Supreme Court of India
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ETC.versusSHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY & ORS. ETC.
- Citation
- 2022 INSC 594
- Decided
- 19 May 2022
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- L NAGESWARA RAO
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the State Government's policy decision, as reflected in the 29 August 2014 Government Order and the YEIDA board resolution, was taken in the larger public interest after due deliberation, was reasonable and not arbitrary, and therefore the High Court's finding of unfairness was erroneous.
Summary
The State of Uttar Pradesh acquired land for the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) and allotted plots to allottees. Farmers whose lands were acquired for YEIDA demanded the same 64.7% additional compensation awarded to farmers in the NOIDA and Greater NOIDA cases (Gajraj and Savitri Devi). The Government formed a high‑level Chaudhary Committee, which recommended that the additional compensation be paid to YEIDA farmers on the condition that they hand over possession and withdraw all litigation, and that the cost be recovered from the allottees. The State issued a Government Order and YEIDA board resolved to implement it, issuing demand notices to the allottees. The allottees challenged the policy as arbitrary, unfair and violative of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Allahabad High Court upheld the challenge and quashed the policy. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the policy decision was taken after extensive deliberation, was in the larger public interest, and was neither arbitrary nor illegal; consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the appeals were allowed.
Issues considered
- The validity of the State Government's policy decision to recover additional compensation from YEIDA allottees under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Whether the policy decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or violative of statutory provisions such as the Land Acquisition Act and the Transfer of Property Act.
- The scope of judicial review of policy decisions and whether the courts can interfere with a policy taken in public interest.
- The applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel to bind the Government in this context.
- The extent to which the additional compensation awarded in Gajraj and Savitri Devi cases applies to land acquired for YEIDA.
Legislation cited
Subjects
land acquisitionadditional compensationpolicy decisionjudicial reviewpublic interestpromissory estoppelYamuna ExpresswayYEIDAGajraj caseSavitri Devi caseTransfer of Property ActLand Acquisition Act
Judgment
1034 [2022]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 5 S.C.R. 1034 [2022] 5 S.C.R.
A YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY ETC.
v.
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY
& ORS. ETC.
B
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4178-4197 of 2022)
MAY 19, 2022
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Land acquisition – Payment of
C
additional compensation of 64.7% to farmers –State of Uttar Pradesh
acquired vast area of land for the benefit of Yamuna Expressway
Industrial Development Authority-YEIDA – YEIDA allotted plots to
various allottees including respondent no.1 – On the same line, the
State acquired land for the benefit of NOIDA – As regards the NOIDA
D acquisition the High Court in Gajraj case directed payment of
additional compensation of 64.7% to the farmers and the same was
confirmed in Savitri Devi’s case – As a result, the YEIDA farmers
raised the demand for additional compensation – On account of
the agitation by farmers, the development work stopped on the
acquired land – In view thereof, constitution of High-Level committee
E
which recommended for the payment of 64.7% additional amount
as “no litigation incentive” to the farmers and for its reimbursement
from the allottees in the appropriate proportion – State Government
accepted the same and issued a Government Order – Pursuant
thereto, additional demand notices issued to various allottees
F including respondent no.1 – Challenge to – High Court held the
policy of the State Government asking for additional sum from
allottees as unfair and unreasonable – On appeal, held: Policy
decision of the State Government and the Resolution of the Board
of YEIDA were in the larger public interest, taking care of the
concerns of the allottees as well as the farmers – Had the said
G
decision not been taken, there were chances of the acquisition being
declared unlawful – Development of the entire project was stalled
on account of farmers’ agitation – Before taking the policy decision,
the State Government, through the Committee constituted, had done
a wide range of deliberations with all the stakeholders including
H the allottees, farmers and YEIDA – Policy decision was taken after
1034
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. 1035
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY
taking into consideration all relevant factors and was guided by A
reasons – In case of a conflict between public interest and personal
interest, public interest would outweigh the personal interest – Thus,
the High Court not justified in holding that the policy decision of
the State as unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary – Order passed by
the High Court quashed and set aside – Policy decision.
B
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It could be seen that the recommendations of
the Chaudhary Committee were principally intended to resolve
the issue between the farmers and the allottees, and to find out a
workable solution to the problem. The Chaudhary Committee C
recommended similar treatment to be given to the farmers whose
lands were acquired for YEIDA, as was given to the farmers whose
lands were acquired for the benefit of NOIDA and Greater NOIDA.
The Chaudhary Committee found that the same benefits as were
given to the farmers whose lands were acquired for the benefit of
NOIDA and Greater NOIDA in view of the judgment of the High D
Court in the case of Gajraj’s case, as affirmed by this Court in the
case of Savitri Devi’s case should also be given to the farmers
whose lands were acquired for the benefit of YEIDA. However,
this was made conditional. Additional benefit was granted to the
landowners on the condition that they would handover the E
physical possession of land to YEIDA and withdraw the writ
petitions/cases filed by them pending before the High Court. The
State Government vide the said G.O. gave effect to the
recommendations of the Chaudhary Committee. YEIDA too, in
its Board meeting dated 15th September, 2014, resolved to
implement the decision of the State Government. Accordingly, F
demand notices came to be issued to the allottees. It could thus
be seen that the policy decision of the State Government is
preceded by various factors. Firstly, the farmers’ agitation, after
they were denied the benefits which were granted to the farmers
whose lands were acquired for the benefit of NOIDA and Greater G
NOIDA; the report of the Commissioner, the appointment of the
Chaudhary Committee, the deliberations of the Chaudhary
Committee with various stakeholders, and thereafter the
recommendations of the Chaudhary Committee. [Paras 50-
52][1060-E-H; 1061-A-c]
H
1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 5 S.C.R.
A 1.2 It has been held in Kasinka’s case that the doctrine of
promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in the abstract and the
courts are bound to consider all aspects including the results
sought to be achieved and the public good at large; that while
considering the applicability of the doctrine, the courts have to
do equity and the fundamental principles of equity must forever
B
be present to the mind of the court, while considering the
applicability of the doctrine; that the doctrine being an equitable
doctrine, it must yield when the equity so requires, if it can be
shown by the Government or Public Authority that having regard
to the facts and circumstances as they have transpired, it would
C be inequitable to hold the Government or the Public Authority to
the promise, assurance or representation made by it. If the
principle as laid down in the case of Kasinka Trading applied to
the facts of the instant case, it would be clear that the policy
decision of the State Government was not only in the larger public
interest but also in the interest of the respondents. The projects
D
were stalled on account of the farmers’ agitation. The farmers
felt discriminated as they found that the compensation paid to
them was much lesser than the one being paid to the equally
circumstanced farmers in NOIDA and Greater NOIDA. It was
the allottees of the land who had approached the State Government
E for redressal of the problem. In these circumstances, the
Government took cognizance of the problem and appointed the
Commissioner to look into the issue. Since the Commissioner
recommended appointment of a High-Level Committee, the
Chaudhary Committee was appointed. The Chaudhary Committee
had threadbare discussions with all the stakeholders. It also took
F
into consideration that on account of stay orders passed by the
High Court in various writ petitions, the development of the
project was stalled. On account of pendency of the writ petitions,
there was always a hanging sword over the entire acquisition of it
being declared unlawful. In this premise, in order to find out a
G workable solution and that too, on the basis of the law laid down
by the High Court in the case of Gajraj’s case as affirmed by this
Court in the case of Savitri Devi’s case and followed by this Court
in the case of Savitri Mohan (Dead), recommendations were made
by the Chaudhary Committee. The Chaudhary Committee
specifically recommended that the additional compensation and
H
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. 1037
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY
other incentives would be paid only if the landowners agree to A
handover physical possession of the land to YEIDA and withdraw
all the litigations. It could be seen that the recommendations,
which were accepted by the State Government and formulated in
the policy, were made taking into consideration the interests of
all the stakeholders. It is not only the interest of a small section
B
of the allottees which should weigh with the Government, but
the Government should also give due weightage to the interest
of the large section of farmers, whose lands were acquired. The
High Court fell in error in observing that no writ petitions were
filed challenging the acquisition for YEIDA. The report of the
Chaudhary Committee itself would clarify that YEIDA had itself C
submitted that insofar as the residential plots are concerned,
there were stay orders operating in majority of the writ petitions
due to which the development of the project work was stalled.
[Paras 54-57][1064-A-H; 1065-A-D]
1.3 The policy decision of the State Government was in the D
larger public interest. It was taken considering entire material
collected by the Chaudhary Committee after due deliberations
with all the stakeholders. The factors which were taken into
consideration by the State Government were relevant, rational
and founded on ground realities. Thus, the finding of the High
Court that the policy decision of the State Government was E
arbitrary, irrational and unfair, is totally incorrect. [Para 58][1065-
E]
1.4 An interference with the policy decision would not be
warranted unless it is found that the policy decision is palpably
arbitrary, mala fide, irrational or violative of the statutory F
provisions. The High Court was also not right in interfering with
the policy decision of the State Government, which is in the larger
public interest. It could thus be seen that it is more than settled
that a change in policy by the Government can have an overriding
effect over private treaties between the Government and a private G
party, if the same was in the general public interest. The additional
requirement is that such change in policy is required to be guided
by reason. [Paras 60 and 62][1068-H; 1069-A, D-E]
1.5 When a policy is changed by the State, which is in the
general public interest, such policy would prevail over the H
1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 5 S.C.R.
