1 SCC 671 (Para 89); AIR 1965 SC 646 (Para 20); AIR 1965 SC 427 (Para 15); (1964) 3 SCC 425 : AIR 1964 SC 1217 (Para 35); AIR 1963 SC 151 (Para 15); AIR 1962 SC 764 (Para 89); AIR 1961 SC 343 (Para 23)-Discussed.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Shri B.D. Mandhyan, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sanjeev Kumar; Shri Salil Kumar Rai, Shri Uma Nath Pandey; Smt. Sarita Shukla and others for the petitioners. Shri Satish Chaturvedi, Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, Chief Standing Counsel, Shri M.C. Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Shri J.N. Maurya, Standing Counsel have appeared for the State respondents. Shri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh has appeared for ‘Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority’ (in short, ‘YEIDA’). Shri Navin Sinha, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Yashwant Varma has appeared for Jaypee Infratech Ltd.

2. In these writ petitions, the land owners, bhumidhars, lessees and persons having variety of rights over the subject land, have challenged the notifications issued by the Government of U.P. under sub-section (1) of Section 4, applying the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, ‘the Act) for acquisition of the notified land for public purpose namely for the, ‘land for development’, under ‘Yamuna Expressway Project’ through ‘Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority’. The notifications have also recorded the opinion of the Governor that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act are applicable to the land inasmuch as the land is urgently required for development, under ‘Yamuna Expressway Project’ through ‘Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority’ and it is necessary to eliminate the delay likely to be caused by an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act applying the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act. The notifications under sub-section (1) of Section 4, were followed by the notifications declaring under Section 6 the satisfaction of the State Government for acquiring the land, for the same purpose with directions under Section 7 of the Act to the Collector of Agra to make orders for acquisition of the land and for taking possession under sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act, on the expiry of 15 days from the date of publication of the notice, though no award under Section 11 has been made. The State Government has acquired 2500 hectares (25 million square meters) of land for development at five locations along the expressway, namely at Site-I: Noida (Sultanpur) (500 hectares); Site-II: between Greater Noida & Dankaur (500 hectares); Site-III:between Dankaur and proposed TEZ (500 hectares); Site IV: between proposed Airport and Tappal (500 hectares) and Site-V: near Agra (500 acres). The first three sites are situated in revenue district Gautam Budh Nagar; the Site-IV situated in revenue district Aligarh and the Site-V situated in revenue district Agra.

3. The State Government took a decision for construction of Taj Expressway in the year 2001 towards east of Yamuna from New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) to Agra, and invited bids from interested parties for the project. The bid document was issued by the Taj Expressway Authority (TEA), now named as ‘Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority’ vide Notification dated 11.7.2008, setting up terms and conditions on which the contract was to be awarded. Para 1.1 relevant to introduction of the concept and the purpose of the project is quoted as below :

“The absence of a major highway on the eastern side of Yamuna in U.P. is resulting in longer travel time as well as inconvenience to road users. Considering this, U.P. Government is contemplating to provide an access-controlled expressway connecting New Delhi with Mathura and further Agra. The objectives of the proposed expressway are as follows :

(i) Provide a fast moving corridor to minimize the travel time;

(ii) To connect the main townships/ commercial centres on the eastern side of Yamuna;

(iii) To relieve NH-2 which is already congested and runs through the heart of cities like Faridabad, Ballabg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document