9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 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. - L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B.R. GAVAI, JJ. For the Appellant : Ashok K. Mahajan, Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, AORs, C.A. Sundaram, C.U. Singh, Maninder Singh, Sr. Advs., Amar Gupta, Adv., Divyam Agarwal, AOR, Kamaljit Singh, Kunal Mimani, Aniket Aggarwal, Rohini Musa, Alka Sinha, Advs. and Anuvrat Sharma, AOR For the Respondent : Divyam Agarwal, Santosh Kumar - I, AORs, Lokesh Bhola, Adv., Archit Upadhayay, AOR, Kapil Bakshi, Charu Sharma, Advs., Akshat Kumar, Saroj Tripathi, AORs, Nitin Singh, Ankur Yadav, Kuldeep Yadav, Shashank Shekhar, Advs., Ankur Yadav, Abhisth Kumar, AORs, Anur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble 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 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 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. 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 thereaf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2015) 7 SCC 21. 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, 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 let ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the said writ petitions holding that: (i) the decision in the case of Gajraj (supra), as approved by 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 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. 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, 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, l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 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 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not open for YEIDA 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; (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; (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 v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2011) 7 SCC 493 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 allowing the writ petitions are thus: (i) That the lands which were acquired for YEIDA in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 216 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 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. 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 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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o take a decision as to whether benefit of additional compensation and allotment of abadi plot to the extent of 10% be also given to: (a) those landholders whose earlier writ petition challenging the notifications has been dismissed upholding the notifications; and (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. 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 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 officers of Industrial Development Department who have dealt with the relevant files) to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ution which was equitable to both sides. This Court found that the High 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. 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 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 v. Savitri Mohan (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Ors. (2016) 13 SCC 210, this Court was considering the judgment 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: 10. The only question for consideration is whether the matter is covered by the judgment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 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 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, 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 wants money from the Builders. The said representation states that: the Authority is not resolving the problems of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ' Organizations/Representatives and Memorandums/Demand Letters produced by them and the favour put forth by them during the personal hearing. 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 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 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. 3. It was informed by the representative of M/s. Supertech Pvt. Ltd. that the farmers are agitating in the entire area and they are interrupt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y challenging the different notifications, wherein, stay orders have been passed in the most of the Petitions, the circumstances which 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 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 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: 1. (a) If, all the farmers/Petitioners of a village related to the land acquired/purchased by the Yamuna Expressway Authority, withdraw their Petitions filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ible land owners, who fulfill the aforesaid conditions. The further proceedings be conducted as per the decision of Authority Board. 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 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. 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 obstruction in future in the development works of allottees and for not filing any claim in any Court against the acquisition of la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l 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 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 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 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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority should be held bound by the promise or representation made by it. 14. In Excise Commissioner, U.P. v. Ram Kumar [(1976) 3 SCC 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 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 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: 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 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 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 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tty of the policy, or substitute 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. 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; (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 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 1], this Court has further held as under: (SCC p. 17, para 41) 41. ... This Court s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re 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, 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 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 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. Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vernment 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. 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. 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. 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. The policy of the State Government as reflected in the said G.O. was not only i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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. 71. In the result, we pass the following order: (i) The appeals are allowed; (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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