A individual rights/interests. The policy of the State Government
as reflected in the said G.O. was not only in the larger public
interest but also in the interest of the respondents. [Para 65][1069-
G-H; 1070-A]
1.6 The respondents have indulged into the conduct of
B approbate and reprobate. They have changed their stance as per
their convenience. When their projects were stalled on account
of the farmers’ agitation, it is they who approached the State
Authorities for finding out a solution. When the State Government
responded to their representations and came up with a policy
which was equitable and in the interest of both, the farmers and
C the allottees and when the said policy paved the way for
development, when called upon to pay the additional
compensation, the respondents-allottees somersaulted and
challenged the very same policy before the High Court, which
benefitted them. [Para 66][1070-B-D]
D 1.7 Insofar as the individual plot owners are concerned, it
will be worthwhile to mention that the residential plot owners in
Sectors 18 and 20 of Yamuna Expressway city have formed an
association, viz., Yamuna Expressway Residential-Plot-Owners
Welfare Association (hereinafter referred to as “the YERWA”).
E The communication addressed by the president of the YERWA
to the CEO of YEIDA would reveal that 98.5% of the allottees/
owners have voted in favour of paying the additional premium
demanded by the Authority. The only request made by the YERWA
is with regard to making a provision for paying additional premium
in installments. Insofar as the individual residential plot owners
F are concerned, more than 98% of the plot owners do not have
any objection to the payment of the additional compensation.
[Paras 67 and 68][1070-D-F]
1.8 The policy decision of the State Government as reflected
in the said G.O. dated 29th August, 2014 and the Resolution of
G the Board of YEIDA dated 15th September, 2014 were in the
larger public interest, taking care of the concerns of the allottees
as well as the farmers. Had the said decision not been taken,
there was a hanging sword of the acquisition being declared
unlawful. The development of the entire project was stalled on
H account of farmers’ agitation. Before taking the policy decision,
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. 1039
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY
the State Government, through the Chaudhary Committee, had A
done a wide range of deliberations with all the stakeholders
including the allottees, farmers and YEIDA. The policy decision
was taken after taking into consideration all relevant factors and
was guided by reasons. In any case, it is a settled position of law
that in case of a conflict between public interest and personal
B
interest, public interest will outweigh the personal interest. The
High Court was thus not justified in holding that the policy decision
of the State was unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary. The High
Court erred in allowing the writ petitions, thus, the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court is quashed and set
aside. [Para 70][1070-H; 1071-A-C] C
Gajraj and Others v. State of U.P. and Others 2011
SCC OnLine All 1711; Savitri Devi v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others (2015) 7 SCC 21 : [2015] 7 SCR
512; Centre for Public Interest Litigation and others v.
Union of India and Others (2012) 3 SCC 1 : [2012] 3 D
SCR 147; Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
and Others (2000) 10 SCC 664 : [2000] 4 Suppl. SCR
94; ITC Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
(2011) 7 SCC 493 : [2011] 7 SCR 66; Greater Noida
Industrial Development Authority v. Savitri Mohan
(Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others E
(2016) 13 SCC 210 : [2016] 3 SCR 187; Kasinka
Trading and Another v. Union of India and Another
(1995) 1 SCC 274 : [1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 448; Essar
Steel Limited v. Union of India and Others (2016) 11
SCC 1 : [2016] 4 SCR 326; APM Terminals B. V. v. F
Union of India and Another (2011) 6 SCC 756 : [2011]
8 SCR 600 – referred to.
Prof. S.A. de Smith “Judicial Review of Administrative
Action” – referred to.
Case Law Reference G
[2015] 7 SCR 512 referred to Para 10
[2012] 3 SCR 147 referred to Para 22
[2000] 4 Suppl. SCR 94 referred to Para 22
H
1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 5 S.C.R.
A [2011] 7 SCR 66 referred to Para 30(ix)
[2016] 3 SCR 187 referred to Para 38
[1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 448 referred to Para 53
[2016] 4 SCR 326 referred to Para 59
B [2011] 8 SCR 600 referred to Para 61
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4178-
4197 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.05.2020 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-C No.28968 of 2018, 68724 of 2015,
C
45929 and 46993 of 2016, 17609, 23357 and 25359 of 2017, 2452 of
2018, 40702, 52310 and 61882 of 2017, 7142, 9247, 14730, 20053, 20158,
20217, 25994, 36669 and 28956 of 2018.
With
D Civil Appeal Nos. 4198-4217, 4218 and 4219 of 2022.
Vinod Diwakar, AAG, C. A. Sundaram, C. U. Singh, Maninder
Singh, Sr. Advs., Amar Gupta, Divyam Agarwal, Kunal Mimani, Aniket
Aggarwal, Zafar Inayat, Anuvrat Sharma, Ms. Alka Sinha, B. N. Dubey,
Rakesh U. Upadhyay, Ms. Aarti U. Mishra, Rishabh Kumar Pandey,
E Dr. Surat Singh, Ashok K. Mahajan, Advs. for the Appellants.
Nakul Dewan, Sunil Gupta, Ravindra Srivastava, Ravi Sikri, Sanjiv
Sen, Sr. Advs., Lokesh Bhola, Kapil Bakshi, Archit Upadhyay, Ajay K.
Jain, Akshat Kumar, Ms. Saroj Tripathi, Ishan Dewan, Ms. Garima Tiwari,
Lokesh Malik, Ms. Priyal Bapna, Ms. Sukriti Chauhan, Nitin Singh, Shashi
F Kumar, Ankur Yadav, Abhisth Kumar, Anurag Rawat, Ms. Samita Mann,
Raj Kamal, Mudit Sharma, Tarun Gupta, Ms. Vagisha Nandini, Gaurav
Kumar, Inderjeet Kumar, Ms. Richa Yadav, Ravi Prakash, Sandeep Malik,
VIshal Mani, Alok Kumar, Vikalp Mudgal, Vishal Gupta, Tanzen Tashi
Negi, Santosh Kumar-I, Arjun D. Singh, Sandeep Kumar Jha, Avneesh
Garg, Muddam Thirupathi Reddy, Vaibhav Manu Srivastava, Prithviraj
G Singh, Umang Mahindra, Ujjal Banerjee, Akash Khurana, Advs. for the
Respondents.
Ravinder Srivastava, Sr. Adv., Shekhar Gupta, Nitin Saluja,
Ms. Priyanka Prasanth, Advs. for the Intervenors.
H
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. 1041
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
B. R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This batch of appeals challenge the judgment and order dated
28th May, 2020, passed by the Allahabad High Court in various writ B
petitions filed by the allottees of plots of land. The writ petitions were
filed challenging the demand of additional amount made by the appellant
herein-Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority
(hereinafter referred to as “YEIDA”) in respect of plots of land leased
out to the allottees; the resolution of the Board of YEIDA dated 15th
September, 2014, and the Government Order dated 29th August, 2014, C
vide which the State Government had permitted YEIDA to recover the
additional amount from the allottees.
3. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. For the sake of
convenience, we will refer to the factual details as are found in Writ
Petition No.28968 of 2018, filed before the High Court of Allahabad by D
M/s Shakuntla Education and Welfare Society (the respondent No.1
herein).
4. A vast area of land was acquired by the State of Uttar Pradesh
in Gautam Budh Nagar district for public purposes. The said area of
land was acquired for the benefit of YEIDA. After the land was acquired, E
YEIDA invited applications for the allotment of plots of land in the area
developed by it. In response to the notice inviting applications for such
allotment, various allottees including the respondent No.1 herein applied
and were allotted plots admeasuring different sizes.
5. The respondent No.1 was informed by letter dated 14 th F
September, 2009, that a plot of 50 acres of land has been reserved for it.
Subsequently, a letter of allotment dated 10th December, 2009 was issued
to the respondent No.1, allotting plot No.2 in Sector 7-A, having an area
of 50 acres, i.e., equivalent to 2,02,350 sq. meter. In the allotment letter,
it was stated that the premium of the land allotted was Rs.1,055/- per sq.
G
meter. It was also mentioned that the respondent No.1 had deposited
10% of the premium amount and the balance 90% of the premium amount
was payable in monthly installments as specified in the chart contained
therein. The allotment letter further stated that the lease deed shall be
executed and the possession of the land shall be handed over after
H
1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 5 S.C.R.
A completion of the acquisition proceedings. It was stated that the land
was already in possession of YEIDA.
