GREATER NOLDA IND. DEV. AUTHORITYversusSAVJTRI MOHAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

                         [2016] 3 S.C.R. 187



           GREATER NOlDA IND. DEV. AUTHORITY                              A
                                  v.
      SAVJTRI MOHAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No.5372of2016)
                           JUNE 29, 2016                                  8
     [ANIL R. DAVE AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.)
     Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4(1), 17(4) ands. 6(1) r!w
17(1) - Land acquisition for planned industrial development -
Invocation of urgency clause - Challenge to, by the land owners -
High Court set aside the Notifications - On appeal, held: Even
                                                                          c
though invocation of urgency clause was uncalled for, relief of setting
aside the acquisition was not granted having regard to the
development already undertaken on substantial part of the land -
Also filing of prompt petitions by an individual is not the only
consideration for grant of relief of quashing acquisition when almost     D
entire land has already been developed - Further, after passing of
award, compensation was already disbursed - In terms of Savitri
Devi's case respondents entitled to increased compensation by
64. 7% and allotment of I 0% developed Abadi land subject to
maximum of 2500 sq. meters.
                                                                          E
     Allowing the appeal, the Court
     HELD: 1.1 The compensation had already been disbursed
to the extent of 76 per cent. Thereafter, for the entire' land of
village falling in Group No.18, the relief granted is payment of
additional compensation and allotment of land. The part of the            F
order where relief of quashing of notification has been given is
not of the category of the instant case. [Para 12) [195-F)
     1.2 In *Savitri Devi case it was held that in spite of the finding
that invocation of urgency clause was uncalled for, the relief of
setting aside the acquisition was not granted having regard to            G
the development that had already undertaken on substantial part
of the land. However, to balance the equities higher compensation
and allotment of land was ordered to .meet the ends of justice.
[Para 13][195-H; 196-A]

                                                                          H
                                 187
188            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2016] 3 S.C.R.



A          1.3 Consideration for not granting the relief of quashing the
      acquisition is overall development on substantial part of the
      acquired land as noted by the Full Bench in **Gajraj's case. Filing
      of prompt petitions by al). individual is not the only consideration
      for grant of relief of quashing acquisition when almost entire land
      has already been developed. The Full Bench quashed acquisition
B
      only where substantial part of the land had not been developed.
      The category of the judgment where acquisition has not been
      quashed covers the entire village where land of the respondents
      is located. Thus, the respondents are entitled to be treated at
      par with other similarly placed persons. They are entitled to the
c     following relief as per the *Savitri Devi case, increase in the
      compensation by 64.7%; allotment of developed abadi land to
      the extent of 10% of the land acquired of each of the landowners.
      [Paras 15, 16) [196-C-F)
            **Gajraj and others vs. State of U.P. and others. (2011)
D           11 ADJ (1) - approved.
            *Savitri Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 7 SCC
            21: 2015 (7) SCR 512 - relied on.
            Anand Singh vs. State of U.P. (2010) 11 SCC 242:2010
            (9) SCR 133; Dev Sharan vs. State of U. P. (2011) 4
E           SCC 769: 2011 (3) SCR 728; Radhey Shyam (dead)
            through Lrs. vs. State of U.P. (2011) 5 SCC 553: 2011
            (8) SCR 359; Devendra Kumar Tyagi & Ors. vs. State
            of U.P. (2011) 9 sec 164:2011 (15) SCR 641;
            Devendra Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2011)
 F          9 SCC 551: 2011 (9) SCR 772; Greater Naida Industrial
            Development Authority vs. Devendra Kumar & Ors.
            (2011) 12 SCC 375; Darshan Lal Nagpal vs.
            Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2012) 2 SCC 327:
            2012 (2) SCR 595 - referred to.

 G                          · Case Law Reference
           2Q~O (9) SCR 133           referred to        Para4
           2011 (3) . SCR 728.        referred to        Para4
           200 (8) SCR 359            referred to        Para4

 H         2011 (15) SCR .641          referred to       Para4
    GREATER NOIDA IND. DEV. AUTHORITY v. SAVITRI                               189
             MOHAN (DEAD) THR. LRS.

