1. Land acquisition for planned development — Classification of landholders into ancestral and non-ancestral categories for differential compensation — Challenge to classification under Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 1 , 2 , 12 , 13 , 16 , 18 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 141
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KRISHNA MURARI, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
Ramesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8819 of 2022 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11447 of 2018)
With
Anoop Singh (Dead) Thr. Lr(s). & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8820 of 2022 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 21323 of 2018)
With
Jageshwar Singh @ Jage (Dead) Thr. Lr(s). & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8821 of 2022 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 2256 of 2019)
Decided On : 20-02-2023
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Prashant Kanha, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Shrivastava, AOR Mr. Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.G. Hasnain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Syed Mohd. Fazal, Adv. Ms. Azra Rehman, Adv. Mr. M.Z. Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Simranjeet Singh Rekhi, Adv. Mr. Harsh Jain, Adv. Mr. Shubham Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ravindra Kumar Raizada, Sr. A.A.G. Ms. Alka Sinha, Adv. Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, AOR Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Binay Kumar Das, AOR Ms. Neha Das, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, AOR Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Rani Mishra, Adv. Mr. Omanakuttan K. K., AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Prashant Kanha, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Shrivastava, AOR Mr. Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.G. Hasnain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Syed Mohd. Fazal, Adv. Ms. Azra Rehman, Adv. Mr. M.Z. Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Simranjeet Singh Rekhi, Adv. Mr. Harsh Jain, Adv. Mr. Shubham Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ravindra Kumar Raizada, Sr. A.A.G. Ms. Alka Sinha, Adv. Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, AOR Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Binay Kumar Das, AOR Ms. Neha Das, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, AOR Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Rani Mishra, Adv. Mr. Omanakuttan K. K., AOR
The Court held that classifying landholders as 'Pushtaini' and 'Gair-pushtaini' for differential compensation is violative of Article 14. Such arbitrary classification lacks a rational nexus to the object of acquisition, as the owner's nature is irrelevant when land is acquired for public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 23 - U.P. Land Acquisition Rules, 1997 - Discrimination in compensation - Classification between ‘Pushtaini’ and ‘Gair-Pushtaini’ landowners held unreasonable and violative of Article 14. The classification denied equal compensation despite similar circumstances leading to unequal treatment. The Court found no empirical basis for such a division and underscored the necessity for fair compensation irrespective of land ownership status. Issues of application under Section 23 regarding proper evaluation of compensation were prevalent. (Paras 21, 31, 62, 63)
Facts of the case:
The appellants, landowners whose land was acquired under the act, claimed that the compensation distinction between Pushtaini and Gair-Pushtaini landowners constituted unjust discrimination under constitutional provisions. The appeals stemmed from the Full Bench's ruling, which upheld the classification.
Findings of Court:
The classification was found to lack reasonable justification, leading to systematic discrimination against Gair-Pushtaini landowners. The Court emphasized the need for equitable treatment regardless of ownership.
Issues: The core issues were whether the appellants waived their rights for revision of compensation by earlier agreements, the legality of discriminatory compensation practices, and conformity with previous Supreme Court judgments regarding equal treatment under the Land Acquisition Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the arbitrary differentiation in compensation based on residence was unconstitutional, affirming that all landowners should receive equivalent compensation irrespective of arbitrary categories.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- property law
Table of Contents
2. Whether signing compensation agreements waives rights to revised compensation — Whether differential compensation based on ancestral status is discriminatory and violative of Article 14. (Para 20 , 21 )
3. Classification lacked empirical data and rational nexus — Failed Wednesbury and proportionality tests — Section 23 of the 1894 Act already provides for rehabilitation compensation. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 )
4. Differential compensation based on the nature of the owner is impermissible when land is acquired for public purpose, as the object is achieved regardless of ownership type. (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 65 )
5. Appeals allowed — High Court judgment set aside — All landholders entitled to equal compensation and ex-gratia payments. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 67 , 68 )
6. Does signing a compensation agreement under land acquisition rules waive the right to challenge subsequent discriminatory payments?