6. It was the contention of the respondent No.1 that on the basis
of the aforesaid allotment letter, a lease deed came to be executed in
favour of the respondent No.1 on 22nd January, 2010 for a period of 90
B years after the respondent No.1 had made substantial compliance with
the terms and conditions of the allotment and had deposited the necessary
amount. The lease deed provided that in addition to the amount payable
by the respondent No.1, as mentioned in the allotment letter, a further
amount, i.e., 2.5% of the total premium of the plot was payable as annual
lease rent.
C
7. It was further the case of the respondent No.1 that during
measurement, it was found that the plot allotted to it, had an excess area
of about 2 acres. The said excess land was also leased out to it on the
same terms and conditions. It was further the case of the respondent
No.1 that it was thereafter given possession of the aforesaid land and on
D it, a University known as Galgotias University was developed.
8. It was further the case of the respondent No.1 that subsequently
YEIDA came out with a policy and gave an option to the respondent
No.1 to deposit the entire premium amount in lump-sum rather than in
installments. This was subject to certain rebate. It was stated that in
E accordance with the said policy, a lump-sum amount was worked out by
YEIDA and the same was also paid by the respondent No.1. An
undertaking was also taken from the respondent No.1 on an affidavit on
7th June, 2012, that in the event there was any clerical error or
miscalculation of the lump-sum amount, the respondent No.1 would make
F good the deficiency.
9. The State of Uttar Pradesh had also made large-scale acquisition
of lands for the benefit of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
(“NOIDA” for short) and Greater NOIDA. A number of writ petitions
came to be filed by farmers challenging the said acquisition on various
G grounds before the Allahabad High Court. The main ground of challenge
was that there was no urgency for acquiring the land and as such, invoking
Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as
“the L.A. Act”) was not warranted. It was contended that on account
of invoking of Section 17 of the L.A. Act, a valuable right available to
the writ petitioners under Section 5A of the L.A. Act was taken away.
H
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. 1043
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
All the said writ petitions came to be decided vide the judgment and A
order dated 21st October, 2011. In the leading case, i.e., Gajraj and
others vs. State of U.P. and others1, the Full Bench of the Allahabad
High Court came to a finding that the urgency clause ought not to have
been invoked and the farmers were unlawfully denied the benefit of
Section 5A of the L.A. Act, wherein they could raise objections to the
B
acquisition of the land. However, taking into consideration the subsequent
developments that the lands had already been developed and third party
rights had accrued, the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the
case of Gajraj (supra) considered it appropriate not to disturb the
acquisition. In order to balance the equities, the Full Bench of the
Allahabad High Court directed payment of additional compensation of C
64.7% plus some other benefits to certain class of farmers. It also directed
certain other benefits to be given to the farmers. The aforesaid additional
compensation of 64.7% was worked out by the Court taking into
consideration the fact that in respect of one of the villages, i.e., Patwari,
NOIDA itself had entered into negotiations with the farmers and had
D
extended the benefit of additional compensation at the aforesaid rate
over and above the compensation awarded.
10. The aforesaid judgment and order of the Full Bench of the
Allahabad High Court in the case of Gajraj (supra) came to be confirmed
by this Court in the case of Savitri Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and others2. E
11. Since the farmers, whose lands were acquired for the benefit
of NOIDA and Greater NOIDA, were being paid additional
compensation of 64.7%, there was unrest amongst the farmers whose
lands were acquired for YEIDA. It appears that on account of agitation
by the farmers, vast stretches of lands could not be developed. As such, F
the Chief Executive Officer (hereinafter referred to as “CEO”) of
YEIDA addressed a letter dated 10th April, 2013, to the State Government,
requesting to find a solution. The State Government, acting on the said
letter, instructed the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, vide its
letter of the same day, i.e., dated 10th April, 2013, to meet various groups G
of farmers and submit a report.
12. Accordingly, the Commissioner held a meeting with various
groups of farmers and the concerned District Magistrates, and submitted
1
2011 SCC OnLine All 1711
2
(2015) 7 SCC 21 H
1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 5 S.C.R.
A a report to the State Government on 16th July, 2013, recommending
constitution of a High-Level Committee.
13. The State Government vide Office Memo dated 3rd September,
2013, constituted a High-Level Committee under the Chairmanship of
Sri Rajendra Chaudhary, Minister of Prison, State of Uttar Pradesh
B (hereinafter referred to as “the Chaudhary Committee”). The Chaudhary
Committee also consisted of the Divisional Commissioner of the
concerned Division and the Collector of concerned District. The
Chaudhary Committee submitted its recommendations to the State
Government, inter alia, recommending for the payment of 64.7%
additional amount as “no litigation incentive” to the farmers and for its
C reimbursement from the allottees in the appropriate proportion.
14. The State Government accepted the recommendations of the
Chaudhary Committee and issued a Government Order dated 29th August,
2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the said G.O.”). The said G.O. provided
that the farmers should be offered 64.7% additional amount on the
D condition that they withdraw their petitions challenging the acquisition
proceedings and undertake not to institute any litigation and create any
hindrance in the development work of YEIDA. It was clarified in the
said G.O. that the Government would not bear the burden of the additional
amount.
E 15. The said G.O. was placed before the Board of YEIDA in its
meeting, held on 15th September, 2014, and the same was approved in
the said meeting on the very same day, vide Resolution dated 15th
September, 2014.
16. In pursuance to the said G.O. and the Resolution dated
F 15th September, 2014 of the Board of YEIDA, additional demand notices
were issued to various allottees. In case of the respondent No.1, an
additional premium at the rate of Rs.600/- per sq. meter, for the land
allotted and leased out, came to be demanded, totaling to
Rs.12,14,10,000/-.
G 17. It was in this background that various writ petitions came to
be filed before the Allahabad High Court, including Writ Petition No.28968
of 2018, filed by the respondent No.1.
18. By the impugned judgment and order dated 28th May, 2020,
the Allahabad High Court allowed the said writ petitions holding that:-
H
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. 1045
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
(i) the decision in the case of Gajraj (supra), as approved by A
this Court in the case of Savitri Devi (supra), was not a
judgment in rem and could not have been applied to
proceedings for acquiring the land under different
notifications or for YEIDA;
(ii) the said G.O. and the Resolution of the Board of YEIDA B
dated 15th September, 2014 were violative of the provisions
of the L.A. Act; and
(iii) the policy of the State Government was unfair, unreasonable,
arbitrary and in violation of the provisions of the Transfer
of Property Act, 1882. C
19. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeals by way of special
leave have been filed on behalf of YEIDA, State of Uttar Pradesh and
farmers whose lands were acquired.
20. We have heard Shri C.A. Sundaram, Shri C.U. Singh and Shri
Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of YEIDA, D
Shri Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on
behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh, Shri Rakesh U. Upadhyay and
Dr. Surat Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the farmers
whose lands were acquired, Shri Nakul Dewan, Shri Sunil Gupta, Shri
Ravindra Srivastava and Shri Sanjiv Sen, learned Senior Counsel appearing E
on behalf of the respondents-original allottees of land.
21. The main contention of the appellants in the present appeals is
that the said G.O. was a policy decision of the State Government, taken
in public interest. It is submitted that the said policy decision was taken
after taking into consideration the farmers’ agitation, the report of the F
Chaudhary Committee and all other relevant factors. It is submitted that
in order to avoid acquisitions from being declared illegal, the Cabinet of
Ministers of the State Government had taken a considered decision to
adopt a formula, which was carved out by the judgment of the Full Bench
of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Gajraj (supra) and approved
by this Court in the case of Savitri Devi (supra). G
22. It is also the contention on behalf of the appellants that the
policy of the State Government was in consonance with the decision of
this Court in the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation and
others vs. Union of India and others3, wherein this Court has held that
3
(2012) 3 SCC 1 H
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 5 S.C.R.
A it is obligatory on the State to ensure that people are adequately
compensated for the transfer of resource to the private domain. Relying
on the judgment of this Court in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan
vs. Union of India and others4, it is submitted that the policy of the
State Government was formulated by looking at the welfare of the people
at large rather than restricting the benefit to a small section of the society.
B
Relying on various judgments of this Court, it is submitted that when the
change in the policy of the State is in public interest, it will override all
private agreements entered into by the State.
23. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellants that, as a
matter of fact, on account of agitation of the farmers, development could
C not take place in the concerned area. It is submitted that various plot
owners had approached the State Government and its authorities for
finding out a solution to these problems, so that the development could
proceed further. It is submitted that the proceedings of the Chaudhary
Committee would itself reveal that all the stakeholders including the
D representatives of allottees were heard by the Chaudhary Committee.
Not only that, but various allottees had, in writing, agreed that they are
willing to pay the additional compensation so that the hindrance in the
development is removed. It is therefore submitted that it does not lie in
the mouth of the respondents to question the said G.O. and oppose the
payment of additional compensation.