    2011 (9) SCR 772               referred to          Para4                  A
    (2011) 12 sec 375              referred to          Para4
    2012 (2) SCR 595               referred .to         Para4
    (2011) 11 ADJ (1)              approved             Paras 12,15
     2015 (7) SCR 512              relied on            Paras 13, 16.           B

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5372 of
2016.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 30.05.2012 in CMWP No.
13 I 09 of 2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
                                                                                c
     L.N. Rao, Sr. Adv., Ravindra Kumar, Adv. for the Appellant.
    Ajay Kumar Misra, Sr. Adv., D. V. Singh, Anuradha Dubey Mishra,
Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, Kuma Anurag Singh, (For M/s. Anuradha &
Associates) Advs. for the Respondents.
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                 D

      ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Leave granted, This appeal
has been preferred against judgment and order dated 30'h May, 2012 of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ
Petition No.13109 of 2009 whereby the High Court allowed the writ
                                                                                E
petition and set aside the notification dated 12th March, 2008 under Section
4( 1) and Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) and
the notification dated 3rd February, 2009 under Section 6 read with Section
 17(1) of the 1894 Act.
      2. The notified purpose for acquisition ofland is 'planned industrial
                                                                                F
development' of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority
(GNIDA). Land of the respondents is in Village Chhapruala and is part
of larger area of land acquired falling in many adjoining villages. The
Award was declared on 3 1" March, 2011.
     3. The original petitioners did not receive the compensation as they
                                                                                G
had already filed a petition in the High Court on 3rd March, 2009 mainly
on the ground that the urgency clause could not have been invoked so as
to deprive the land owners of their right to file objections. On coming to
know of the proposed acquisition, the respondents made representation
dated 11 •h April, 2008 stating that they were running an" agro based
                                                                                H
190             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] 3 S.C.R.


A     industry and floriculture for producing hybrid seeds of flowers. Case of
      the writ petitioners was that possession was wrongly shown to have
      been taken on 91h March, 2009 as interim order was already passed on
      5'h March, 2009.
            4. The writ petitioners relied upon decisions of this Court inter alia
B     in Anand Singlt versus State of U.P.1, Dev Sllaran versus State of
      U.P. 1, Radlley S/1yam (dead) tltrougli Lrs. versus St(!te of U.P..1,
      Devendra Kumar Tyagi & Ors. versus State of U.P. 4, Devendra
      Singli & Ors. versus State of U.P. & Ors.-', Greater Noida Industrial
      Development Autllority versus Devendra Kumar & Ors. 6, and
      Dars/10n Lal Nagpal versus Government of NCT of De/Iii & Ors. 7
c     in support of their case.
            5. The stand of the State is that having regard to immediate need
      for development and Iikel ihood of illegal and unauthorized constructions,
      invocation of urgency clause was justified. It was submitted that the
      power under Article 226 should not be exercised so as to obstruct
D     development of infrastructure which will serve larger public interest.
      Instead, the relief could be moulded so to compensate the writ petitioners.
      It was submitted that the land was part and parcel of larger area. In
      view of substantial development having taken place, the plea of the writ
      petitioners should not be considered in isolation. Reliance was placed on
E     a Full Bench Judgment of the High Court in Gajraj and others versus
      State of U.P. and others. 8 whereby 461 petitions were decided.
      Acquisition was upheld but additional compensation of 64.70 per cent
      was awarded with further direction to allot developed plots to the extent
      of I 0 per cent of the acquired land subject to maximum of2500 square
      meters as against allotment of abadi plots to the extent of 6 per cent.
F     This order was passed having regard to the extent of development, which
      had already taken place after the acquisition, The said judgment also
      covered land of village Chhapraula as a part of group No.18 (out of 65
      groups). While discussing the writ petitions of village Chhapraula, the
      1
        (20JO) 11 sec 242
G     '(2011) 4 sec 769
      '(2011) 5 sec 553
      4(2011) 9 sec 164
      '<2011) 9 sec 551
      6(2011) 12 sec 375
      1
        (2012) 2 sec 327
H     8 (2011) 11 ADJ (I)
    GREATER NOIDA IND. DEV. AUTHORITY v. SAVITRI                               191
   MOHAN (DEAD) THR. LRS. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