No. A challenge based on the violation of fundamental rights under Article 14 is not barred by an agreement, especially when the cause of action accrued after the agreement was signed. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 )
7. Is a classification between ancestral and non-ancestral landholders for differential compensation valid under Article 14?
No. Such classification is invalid if it lacks empirical data to prove a rational nexus with the object of rehabilitation and fails the proportionality and Wednesbury tests. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 44 , 45 , 52 )
8. What are the requirements for an administrative measure to satisfy the proportionality test under Article 14?
The action must be sanctioned by law, pursue a legitimate aim, be necessary and proportionate to the need, and provide procedural guarantees against abuse. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 )
9. Can the state distinguish between types of owners when determining compensation for land acquired for public purpose?
No. The nature of the owner is inconsequential to the public purpose of acquisition; therefore, different principles of compensation cannot be formulated based on the owner's identity or status. (Para 58 , 59 , 60 )
JUDGMENT :
Krishna Murari, J.
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 30.03.2018 passed by a Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the High Court’), The reference to Full Bench came to be made under the following circumstances: -
1.1 Writ Petition No. 61449 of 2009, Smt. Madhuri Srivasatava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2016) 6 SCC OnLine AII 2832 along with other connected petitions were filed by certain landholders whose land was acquired by NOIDA challenging the decision of the Board of Directors of NOIDA dated 07.01.1998 as also the approval granted to the said resolution by the State Government dated 02.03.2009 whereby a distinction was carved out in the matter of payment of compensation by creating a classification between “Pushtaini” and “Gair-pushtaini” landholders. The ‘Pushtaini’ landholders whose lands were acquired, were given additional compensation @ Rs.3 per sq. yard along with 15% as rehabilitation bonus on the compensation already awarded, as also the 10% area of the acquired land, whereas those who were declared as ‘Gair-pushtaini’ were denied this additional benefit. A Division Bench of the High Court vide Judgment and order dated 10.05.2016 dismissed the Writ Petition holding the classification to be reasonable having direct nexus with the object sought to be achieved i.e., rehabilitation of the original residents who are likely to become landless due to the acquisition of their land.
2. Another bunch of Writ Petitions were filed by the present appellants challenging a similar classification made by the Greater Noida Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘G Noida’) in payment of compensation on the basis of the landholder being ‘Pushtaini’ and ‘Gair-Pushtaini’.
3. While considering the Writ Petitions, another Division Bench disagreed with the views expressed in the case of Smt. Madhuri (Supra) and vide order dated 07.07.2017 referred the matter to be decided by a larger Bench.
4. The Full Bench constituted in pursuance to the reference framed the following questions for adjudication :-
(i) Whether the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Madhuri Srivastava reported in (2016) 6 ADJ 1 is in conflict to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Nagpur Improvement Trust and Another Vs. Vithal Rao and Ors. , (1973) 1 SCC 500 and also with the provisions of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894?
(ii) Whether the classification made under the U.P. Land Acquisition (determination of compensation and declaration of award by agreement) Rules, 1997, the distinction made among ‘Pushtaini’ and ‘Gair-Pushtaini’ farmers, is a classification having reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved?
5. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.03.2018, the Full Bench answered question No. 1 in negative and question No. 2 in affirmative and upheld the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Smt. Madhuri Srivastava (Supra). As a consequence of the answers to the questions framed, the Full Bench held that nothing remains to be decided in the Writ Petitions filed by the present appellants and the same were dismissed.
6. Before we enter into the factual matrix of the case, we find it expedient to first trace out the etymology of the words “Pushtaini” and “Gair Pushtaini” used in the impugned classification, for language, once adopted inside the realm of law, materializes itself a much more powerful being, one which must be understood in the right historical context.
7. The word ‘Pushtaini’ is a Persian word and finds its origin from the word ‘Pusht’, which means ‘back’. The said word has been historically used in the context of ancestry. Any possession, tale or legend, that has roots to a particular ancestry, to denote it’s significance to the said ancestry, the word ‘Pushtaini’ is used. As is obvious, since the word ‘Gair’ which finds its origin in Urdu language means ‘other than’, thus, ‘Gair-Pushtaini’ would mean o