E
24. Relying on various judgments of this Court, it is further submitted
on behalf of the appellants that the lease deed itself permitted additions,
alterations or modifications in the terms and conditions of the lease. As
such, even as per the lease deed, the appellants were entitled to modify
or alter the terms and conditions of the lease. It is submitted that the
F word “modify” has to be used in a broader sense and not in a narrower
sense.
25. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the
High Court fell in great error in holding that no writ petitions were pending.
It is submitted that, as a matter of fact, more than 600 writ petitions
G were pending when the policy decision was taken by the State
Government. It is submitted that the policy decision was taken so as to
save the acquisition, which was otherwise liable to be quashed and set
aside. It is submitted that it is, in fact, the respondents, who are the
beneficiaries of the said measure and as such, having taken benefit of
H 4
(2000) 10 SCC 664
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. 1047
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
the said measure, they cannot be permitted to refuse to pay the additional A
compensation.
26. It is also submitted on behalf of the appellants that the allotees
had an option, either to make additional payment or to take refund with
interest. Having opted not to seek refund with interest, it does not lie in
the mouth of the respondents to refuse to pay the additional compensation. B
27. It is also submitted on behalf of appellant-YEIDA that it had
specifically submitted that stay orders passed by the High Court were in
force in most of the cases related to residential plots, due to which the
development work could not be completed.
C
28. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the farmers also
support the stand of YEIDA. It is submitted that the builders had already
recovered additional compensation from the homebuyers. As such, the
additional compensation was already passed on by the builders to the
homebuyers. It is submitted that if the contention of the respondents is
accepted, it will amount to nothing else but allowing of unjust enrichment. D
29. It is further submitted that the respondents were not entitled
to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petitions filed by them before the Allahabad High Court were
filed without impleading the farmers who were necessary parties as
respondents to the writ petitions. E
30. Elaborate arguments have been advanced on behalf of the
respondents. To summarize, they are as under:
(i) The respondents had not given any undertaking to pay
additional compensation, as stated;
F
(ii) The term “modification/addition” with regard to payment
was restricted only to any clerical or technical error;
(iii) The High Court has rightly held that Gajraj (supra) and
Savitri Devi (supra) applied only to the peculiar facts and
circumstances of those cases. In the case of Gajraj (supra), G
the High Court had done elaborate exercise of categorizing
the cases into three types. In any case, it is submitted that
the State itself was aggrieved by the decision in Gajraj
(supra), which has been challenged by it before this Court;
H
1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 5 S.C.R.
A (iv) In the present case, many of the acquisitions were by private
negotiations and as such, there is no question of applicability
of either Section 17 or Section 5A of the L.A. Act;
(v) There were concluded contracts entered between the
allottees and YEIDA. As such, it was not open for YEIDA
B to unilaterally change the terms and conditions of the
contract and enhance the lease premium;
(vi) The High Court has rightly held that the so-called policy of
the State Government was arbitrary, irrational and therefore
not sustainable in law;
C (vii) On behalf of the respondent No.19-Supertech Limited, an
additional submission was made that the appropriate
authority has already passed an order admitting the petition
filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,
2016;
D (viii) On behalf of the individual plot owners, it is submitted that
the said plot owners, who belong to the middle class section
of the society cannot be burdened with the additional amount.
(ix) The respondents also placed reliance on the judgment of
this Court in the case of ITC Limited vs. State of Uttar
E Pradesh and others 5 to support the proposition that
concluded contracts cannot be interfered with or reopened.
31. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we
have perused the material on record.
32. The main reasons that weighed with the High Court while
F
allowing the writ petitions are thus:
(i) That the lands which were acquired for YEIDA in the
present case were under different notification than the
notification which fell for consideration in the case of Gajraj
(supra);
G
(ii) That this Court in the case of Savitri Devi (supra) has
categorically held that the directions given in the case of
Gajraj (supra) were issued by the High Court in the peculiar
5
H (2011) 7 SCC 493
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. 1049
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
facts and circumstances of the case and therefore, the same A
could not have been applied to the facts of the present case;
(iii) That some other petitions filed before the High Court
claiming the benefit on the basis of Gajraj (supra) were
ultimately rejected by the High Court;
(iv) That the State Government has to strictly act in accordance B
with the law or statutory provisions. It cannot act arbitrarily
or in an unfair manner in breach of specific provisions of
law;
(v) That it is only for the Courts to grant equitable relief and
the Government is not entitled to pass order on equitable C
ground of law.
33. We are called upon to examine the correctness of these findings.
34. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Full Bench of the
High Court in the case of Gajraj (supra) is reproduced by this Court in D
the case of Savitri Devi (supra). It will be apposite to refer to following
observations in the case of Savitri Devi (supra):
“20. In a nutshell, relief was categorised in three compartments.
In the first instance, those writ petitions which were filed belatedly
were dismissed. In the second category, three villages, namely,
E
Devala (Group 40), Village Yusufpur Chak Sahberi (Group 38)
and Village Asdullapur (Group 42) the acquisition was set aside.
Land acquisition in respect of remaining 61 villages is concerned,
the acquisition was allowed to remain but the additional
compensation was increased to 64.7%with further entitlement for
allotment of development abadi plot to the extent of 10%of the F
acquired land of those landowners subject to maximum of 2500
sq m.
21. We now reproduce the exact nature of direction [2011 SCC
OnLine All 1711] given by the High Court, which reads as follows:
(Gajraj case [2011 SCC OnLine All 1711] , SCC OnLine All) G
“In view of the foregoing conclusions we order as follows:
1. Writ Petition No. 45933 of 2011, Writ Petition No.
47545 of 2011 relating to Village Nithari, Writ Petition No. 47522
of 2011 relating to Village Sadarpur, Writ Petition No. 45196 of
H
1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 5 S.C.R.
A 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 Petitions Nos. 45223-24 of 2011, Writ
Petition No. 45226 of 2011, Writ Petitions Nos. 45229-30 of
2011, Writ Petition No. 45235 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45238
of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45283 of 2011 relating to Village
B
Khoda, Writ Petition No. 46764 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 46785
of 2011 relating to Village Sultanpur, Writ Petition No. 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 laches are dismissed.
C 2. (i) The writ petitions of Group 40 (Village Devla)
being Writ Petition No. 31126 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 59131
of 2009, Writ Petition No. 22800 of 2010, Writ Petition No.
37118 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 42812 of 2009, Writ Petition
No. 50417 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 54424 of 2009, Writ
D Petition No. 54652 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 55650 of 2009,
Writ Petition 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 of 2010, Writ Petitions Nos.
31124-25 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 32234 of 2011, Writ Petition
No. 32987 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 35648 of 2011, Writ Petition
E No. 38059 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 41339 of 2011, Writ Petition
No. 47427 of 2011 and Writ Petition No. 47412 of 2011 are
allowed and Notifications dated 26-5-2009 and 22-6-2009 and
all consequential actions are quashed. The petitioners shall be
entitled for restoration of their land subject to deposit of
F compensation which they had received under agreement/award
before the Authority/Collector.
(ii) Writ Petition No. 17725 of 2010 Omveer v. State of
U.P. (Group 38) relating to Village Yusufpur Chak Sahberi is
allowed. Notifications dated 10-4-2006 and 6-9-2007 and all
G consequential actions are quashed. The petitioners shall be
entitled for restoration of their land subject to return of
compensation received by them under agreement/award to the
Collector.
(iii) Writ Petition No. 47486 of 2011 (Rajee v. State of
H U.P.) of Group 42 relating to Village Asdullapur is allowed.
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. 1051
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
Notifications dated 27-1-2010 and 4-2-2010 as well as all A
subsequent proceedings are quashed. The petitioners shall be
entitled to restoration of their land.
3. All other writ petitions except as mentioned above at
(1) and (2) are disposed of with the following directions:
(a) The petitioners shall be entitled for payment of B
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 the 1997 Rules/award
which payment shall be ensured by the Authority at an early
date. It may be open for the Authority to take a decision as to C
what proportion of additional compensation be asked to be paid
by the 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 be without any prejudice to rights
of landowners under Section 18 of the Act, if any. D
(b) All the petitioners shall be entitled for allotment of
developed abadi plot to the extent of 10%of their acquired
land subject to maximum of 2500 sq m. We however, leave it
open to the Authority in cases where allotment of abadi plot
to the extent of 6%or 8%has already been made either to make E
allotment of the balance of the area or may compensate the
landowners by payment of the amount equivalent to balance
area as per average rate of allotment made of developed
residential plots.
4. The Authority may also take a decision as to whether F
benefit of additional compensation and allotment of abadi plot
to the extent of 10%be also given to:
(a) those landholders whose earlier writ petition
challenging the notifications has been dismissed upholding the
notifications; and G
(b) those landholders who have not come to the Court,
relating to the notifications which are the subject-matter of
challenge in the writ petitions mentioned at Direction 3.
H
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 5 S.C.R.
A 5. Greater Noida and its allottees are directed not to
carry 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 be applicable
B
in those cases where the development is being carried on in
accordance with the earlier Master Plan of Greater Noida duly
approved by the National Capital Regional Planning Board.
