9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 1637 - SC - Indian LawsAcquisition of lands for the benefit of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority ( NOIDA ) and Greater NOIDA - Additional Compensation to Farmers - Allotment of Developed Land - Amendment in Abadi Rules - Recommendations of the Chaudhary Committee - Distinction between Ancestral and Non-Ancestral Land - Construction of Entry and Exit Ramps - Challenged the demand of additional amount made by the Appellant herein-Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority ( YEIDA ) in respect of plots of land leased out to the allottees - HELD THAT - If we apply the principle as laid down in the case of Kasinka Trading 1994 (10) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT 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 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 recommended appointment of a High-Level Committee, the Chaudhary Committee was appointed. The Chaudhary Committee had thread bare 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 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 2011 (10) TMI 753 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT as affirmed by this Court in the case of Savitri Devi 2015 (5) TMI 1219 - SUPREME COURT and followed by this Court in the case of Savitri Mohan (Dead). 2016 (6) TMI 1483 - SUPREME COURT recommendations were made by the Chaudhary Committee. The Chaudhary Committee 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. 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 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. 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. 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 the concerns of the allottees as well as the farmers. As already discussed, 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 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 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. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court was quashed. The writ petitions filed by the respondents were dismissed, and the applications for intervention were allowed. The Court emphasized that public interest outweighs personal interest, and the policy decision was justified and equitable.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the judgment in Gajraj v. State of U.P. to YEIDA. 2. Validity of the Government Order (G.O.) dated 29th August 2014 and YEIDA Board Resolution dated 15th September 2014. 3. Fairness and reasonableness of the State Government's policy. 4. Rights of the allottees under existing lease agreements. 5. Public interest versus personal interest. Summary of Judgment: Issue 1: Applicability of Gajraj Judgment The Supreme Court examined whether the judgment in Gajraj v. State of U.P., which provided for additional compensation to farmers, could be applied to YEIDA. The Court noted that the Allahabad High Court had found the Gajraj decision to be specific to its facts and not a judgment in rem. However, the Supreme Court observed that similar principles were applied in subsequent cases like Savitri Devi and Savitri Mohan, where balancing equities by providing higher compensation was deemed appropriate. Issue 2: Validity of G.O. and YEIDA Resolution The Supreme Court scrutinized the G.O. dated 29th August 2014 and the YEIDA Board Resolution dated 15th September 2014. These were found to be based on recommendations by the Chaudhary Committee, which aimed to resolve farmers' agitations by offering additional compensation. The Court held that these policy decisions were in the larger public interest, taken after comprehensive deliberations with all stakeholders, including farmers and allottees. Issue 3: Fairness and Reasonableness of State Policy The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's finding that the State Government's policy was unfair, unreasonable, and arbitrary. The Court emphasized that the policy was formulated to address the ground realities and was guided by reason. It was designed to balance the interests of farmers and allottees while ensuring the continuation of development projects. Issue 4: Rights of Allottees under Lease Agreements The Court addressed the contention that YEIDA could not unilaterally modify the lease terms to increase the premium. It was held that policy changes in public interest could override private agreements. The Court noted that many allottees had initially supported the policy to resolve the farmers' issues, demonstrating a shift in stance only when asked to pay additional compensation. Issue 5: Public Interest vs. Personal Interest The Supreme Court reiterated that in cases of conflict between public interest and personal interest, public interest must prevail. The policy decision aimed at ensuring equitable treatment for farmers and facilitating stalled development projects was deemed to be in the larger public interest. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Allahabad High Court's judgment. It upheld the validity of the G.O. dated 29th August 2014 and the YEIDA Board Resolution dated 15th September 2014, dismissing the writ petitions filed by the respondents. The Court emphasized that the policy decisions were taken in the larger public interest and were not arbitrary or unreasonable.
|