Full Bench judgment noted that compensation had already been disbursed         A .
to the extent of 76 per cent.
      6. The Division Bench of the High Court, following the decisions -
of this Court referred to above, held that power of dispensing inquiry
under Section SA could be exercised in exceptional situations and not
without real urgency. In the present case, invocation of urgency was B
not justified. The judgment of the Full Bench in Gajraj (supra) was
distinguished on the ground that therein the writ petition was filed with
delay of two years and in some cases where there was no delay, the
acquisition had been quashed.
      7. ONIDA has challenged the view of the High Court mainly on              c
the ground that the Division Bench has taken a view contrary to the
view taken by the Full Bench which by now stands affirmed by this
Court in Savitri Devi versus State of Uttar Prades'1 9• Subject to the
moulding ofreliefas above, the Full Bench had upheld the acquisition
relating to village Chhapraula covered by the very same notification as
in the present case. It was submitted that large scale development work         D
had already been executed on the acquired land. 82 per cent land owners
had accepted compensation which covered 76 per cent of the land in
terms of the area, the ONIDA had constructed roads, laid down sewer
lines, electric transmission lines, developed green belts, provided drinking
water facility and other infrastructure. In these circumstances, the            E
impugned judgment could not be sustained. Learned counsel for the
respondents supports the impugned judgment.
       8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
 perused the record including the lay out plan showing Sectors 13 and 16
-(Ind.) in Greater Noida (West).                                                F
     9. Only question for consideration is whether the matter is covered.
by the judgment of this Court in Savitri Devi (supra), as claimed by the
appellant in which case the respondents will be entitled to relief of higher
compensation and allotment of land instead of quashing of acquisition
proceedings.                                                                    G
    10. Our attention has been drawn to the relevant part of the full
Bench judgment of the High Court in Gajraj (supra) as follows :
      - "50. The writ petitions of Group-18 relate to village

• (2015) 1sec21                                                                 H
192      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          (2016] 3 S.C.R.


A      Chhapraula. In Writ Petition No.46775 of 2011 (Jai Pal And
       Others v. State of U.P. and others) pleadings are complete
       which is treated as leading writ petition of village Chhapraula.
        This writ petition has been filed by 48 tenure holders chal-
       lenging the notification dated 12th March, 2008 issued un-
       der Section f_ read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act
B
        proposing acquisition of 68.129 hectares land of village
       Chhapraula. The declaration under Seuion Q_ of the Act was
        issued on 3rd February, 2009. The State Government by Gov-
        ernment order dated 8th September, 1997 and 9th February,
        2005 has issued specific directions to the acquiring bodies
c       not to include the land covered by abadi in the acquisition
        and in case it is utmost necessary for acquisition displaced
        person be given comparabfe land. The petitioners claim to be
        in actual possession of the land. It has been pleaded that it
        has become fashionable to discriminatingly apply the provi-
        sions of Section 17(4J of the Act in every case of acquisition.
D
        The land has been allotted to private builders whereas the
        purpose of acquisition was planned industrial development.
        In the counter affidavit filed by the State it has been stated
        that possession of the land was taken on 9th March, 2009
        and award was declared on 21st March, 2011. Copies of the
E       possession memo and award have been brought on the record.
        According to paragraph 24 of the counter affidavit, the land
      · use of part of Sector Tech Zone was changed from institu-
        tional to reside11tial and similarly land use of part of Sector
        Echotech-13 was changed from industrial to institutional
        which changes were approved by the Board on 11th Febru-
F
        ary, 2010 and also the saine were approved by the Govern-
        ment on 30th March, 2010. The compensation has been dis-
        bursed to the extent of 76%. ·An application for intervention
        has been filed on behalf of Mis Marion Biotech Private Lim-
        ited which claim allotment of land by allotment letter dated
G       31st March, 2011 of an area of 10,000 square meters as an
         industrial plot in Echotech-16. The applicant claims that 200-
        300 persons shall be employed in the project. "
       11. Operative part of the order is as follows:
       "21 . ..... In view of the foregoing conclusions we order as
H      follows:
 GREATER NOIDA IND. DEV. AUTHORITY v. SAVITRJ                       193
MOHAN (DEAD) THR. LRS. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