6. We direct the Chief Secretary of the State to appoint
officers not below the level of Principal Secretary (except the
C officers of Industrial Development Department who have dealt
with the relevant files) to conduct a thorough inquiry regarding
the acts of Greater Noida (a) in proceeding to implement Master
Plan 2021 without approval of NCRP Board, (b) decisions taken
to change the land use, (c) allotment made to the builders, and
D (d) indiscriminate proposals for acquisition of land, and
thereafter the State Government shall take appropriate action
in the matter.”
(emphasis in original)
22. We may point out at this stage that in respect of all these
E three categories, the High Court has provided its justification for
granting relief in the aforesaid nature. We shall be referring to the
same while discussing the cases of the appellants belonging to
one or the other category.”
35. After considering various judgments, this Court in the case of
F Savitri Devi (supra) observed thus:
“46. Thus, we have a scenario where, on the one hand, invocation
of urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Act and dispensing
with the right to file objection under Section 5-A of the Act, is
found to be illegal. On the other hand, we have a situation where
G because of delay in challenging these acquisitions by the
landowners, developments have taken place in these villages and
in most of the cases, third-party rights have been created. Faced
with this situation, the High Court going by the spirit behind the
judgment of this Court in Bondu Ramaswamy [(2010) 7 SCC 129
: (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 1] came out with the solution which is
H
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. 1053
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
equitable to both sides. We are, thus, of the view that the High A
Court considered the ground realities of the matter and arrived at
a more practical and workable solution by adequately compensating
the landowners in the form of compensation as well as allotment
of developed abadi land at a higher rate i.e. 10%of the land
acquired of each of the landowners against the eligibility and to
B
(sic under) the policy to the extent of 5%and 6%of Noida and
Greater Noida land respectively.
36. It could thus be seen that this Court in the said case has found
that a peculiar situation arose, where on one hand invocation of urgency
provisions under Section 17 of the L.A. Act and dispensing with the
right to file objections under Section 5A of the L.A. Act, were found to C
be illegal, while on the other hand, the developments had already taken
place in the villages and in most of the cases, third-party rights were
created. Faced with this situation, the High Court came out with the
solution which was equitable to both sides. This Court found that the
High Court considered the ground realities of the matter and arrived at a D
more practical and workable solution by adequately compensating the
landowners in the form of compensation as well as allotment of
developed abadi land at a higher rate.
37. No doubt that this Court in paragraph 50 of the judgment in
the case of Savitri Devi (supra) makes it clear that the directions of the E
High Court were given in the unique and peculiar/specific background
and therefore, it would not form precedent for future cases.
38. It is to be noted that in the case of Greater Noida Industrial
Development Authority vs. Savitri Mohan (Dead) Through Legal
Representatives and others6, this Court was considering the judgment F
of the Allahabad High Court, wherein it had quashed and set aside the
Notification under Section 4(1) and Section 17(4) of the L.A. Act as
well as the Notification under Section 6 read with Section 17(1) of the
L.A. Act. A specific question was framed by this Court in the said case
in paragraph 10, which reads thus:
G
“10. The only question for consideration is whether the matter is
covered by the judgment of this Court in Savitri Devi [Savitri
Devi v. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 21 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ)
473], as claimed by the appellant in which case the respondents
6
(2016) 13 SCC 210 H
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 5 S.C.R.
A will be entitled to relief of higher compensation and allotment of
land instead of quashing of acquisition proceedings.”
39. Answering the aforesaid question, this Court in the said case
observed thus:
“13. A perusal of the above shows that compensation had already
B been disbursed to the extent of 76%. Thereafter, for the entire
land of Village Chhapraula falling in Group 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
C case. In these circumstances, we find merit in the contention raised
on behalf of the appellant that the Division Bench was in error in
distinguishing the present case from the judgment in Gajraj
[Gajraj v. State of U.P., (2011) 11 ADJ 1 : 2011 SCC OnLine All
1711] .
D 14. As observed by this Court in Savitri Devi [Savitri
Devi v. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 21 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ)
473], 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 the development that had already been
undertaken on substantial part of the land. However, to balance
E the equities higher compensation and allotment of land was ordered
to meet the ends of justice. [Savitri Devi v. State of U.P., (2015)
7 SCC 21, para 17]”
40. It could thus clearly be seen that though this Court in the case
of Savitri Devi (supra) observed that the judgment in the case of Gajraj
F (supra) has to be construed particularly in the unique and peculiar/specific
background, in the case of Savitri Mohan (Dead) (supra), this Court
had followed the principle laid down in the cases of Gajraj (supra) and
Savitri Devi (supra) and held that to balance the equities, it was
appropriate to issue directions for payment of higher compensation and
G allotment of additional land. It was observed that it was necessary to do
so to meet the ends of justice.
41. At this juncture, we will have to consider the policy decision
of the State Government as formulated in the said G.O. in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the present case.
H
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. 1055
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
42. After the decision of this Court in the cases of Gajraj (supra) A
and Savitri Devi (supra), 64.7% additional compensation and 10% of
the land acquired of each of the land owners, instead of 5% and 6% was
made available to the farmers whose lands were acquired for the benefit
of NOIDA as well as Greater NOIDA. The lands acquired for the benefit
of YEIDA were also for the development of adjoining areas. Feeling
B
discriminated that they were being paid compensation at much lesser
rate as compared to the farmers whose lands were acquired for NOIDA
and Greater NOIDA, various farmers’ organizations started agitations.
It is some of the allottees who made representations to the CEO of
YEIDA. One of such representations was made by the respondent No.19-
Supertech Private Limited to the CEO of YEIDA on 22nd November, C
2013, stating therein that on account of agitation by the Bhartiya Kisan
Union, they had to stop their work with effect from 20th November,
2013. The said letter/representation stated that that the main grievance
of the office-holders of the Bhartiya Kisan Union was that they want
increased compensation and for compensating the same, the Authority
D
wants money from the Builders. The said representation states that:
“‘‘the Authority is not resolving the problems of the Farmers. The
main issue of farmers is that they want increased compensation,
and for compensating the same, the Authority wants money from
the Builders. Builders are not ready to pay this amount, due to
which, we are stopping the construction works of Builders.” During E
the discussion, it was said by the Company that “We are not against
the farmers or against their rights and company gives it’s consent
on this fact that whatever the consent would be made out between
the Authority and Government on the compensation amount of
farmers, that would be accepted by the company.” F
43. The said letter/representation categorically states that the
Company was not against the farmers or against their rights and that it
was willing to abide by whatever decision was arrived at between the
Authority and the Government on the compensation amount of farmers.
44. Similar representations were made by Orris Greenbay Golf G
Village on the same day, by Sunworld City Pvt. Ltd. on 26th November,
2013, and by Gaursons Realtech Pvt. Ltd. on 4th December, 2013.
45. It could thus be seen that on account of farmers’ resistance
and their agitation, the development work of the projects was stalled.
H
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 5 S.C.R.
A When this was brought to the notice of the State Government, the State
Government nominated the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut vide
order dated 10th April, 2013, for looking into the issue. The Commissioner
after holding various meetings with the farmers’ organization/
representatives submitted his report on 16th July, 2013, stating therein
that the lands have been acquired by YEIDA at large scale and taking
B
into consideration the nature of demands having wide implications, it
was necessary that a High-Level Committee at the State Government
level for examining the demands of farmers be constituted. In this
background, the State Government vide order dated 3rd September, 2013
constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of Shri Rajendra
C Chaudhary, Minister of Prison, State of Uttar Pradesh. The Divisional
Commissioner of the concerned Division and the Collector of the
concerned District were also the members of the Chaudhary Committee.
The Chaudhary Committee was constituted for the purpose of resolving
the problems of the villagers/farmers and the problems related to the
industries. The Chaudhary Committee considered the following issues:
D
“a. Demands raised by the Farmers/ Farmers’ Organizations/
Representatives and Memorandums/ Demand Letters
produced by them and the favour put forth by them during
the personal hearing.
E b. Favour put forth by the Industrialists/ Builders/ Allottees during
personal hearing.
c. Favour and opinion of Yamuna Expressway Authority.”
46. The Chaudhary Committee conducted its proceedings on
30th September, 2013 with the representatives of the farmers. The said
F Committee thereafter held deliberations with the representatives of the
allottees on 29th October, 2013. It will be apposite to refer to the relevant
part of the discussion that took place in the meeting held with the
representatives of the allottees on 29th October,2013, which reads thus:
“2. It was informed by the representative of M/s. SDIL that due
G to the agitation of local farmers on the issues of their problems/
demands, at present, we are not available to carry out any
work on the spot, therefore, whatever the decision will be
taken by the Committee/ Government for disposal of the
problems of farmers, we will cooperate in the same.
H
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. 1057
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
3. It was informed by the representative of M/s. Supertech Pvt. A
Ltd. that the farmers are agitating in the entire area and they
are interrupting the development work. It is necessary to solve
the problems of farmers. It was also informed by him that he
will cooperate in the decision to be taken by the Government/
Committee for disposal of the problems.
