2010 Supreme(SC) 827

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.S. Sirpurkar and Cyriac Joseph
Nand Kishore Gupta & Ors.... Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors....Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7469 OF 2010
Arising out of SLP (C) No. 33958 of 2009
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7468 OF 2010
Arising out of SLP (C) No. 33194 of 2009
Decided on : September 8, 2010

Headnote:(a) Land Acquisition – Public vs. private interest – Large projects – Private interest is always affected to some extent – Holistic view has to be taken to look for an all round development without forgetting about heritage, culture and traditions – Individual objections can be ignored. (Para 22)

       (b) Land Acquisition – Of large tract for Yamuna Expressway – Only insignificant number of farmers approaching Court to challenge the project – Large majority already accepting compensation – Project progressed substantially – Reached a point of no return. (Para 27)

       (c) Land Acquisition – Private and public purpose – Allegation of colourable exercise of power to benefit the constructing Company – Company not in existence when project was conceived – Project cannot be said to have been envisaged keeping the Company in view – Judicial Enquiry Commission report duly accepted by both Houses of State Legislature – Division Bench of High Court dismissing PIL by well reasoned order – Remaining unchallenged – Bias in favour of the Company cannot be inferred. (Para 28)

       (d) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 40 – Acquisition for Expressway – Company to construct the same on BOT basis – Land not to vest in the Company – To revert back to Government after project period – Company to pay cost of compensation as well as lease rentals to the Government – Section 40 not applicable. (Para 29)

       (e) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 40 and 41 – Public purpose and public necessity – Public purpose is of much wider connotation than public necessity – Yamuna expressway and five proposed industrial towns, part of one integrated project – State to benefit immensely from the project – Merely because benefit of a project goes to a particular section of the society, the acquisition does not cease to be for the public purpose – Secondly, Company not paying compensation to farmers – It is depositing the same with YEIDA being the nodal agency, which in turn paying the compensation – Thirdly, land not vesting in Company – Reverting back to State after project period – Even during project period Company paying lease rental to YIEDA – Acquisition not for Company – It is for public purpose – Instrumentalities of State can invoke and exercise powers of eminent domain. (Para 34, 35)

       (2003) 10 SCC 626; (2006) 4 SCC 683; (2008) 9 SCC 552; (1996) 10 SCC 632; (2007) 8 SCC 418; AIR 1960 SC 1203; AIR 1961 SC 343 – Relied upon

       AIR 1963 SC 151; (2008) 1 SCC 728; (1971) 1 SCC 671; AIR 1965 SC 427 – Referred

       (f) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 17(1) and 17(4) – Urgency of acquisition and dispensing with enquiry u/s 5A – Enormousness of the Project requiring acquisition of 1,604 hectares of land involving 12,283 farmers, would have taken years if enquiry under Section 5A was permitted – Secondly if acquisition and the project was not completed expeditiously, large scale encroachments might have occurred greatly hampering the project – State Government considering materials on record and applying its mind to arrive at satisfaction about invoking urgency provision u/s 17(1) and (4) and dispensing with enquiry u/s 5A – No infirmity (Para 39, 40)

       (2008) 14 SCC 716; (2002) 4 SCC 160; (1980) 2 SCC 471; (2009) 10 SCC 115; (2009) 2 SCC 377; (2009) 14 SCC 281; (2009) 10 SCC 689 – Relied upon

       2007(9) ADJ 447 (DB); 2008 (3) ADJ 289 (DB); 2009 (8) ADJ 360 (DB) – Cited with approval

       Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48978 of 2008; Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31314 of 2009 – Confirmed

       (1998) 6 SCC 1 – Distinguished

       Facts of the case:

       A notification dated 20.2.2009 was issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under Section 4(1) read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act. Thereunder, the lands described in the schedules appended thereto in District Agra, Pargana Etmadpur, Tehsil Etmadpur, Village Kuberpur were covered for a public purpose, namely, the construction of the interchange under the Yamuna Expressway Project in District Agra through Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority

       State came out with a notification dated 15.6.2009 under Section 6(1) read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act. It is mainly the complaint of the appellants that they had purchased the land long time back and their names were duly mutated in the Revenue records and they had thereafter raised constructions over the land in question, and in those constructions, they were running their business like shops, cold-storage etc. The appellants also complained that the area which was proposed to be cleared for the interchange, if acquired, the appellants would suffer immensely. The appellants very seriously challenged the application of urgency under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act to these acquisitions, thereby depriving the appellants of an opportunity to be heard under Section 5A of the Act.

       The other major challenge opposing the acquisition related to the concept of `public purpose’.

       In the two impugned judgments, the Allahabad High Court has repelled all the challenges.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

       Result:

       Appeals dismissed.

       The two impugned judgments of the High Court i.e. Balbir Singh Vs. State of U.P., Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48978 of 2008 decided on 5.10.2009; and Nand Kishore Gupta Vs. State of U.P., Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31314 of 2009 decided on 30.11.2009 are confirmed.