  1. The Writ Petition No. 45933of2011, Writ Petition No. 47545     A
  of 2011 relating to village Nithari, Writ Petition No. 47522 of
  2011 relating to village Sadarpur, Writ Petition No. 45196 of
  2011, Writ Petition No. 45208 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45211
  of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45213 of 2011, Writ Petition No.
  45216 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45223 of 2011, Writ Petition
                                                                    B
  No. 45224 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45226 of 2011, Writ
  Petition No. 45229 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45230 of 2011,
  Writ Petition No. 45235 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45238 of
  2011, Writ Petition No. 45283 of 2011 relating to village
  Khoda, Writ Petition No. 46764 of 2011, Writ Petition No.
  46785 of 2011 relating to village Sultanpur, Writ Petition No.     c
  46407 of 2011 relating to village Chaura Sadatpur and Writ
  Petition No. 46470 of 2011 relating to village Alaverdipur
  which have been filed with inordinate delay and !aches are
  dismissed.
  2(i). The writ petitions of Groip 40 (Village Dev/a) being Writ    D
  Petition No. 31126 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 59131of2009,
  Writ Petition No. 22800 of 2010, Writ Petition No. 37118 of
  2011, Writ Petition No. 42812of2009, Writ Petition No. 50417
  of 2009, Writ Petition No. 54424 o/2009, Writ Petition No.
  54652 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 55650 of 2009, Writ Peti-
                                                                     E
  tion No. 57032 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 58318 of 2009,
  Writ Petition No. 22798 of 2010, Writ Petition No. 37784 of
  2010, Writ Petition No. 37787 of2010, Writ Petition No. 31124
  of 2011, Writ Petition No. )1125 of 2011, Writ Petition No.
  32234 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 32987 of 2011, Writ Petition
  No. 35648 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 38059 of 2011, Writ           F
  Petition No. 41339 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 47427 of 2011
  and Writ Petition No. 47412 of 2011 are allowed and the
  notifications dated 26.5.2009 and 22.6.2009 and all conse-
  quential actions are quashed. The Petitioners shall be en-
  titled for restoration of their land subject to deposit of com-
  pensation which they had received under agreement/award            G
  before the authority/ColleCtor.
 · 2(ii). Writ petition No. 17725 of 2010 Omveer and Ors. v.
   State of U.P. (Group 38) relating to village Yusufpur Chak ·
   Sahberi is allowed. Notifications dated 10.4.2006 and
                                                                     H
194      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2016] 3 S.C.R.


A     6. 9.2007 and all consequential actions are quashed. The
      Petitioners shall be entitled for restoration of their land sub-
      ;ect to return of compensation received by them under agree-
      ment/award to the Collector.
      2(iii). Writ Petition No. 47486 of 2011 (Rajee and Ors. v.
B     State of U.P. and Ors.) of Group-42 relating to village
      Asdul/apur is allowed. The notification dated 27.1.2010 and
      4.2.2010 as well as all subsequent proceedings are quashed.
      The Petitioners shall be entitled to restoration of their land
      3. All other writ petitions except as mentioned above at (})
c     and (2) are disposed of with following directions:
      (a) The Petitioners shall be entitled for payment of additional
      compensation to the extent of same ratio (i.e. 64. 70%) as paid
      for village Patwari in addition to the compensation received
      by them under 1997 Rules/award which payment shall be en-
D     sured by the Authority at an early date. lt may be open for
      Authority to take a decision as to what proportion of addi-
      tional compensation be asked to be paid by allottees. Those
      Petitioners who have not yet been paid compensation may be
      paid the compensation as well as additional compensation as
      ordered above. The payment of additional compensation shall
E     be without any prejudice to rights of land owners Under Sec-
      tion 18 of the Act, if any.
      (b) All the Petitioners shall be entitled for allotment of devel-
      oped Abadi plot to the extent of 10% of their acquired land
      subject to maximum of 2500 square meters. We however, leave
F     it open to the Authority in cases where allotment of abadi plot
      to the extent of 6% or 8% have already been made either to
      make allotment of the balance of the area or may compensate
      the land owners by payment of the amount equivalent to bal-
      ance area as per average rate of allotment made of devel-
G     oped residential plots.           ·
      4. The Authority may also take a decision as to whether benefit
      of additional compensation and allotment of abadi plot to
      the extent of 10% be also given to;
      (a) those land holders whose earlier writ petition challenging
H
   GREATER NOIDA IND. DEV. AUTHORITY v. SAVITRI                             195
  MOHAN (DEAD) THR. LRS. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