B
4. It was informed by the representatives of M/s. Silverline and
other Units/Institutions that due to interrupting their
development works as a result of the demands being raised
by the farmers of the area, the project cost is getting
escalated. Due to solving the problems of farmers, the
investment will be increased in the area and in disposal of the C
same, they will provide their assistance.
5. Regarding the demand of giving 10% abadi land in place of
7% abadi land to be given to the ancestral farmers, it was
said by the representative of M/s. J.P. Infratech Pvt. Ltd.
namely Sh. Sameer Gaur that earlier, they have been paid D
value of 7% abadi land and development charges, now, if any
other cost is imposed, then, company is not in position to bear
the same.”
47. It could thus be seen that even the representatives of the
allottees were of the opinion that on account of the agitation of the local E
farmers, the developers were not in a position to carry out any work on
the spot. It was also impressed upon that on account of this, the cost of
the project was getting escalated. As such, it was urged to solve the
problem.
48. The Chaudhary Committee also considered the submissions F
made on behalf of the appellant-YEIDA. It was submitted on behalf of
the appellant-YEIDA that on account of the judgment delivered in a
similar case, i.e., in the case of Gajraj (supra), the farmers, whose
lands were acquired, were also demanding the compensation on similar
lines. G
49. After considering the rival submissions, the Chaudhary
Committee gave its recommendation as under:
“Recommendation of Committee:-
H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 5 S.C.R.
A The opinion of Authority as well as the demands of the Farmers’
Organizations were carefully considered by the Committee. In
the common order passed in the different Writ Petitions filed by
Noida and Greater Noida Authorities, the Hon’ble High Court by
not finding the proceedings conducted under Section 17 of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 to be proper, had directed that the Authority
B
shall pay 64.7% additional compensation to the farmers and return
them 10% developed land. Also in the Yamuna Expressway
Authority, around 700 Writ Petitions have been filed by the farmers
by challenging the different notifications, wherein, stay orders have
been passed in the most of the Petitions, the circumstances which
C were existing in the acquisition made by Noida and Greater Noida
Authority, same circumstances are also existed in the most of the
cases of acquisition of Yamuna Expressway. The lands acquired
by the Authority, have been allotted to the different allottees for
different projects, due to which, the third party rights have been
created in this acquired land and if order is passed against the
D
Authority in the Petitioners filed against the Acquisition
Proceedings, then, many difficulties would arise. Therefore,
keeping in view the legal expected legal complications, it is required
to do the out of court settlement with the affected farmers. At the
time of discussion, it was assured by the farmers’ representatives
E that if the Government/ Authority agrees to give 64.7% additional
compensation, then, the farmers will withdraw the Petitions filed
in the Court. Therefore, Committee recommends that:-
I.(a) If, all the farmers/ Petitioners of a village related to the
land acquired/ purchased by the Yamuna Expressway
F Authority, withdraw their Petitions filed in the Hon’ble High
Court or in any other Court and if they give written
assurance for future that they will not file any claim against
the Authority or it’s allottees in any Court and will not cause
any obstruction in the Development Works, then, like the
Greater Noida Authority, the Authority may consider to give
G amount equivalent to 64.7% additional compensation in the
form of No Litigation Incentive/ Additional Compensation,
which may be compensated proportionally from the
concerned allottees and same may also be imposed
proportionally in the costing of allotment of land available
H with the Authority.
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. 1059
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
These benefits shall be allowed also to those farmers, whose’ A
lands have been purchased by the Authority vide Sale Deed
on mutual consent basis.
(b) The process of payment of additional compensation, be
completed villagewise in accordance with the Schemes/
Priorities of Authority after obtaining physical possession B
of on the spot and after withdrawal of all the Writ petitions/
Cases of concerned village after doing settlement with the
farmers. In view of the financial condition of Authority, if
the payment of additional compensation is not possible in
lumpsum, then, the consideration could also be made
regarding payment in installments or in the form of developed C
land.
2. Regarding allotment of 10% developed land in place of 7%
developed land, the proceedings be conducted according to
the order of Appeal/SLP filed by the Noida/Greater Noida
Authorities. D
3. The proceedings of amendment proposed by the Authority
in Abadi Rules, are at final stage of approval, the
proceedings be conducted as per the decision of
Government.
E
4. Regarding abolishing the distinction between ancestral and
non-ancestral, this decision has been taken in the 48th
meeting dated 08.01.2014 of Yamuna Expressway Authority
Board, that such land owners of the lands acquired or to be
acquired/purchased by the Authority, whose’ names have
remained recorded in Six Yearly Register/ Khatauni on the F
acquired land prior to the date of establishment of Authority
i.e. 24.04.2001, and the landowners are residents of any
village related to any District lying within the notified area
of Yamuna Expressway Authority, then, the benefit of 7%
abadi land be granted to him against his acquired land. In G
the decision of Authority Board, this facility has also been
allowed to the successors of eligible land owners, who fulfill
the aforesaid conditions. The further proceedings be
conducted as per the decision of Authority Board.
H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 5 S.C.R.
A 5. In view of the demands of farmers organizations and local
public of District Mathura, after taking into consideration
the proposal submitted by Concessionaire namely M/s. J.P.
Infratech Ltd., in the 48th meeting dated 08.01.2014 of
Yamuna Expressway Authority Board, a decision in principle
has been taken for construction of Exist & Entry Ramps at
B
Bajna-Nauhjheel Road at Yamuna Expressway and by
making necessary amendments in DPR accordingly, a letter
has been sent to the Concessionaire namely M/s. J,P.
Infratech for necessary action. The further proceedings be
conducted as per the decision of Authority Board.
C It is recommended by the Committee that the aforementioned
additional benefits be granted to the landowners only in that case
when they will handover the physical possession of land to the
Authority and withdraw Writ Petition/Case pending in Hon’ble
High Court or any other Court and agreement for not causing any
D obstruction in future in the development works of allottees and
for not filing any claim in any Court against the acquisition of land
in future. Regarding the other demands, the Committee will give
it’s recommendation after further consideration.”
50. It could thus be seen that the recommendations of the
E Chaudhary Committee were principally intended to resolve the issue
between the farmers and the allottees, and to find out a workable solution
to the problem. The Chaudhary Committee recommended similar
treatment to be given to the farmers whose lands were acquired for
YEIDA, as was given to the farmers whose lands were acquired for the
benefit of NOIDA and Greater NOIDA. The Chaudhary Committee
F found that the same benefits as were given to the farmers whose lands
were acquired for the benefit of NOIDA and Greater NOIDA in view
of the judgment of the High Court in the case of Gajraj (supra), as
affirmed by this Court in the case of Savitri Devi (supra) should also be
given to the farmers whose lands were acquired for the benefit of
G YEIDA. However, this was made conditional. Additional benefit was
granted to the landowners on the condition that they would handover the
physical possession of land to YEIDA and withdraw the writ petitions/
cases filed by them pending before the High Court.
51. The State Government vide the said G.O. gave effect to the
H recommendations of the Chaudhary Committee. YEIDA too, in its Board
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. 1061
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
meeting dated 15th September, 2014, resolved to implement the decision A
of the State Government. Accordingly, demand notices came to be issued
to the allottees.
52. It could thus be seen that the policy decision of the State
Government is preceded by various factors. Firstly, the farmers’ agitation,
after they were denied the benefits which were granted to the farmers B
whose lands were acquired for the benefit of NOIDA and Greater
NOIDA; the report of the Commissioner, the appointment of the
Chaudhary Committee, the deliberations of the Chaudhary Committee
with various stakeholders, and thereafter the recommendations of the
Chaudhary Committee.
C
53. It will be relevant to refer to the judgment of this Court in the
case of the Kasinka Trading and another vs. Union of India and
another 7 , wherein this Court has referred to various earlier
pronouncements and the treatise of Prof. S.A. de Smith on “Judicial
Review of Administrative Action”. The relevant paragraphs of the said
judgment read thus: D
“12. It has been settled by this Court that the doctrine of promissory
estoppel is applicable against the Government also particularly
where it is necessary to prevent fraud or manifest injustice. The
doctrine, however, cannot be pressed into aid to compel the
Government or the public authority “to carry out a representation E
or promise which is contrary to law or which was outside the
authority or power of the officer of the Government or of the
public authority to make”. There is preponderance of judicial
opinion that to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel clear,
sound and positive foundation must be laid in the petition itself by F
the party invoking the doctrine and that bald expressions, without
any supporting material, to the effect that the doctrine is attracted
because the party invoking the doctrine has altered its position
relying on the assurance of the Government would not be sufficient
to press into aid the doctrine. In our opinion, the doctrine of
promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in the abstract and the G
courts are bound to consider all aspects including the results sought
to be achieved and the public good at large, because while
considering the applicability of the doctrine, the courts have to do
equity and the fundamental principles of equity must for ever be
7
(1995) 1 SCC 274 H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 5 S.C.R.