      the notifications have been dismissed upholding the                   A
      notifications; and
      (b) those land holders who have not come tu th.! Court, relating
      to the notifications which are subject matter of challenge in
      writ petitions mentioned at direction No. 3.
      5. The Greater NO/DA and its allotees are directed not to              B
      cany on development and not to implement the Master Plan
      2021 till the observations and directions of the National
      Capital Regional Planning Board are incorporated in Master
      Plan 2021 to the satisfaction of the National Capital Regional
      Planning Board. We make it clear that this direction shall not         c
      be applicable in those cases where the development is being
      carried on in accordance with the e.1rlier Alaster Plan of
      Greater NOIDA duly approved by the National Capital
      R~f{ional Planninf{ Board.                     '
      6. We direct the Chief Secretary of the State to appoint officers     D
      not below the level of Principal Secretary (except the-offiqers
      of Industrial Developlilent Department who have dealt with
      the relevant files) to conduct a thorough inquiry regarding
      the acts of Greater Naida (a) in proceeding to implement
      Master Plan 2021 without approval ofN.C.R.P. Board, (b)
      decisions taken to change the land use; (c) allotment made to          E
      the builders and (d) indiscriminate proposals for acquisition
      of land, and thereafter the State Governnient shall taken
      appropriate action in the matter. "
     12. Perusal of the above shows that compensation had already
been disbursed to the extent of 76 per cent. Thereafter, for the entire      F
land of village Chhapraula falling in Group No.18, the relief granted is
payment of additional compensation and allotment of land. As already
noted, the part of the order where relief of quashing of notification has
been given is not of the category of the present case. In these
circumstances, we find merit in the contention raised on the behalf of       G
the appellant that the division bench was in error in distinguishing the
present case from the judgment in Gajraj (supra).
      13. As observed by this Court in Savitri Devi (supra), in spite of
the finding that invocation ofurgency clause was uncalled for, the relief
of setting aside the acquisition was not granted having regard to the
                                                                             H
196             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] 3 S.C.R.


A     development that had already undertaken on substantial part of the land.
      However, to balance the equities higher compensation and allotment of
      land was ordered to meet the ends of justice. 10
           14. Leamed counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that
      present case calls for the relief of quashing the acquisition as in the
B     present case, the writ petitioners have approached the Court without
      any delay.
            15. This argument cannot be accepted in view of the fact that Full
      Bench judgment as upheld by this Court is not based on the extent of
      delay in individual cases. Consideration for not granting the relief of
c     quashing the acquisition is overall development on substantial part of the
      acquired land as noted in para 50 of the Full Bench judgment already
      quoted hereinabove. Filing of prompt petitions by an individual is not the
      only consideration for grant ofrelief of quashing acquisition when almost
      entire land has already been developed. The Full Bench has quashed
      acquisition only where substantial part of the land had not been developed.
D     The category of the judgment where acquisition has not been quashed
      covers the entire village where land of the respondents is located.
           16. The respondents are, thus, entitled to be treated at par with
      other similarly placed persons. They are entitled to the following relief
      as per para 48. J to 48.3 of the judgment of this Court in Savitri Devi
E     (supra):
             "48.1. Increasing the compensation by 64. 7%;
             48.2. Directing allotment of developed abadi land to the extent
             of 10% of the land acquired of each of the landowners;
F            48.3. Cmnpensation which is increased @64. 7% is payable
             immediately without taking away the rights of the landowners
             to claim higher compensation under the machinery provided
             in the Land Acquisition Act wherein the matter would be
             examined on the basis of the evidence produced to arrive at
             ;ust and fair market value. "
G
           17. As earlier noted in para 11 earlier, allotment of I 0% of the
      acquired land to the concerned land owners is subject to maximum of



H     " para 17 of the judgment
       1
    GREATER NOIDA IND. DEV. AUTHORITY v. SAVITRI                       197
   MOHAN (DEAD) THR. LRS. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

250.0 sq, meters.                                                      A
      18. In view of the above, we allow this appeal, set aside the
impugned judgment and direct disposal of the writ petitions of the
respondents in terms of the judgment of this Court in Savitri Devi
(supra). There will be no order as to costs.
                                                                       B
Nidhi Jain                                           Appeal allowed.