A present to the mind of the court, while considering the applicability
of the doctrine. The doctrine must yield when the equity so
demands if it can be shown having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case that it would be inequitable to hold the
Government or the public authority to its promise, assurance or
representation.
B
13. The ambit, scope and amplitude of the doctrine of promissory
estoppel has been evolved in this country over the last quarter of
a century through successive decisions of this Court starting
with Union of India v. Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd. [(1968) 2
SCR 366 : AIR 1968 SC 718] Reference in this connection may
C be made with advantage to Century Spg. & Mfg. Co.
Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council [(1970) 1 SCC 582 :
(1970) 3 SCR 854] ; Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co.
Ltd. v. State of U.P. [(1979) 2 SCC 409 : 1979 SCC (Tax) 144 :
(1979) 2 SCR 641] ; Jit Ram Shiv Kumar v. State of
D Haryana [(1981) 1 SCC 11 : (1980) 3 SCR 689] ; Union of
India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. [(1985) 4 SCC 369 : 1986
SCC (Tax) 11]; Indian Express Newspapers (Bom) (P)
Ltd. v. Union of India [(1985) 1 SCC 641 : 1985 SCC (Tax)
121] ; Pournami Oil Mills v. State of Kerala [1986 Supp SCC
728 : 1987 SCC (Tax) 134] ; Shri Bakul Oil Industries v. State
E of Gujarat [(1987) 1 SCC 31 : 1987 SCC (Tax) 74 : (1987) 1
SCR 185] ; Asstt. CCT v. Dharmendra Trading Co. [(1988) 3
SCC 570 : 1988 SCC (Tax) 432] ; Amrit Banaspati Co.
Ltd. v. State of Punjab [(1992) 2 SCC 411] and Union of
India v. Hindustan Development Corpn. [(1993) 3 SCC 499 :
F JT (1993) 3 SC 15] In Godfrey Philips India Ltd. [(1985) 4 SCC
369 : 1986 SCC (Tax) 11] this Court opined: (SCC p. 388, para
13)
“We may also point out that the doctrine of promissory
estoppel being an equitable doctrine, it must yield when the
G equity so requires; if it can be shown by the Government or
public authority that having regard to the facts as they have
transpired, it would be inequitable to hold the Government or
public authority to the promise or representation made by it,
the Court would not raise an equity in favour of the person to
whom the promise or representation is made and enforce the
H
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. 1063
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
promise or representation against the Government or public A
authority. The doctrine of promissory estoppel would be
displaced in such a case, because on the facts, equity would
not require that the Government or public authority should be
held bound by the promise or representation made by it.”
14. In Excise Commissioner, U.P. v. Ram Kumar [(1976) 3 SCC B
540 : 1976 SCC (Tax) 360 : AIR 1976 SC 2237] four learned
Judges of this Court observed: (SCC p. 545, para 19)
“The fact that sales of country liquor had been exempted
from sales tax vide Notification No. ST-1149/X-802 (33)-51
dated 6-4-1959 could not operate as an estoppel against the C
State Government and preclude it from subjecting the sales to
tax if it felt impelled to do so in the interest of the revenues of
the State which are required for execution of the plans designed
to meet the ever-increasing pressing needs of the developing
society. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions that
there can be no question of estoppel against the Government D
in the exercise of its legislative, sovereign or executive powers.”
15. Prof. S.A. de Smith in his celebrated treatise Judicial Review
of Administrative Action, 3rd Edn., at p. 279 sums up the position
thus:
E
“Contracts and covenants entered into by the Crown are
not to be construed as being subject to implied terms that would
exclude the exercise of general discretionary powers for the public
good. On the contrary they are to be construed as incorporating
an implied term that such powers remain exercisable. This is
broadly true of other public authorities also. But the status and F
functions of the Crown in this regard are of a higher order. The
Crown cannot be allowed to tie its hands completely by prior
undertakings is as clear as the proposition that the Courts cannot
allow the Crown to evade compliance with ostensibly binding
obligations whenever it thinks fit. If a public authority lawfully G
repudiates or departs from the terms of a binding contract in order
to have been bound in law by an ostensibly binding contract
because the undertakings would improperly fetter its general
discretionary powers the other party to the agreement has no
right whatsoever to damages or compensation under the general
H
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 5 S.C.R.
A law, no matter how serious the damages that party may have
suffered.”
54. It has been held by this Court that the doctrine of promissory
estoppel cannot be invoked in the abstract and the courts are bound to
consider all aspects including the results sought to be achieved and the
B public good at large. It has been held that while considering the applicability
of the doctrine, the courts have to do equity and the fundamental principles
of equity must for ever be present to the mind of the court, while
considering the applicability of the doctrine. It has been held that the
doctrine being an equitable doctrine, it must yield when the equity so
requires, if it can be shown by the Government or Public Authority that
C having regard to the facts and circumstances as they have transpired, it
would be inequitable to hold the Government or the Public Authority to
the promise, assurance or representation made by it. The judgment of
this Court in the case of Kasinka Trading (supra) has been consistently
followed.
D 55. If we apply the principle as laid down in the case of Kasinka
Trading (supra) to the facts of the present case, it will be clear that the
policy decision of the State Government was not only in the larger public
interest but also in the interest of the respondents. The projects were
stalled on account of the farmers’ agitation. The farmers felt discriminated
E as they found that the compensation paid to them was much lesser than
the one being paid to the equally circumstanced farmers in NOIDA and
Greater NOIDA. It was the allottees of the land who had approached
the State Government for redressal of the problem. In these
circumstances, the Government took cognizance of the problem and
appointed the Commissioner to look into the issue. Since the Commissioner
F recommended appointment of a High-Level Committee, the Chaudhary
Committee was appointed. The Chaudhary Committee had threadbare
discussions with all the stakeholders. It also took into consideration that
on account of stay orders passed by the High Court in various writ
petitions, the development of the project was stalled. On account of
G pendency of the writ petitions, there was always a hanging sword over
the entire acquisition of it being declared unlawful. In this premise, in
order to find out a workable solution and that too, on the basis of the law
laid down by the High Court in the case of Gajraj (supra) as affirmed
by this Court in the case of Savitri Devi (supra) and followed by this
Court in the case of Savitri Mohan (Dead) (supra), recommendations
H
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. 1065
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
were made by the Chaudhary Committee. The Chaudhary Committee A
specifically recommended that the additional compensation and other
incentives would be paid only if the landowners agree to handover physical
possession of the land to YEIDA and withdraw all the litigations.
56. It could thus be seen that the recommendations, which were
accepted by the State Government and formulated in the policy, were B
made taking into consideration the interests of all the stakeholders. As
held by this Court, it is not only the interest of a small section of the
allottees which should weigh with the Government, but the Government
should also give due weightage to the interest of the large section of
farmers, whose lands were acquired.
C
57. We further find that the High Court fell in error in observing
that no writ petitions were filed challenging the acquisition for YEIDA.
The report of the Chaudhary Committee itself would clarify that YEIDA
had itself submitted that insofar as the residential plots are concerned,
there were stay orders operating in majority of the writ petitions due to
which the development of the project work was stalled. D
58. We are therefore of the considered view that the policy decision
of the State Government was in the larger public interest. It was taken
considering entire material collected by the Chaudhary Committee after
due deliberations with all the stakeholders. The factors which were taken
into consideration by the State Government were relevant, rational and E
founded on ground realities. In this view of the matter, the finding of the
High Court that the policy decision of the State Government was arbitrary,
irrational and unfair, is totally incorrect.
59. The law with regard to interference in the policy decision of
the State is by now very well crystalized. This Court in the case of F
Essar Steel Limited vs Union of India and others8 had an occasion to
consider the scope of interference in the policy decision of the State.
After referring to various decisions of this Court, the Court observed
thus:
“43. Before we can examine the validity of the impugned policy G
decision dated 6-3-2007, it is crucial to understand the extent of
the power vested with this Court to review policy decisions.
44. In DDA [DDA v. Allottee of SFS Flats, (2008) 2 SCC 672 :
(2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 684] on issue of judicial review of policy
8
(2016) 11 SCC 1 H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 5 S.C.R.
A decisions, the power of the Court is examined and observed as
under: (SCC pp. 697-98, paras 64-65)
“64. An executive order termed as a policy decision is not
beyond the pale of judicial review. Whereas the superior courts
may not interfere with the nitty-gritty of the policy, or substitute
B one by the other but it will not be correct to contend that the court
shall lay its judicial hands off, when a plea is raised that the impugned
decision is a policy decision. Interference therewith on the part of
the superior court would not be without jurisdiction as it is subject
to judicial review.
C 65. Broadly, a policy decision is subject to judicial review
on the following grounds:
(a) if it is unconstitutional;
(b) if it is dehors the provisions of the Act and the
Regulations;
D
(c) if the delegatee has acted beyond its power of delegation;
(d) if the executive policy is contrary to the statutory or a
larger policy.”
45. Thus, we will test the impugned policy on the above grounds
E to determine whether it warrants our interference under Article
136 or not. Further, this Court neither has the jurisdiction nor the
competence to judge the viability of such policy decisions of the
Government in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Article
136 of the Constitution of India. In Arun Kumar Agrawal v. Union
of India [Arun Kumar Agrawal v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC
F
1], this Court has further held as under: (SCC p. 17, para 41)
“41. … This Court sitting in the jurisdiction cannot sit in
judgment over the commercial or business decision taken by parties
to the agreement, after evaluating and assessing its monetary and
financial implications, unless the decision is in clear violation of
G any statutory provisions or perverse or taken for extraneous
considerations or improper motives. States and its instrumentalities
can enter into various contracts which may involve complex
economic factors. State or the State undertaking being a party to
a contract, have to make various decisions which they deem just
H and proper. There is always an element of risk in such decisions,
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. 1067
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
ultimately it may turn out to be a correct decision or a wrong A
one. But if the decision is taken bona fide and in public interest,
the mere fact that decision has ultimately proved to be wrong,
that itself is not a ground to hold that the decision was mala
fide or taken with ulterior motives.”
(emphasis supplied) B
46. In Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of
India [Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of
India, (2009) 7 SCC 561] , it was held as under: (SCC p. 605,
para 169)
“169. It is neither within the domain of the courts nor the C
scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether
a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy
can be evolved. Nor are the courts inclined to strike down a policy
at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that
a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific D
or more logical. Wisdom and advisability of economic policy
are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review. In matters
relating to economic issues the Government has, while taking
a decision, right to “trial and error” as long as both trial and
error are bona fide and within the limits of the authority. For
testing the correctness of a policy, the appropriate forum is E
Parliament and not the courts.”
(emphasis supplied)
47. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Narmada Bachao
Andolan v. Union of India [Narmada Bachao Andolan v. F
Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664] cautioned against courts
sitting in appeal against policy decisions. It was held as under:
(SCC p. 763, para 234)
“234. In respect of public projects and policies which are
initiated by the Government the courts should not become an
G
approval authority. Normally such decisions are taken by the
Government after due care and consideration. In a democracy
welfare of the people at large, and not merely of a small section
of the society, has to be the concern of a responsible
Government. If a considered policy decision has been taken,
H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 5 S.C.R.
A which is not in conflict with any law or is not mala fide, it will
not be in public interest to require the court to go into and
investigate those areas which are the function of the executive.
For any project which is approved after due deliberation the court
should refrain from being asked to review the decision just because
a petitioner in filing a PIL alleges that such a decision should not
B
have been taken because an opposite view against the undertaking
of the project, which view may have been considered by the
Government, is possible. When two or more options or views are
possible and after considering them the Government takes a policy
decision it is then not the function of the court to go into the matter
C afresh and, in a way, sit in appeal over such a policy decision.”
(emphasis supplied)
48. A similar sentiment was echoed by a Constitution Bench of
this Court in Peerless General Finance & Investment Co.
Ltd. v. RBI [Peerless General Finance & Investment Co.
D Ltd. v. RBI, (1992) 2 SCC 343] , wherein it was observed as under:
(SCC p. 375, para 31)
“31. … Courts are not to interfere with economic policy
which is the function of experts. It is not the function of the courts
to sit in judgment over matters of economic policy and it must
E necessarily be left to the expert bodies. In such matters even
experts can seriously and doubtlessly differ. Courts cannot be
expected to decide them without even the aid of experts.”
49. A perusal of the abovementioned judgments of this Court
would show that this Court should exercise great caution and
F restraint when confronted with matters related to the policy
regarding commercial matters of the country. Executive policies
are usually enacted after much deliberation by the Government.
Therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to question
the wisdom of the same, unless it is demonstrated by the aggrieved
G persons that the said policy has been enacted in an arbitrary,
unreasonable or mala fide manner, or that it offends the provisions
of the Constitution of India.”
60. It is trite law that an interference with the policy decision
would not be warranted unless it is found that the policy decision is
palpably arbitrary, mala fide, irrational or violative of the statutory
H
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. 1069
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
provisions. We are therefore of the considered view that the High Court A
was also not right in interfering with the policy decision of the State
Government, which is in the larger public interest.
61. It will also be apposite to refer to the following observations
of this Court in the case of APM Terminals B.V. vs. Union of India
and another9: B
“67. It has been the consistent view of this Court that a change in
policy by the Government can have an overriding effect over
private treaties between the Government and a private party, if
the same was in the general public interest and provided such
change in policy was guided by reason. Several decisions have C
been cited by the parties in this regard in the context of preventing
private monopolisation of port activities to an extent where such
private player would assume a dominant position which would
enable them to control not only the berthing of ships but the tariff
for use of the port facilities.”
D
62. It could thus be seen that it is more than settled that a change
in policy by the Government can have an overriding effect over private
treaties between the Government and a private party, if the same was in
the general public interest. The additional requirement is that such change
in policy is required to be guided by reason.
E
63. Insofar as the reliance placed by the respondents on the
judgment of this Court in the case of ITC Limited (supra) is concerned,
in our considered view, the said judgment would not be of any assistance
to the case of the respondents. This Court in the said case in paragraph
107.1 has clearly observed that in the case of conflict between public
interest and personal interest, public interest should prevail. F
64. A number of judgments of this Court have been cited at the
Bar by the respondents in support of the proposition that in view of
concluded contracts, it was not permissible for the appellants to unilaterally
increase the premium by framing a policy.
G
65. We have hereinabove elaborately discussed that when a policy
is changed by the State, which is in the general public interest, such
policy would prevail over the individual rights/interests. In that view of
the matter, we do not find it necessary to refer to the said judgments.
9
(2011) 6 SCC 756 H
1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 5 S.C.R.
A The policy of the State Government as reflected in the said G.O. was
not only in the larger public interest but also in the interest of the
respondents.
66. We further find that the respondents have indulged into the
conduct of approbate and reprobate. They have changed their stance as
B per their convenience. When their projects were stalled on account of
the farmers’ agitation, it is they who approached the State Authorities
for finding out a solution. When the State Government responded to
their representations and came up with a policy which was equitable
and in the interest of both, the farmers and the allottees and when the
said policy paved the way for development, when called upon to pay the
C additional compensation, the respondents-allottees somersaulted and
challenged the very same policy before the High Court, which benefitted
them. We have already hereinabove made reference to the various
communications made by the allottees of the land for intervention of the
State Government.
D 67. Insofar as the individual plot owners are concerned, it will be
worthwhile to mention that the residential plot owners in Sectors 18 and
20 of Yamuna Expressway city have formed an association, viz., Yamuna
Expressway Residential-Plot-Owners Welfare Association (hereinafter
referred to as “the YERWA”). The communication addressed by the
E president of the YERWA to the CEO of YEIDA would reveal that 98.5%
of the allottees/owners have voted in favour of paying the additional
premium demanded by the Authority. The only request made by the
YERWA is with regard to making a provision for paying additional
premium in installments.
F 68. It can thus be seen that even insofar as the individual residential
plot owners are concerned, more than 98% of the plot owners do not
have any objection to the payment of the additional compensation.
69. With respect to the contention of the respondent No.19-
Supertech with regard to initiation of CIRP, we are not concerned with
G the said issue in the present proceedings. The law will take its own
course.
70. In conclusion, we are of the considered view that the policy
decision of the State Government as reflected in the said G.O. dated
29th August, 2014 and the Resolution of the Board of YEIDA dated
15th September, 2014 were in the larger public interest, taking care of
H
YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. 1071
SHAKUNTLA EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
the concerns of the allottees as well as the farmers. As already discussed A
hereinabove, had the said decision not been taken, there was a hanging
sword of the acquisition being declared unlawful. The development of
the entire project was stalled on account of farmers’ agitation. Before
taking the policy decision, the State Government, through the Chaudhary
Committee, had done a wide range of deliberations with all the
B
stakeholders including the allottees, farmers and YEIDA. The policy
decision was taken after taking into consideration all relevant factors
and was guided by reasons. In any case, it is a settled position of law
that in case of a conflict between public interest and personal interest,
public interest will outweigh the personal interest. The High Court was
therefore not justified in holding that the policy decision of the State was C
unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary. We are of the considered view that
the High Court has erred in allowing the writ petitions. The present
appeals, therefore, deserve to be allowed.
71. In the result, we pass the following order:
(i) The appeals are allowed; D
(ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 28th May, 2020,
passed by the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 28968
of 2018 and companion matters is quashed and set aside;
(iii) The writ petitions filed by the respondents covered by the E
impugned judgment and order dated 28th May, 2020 passed
by the Allahabad High Court are dismissed;
72. Applications for Intervention are allowed. Pending applications,
including the applications for directions, shall stand disposed of in the
above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. F
Nidhi Jain Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Tamana, LCRA)
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "land acquisition"Sign in to search