Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition For the Yamuna Expressway, Justifies Invoking Urgency Clause

On November 26, 2024, the Supreme Court (SC) bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta upheld Uttar Pradesh’s land acquisition proceedings commenced under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, for the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) project in Gautam Budh Nagar of the State. The two-judge bench of the SC justified the State’s action to invoke the urgency provisions under Section 17(1) and Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. The bench said, “The present acquisition forms part of the integrated development plan for the Yamuna Expressway initiated by YEIDA. The objective of the acquisition is to integrate land development with the Yamuna Expressway’s construction, thereby promoting overall growth serving the public interest. Consequently, the Expressway and the development of adjoining lands are considered to be inseparable components of the overall project. Yes, the invocation of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was legal and justified in this case. The urgency clause was applied in accordance with the planned development of the Yamuna Expressway.” 

The SC was hearing a batch of 35 appeals filed by two sets of appellants, the landowners and YEIDA. The landowners (one set of appellants) challenged the Allahabad High Court decision in Kamal Sharma vs. State of U.P. through Special Secretary Industrial Development and Ors., which upheld the acquisition under urgency provisions, considering the importance of the project. The YEIDA (another set of appellants) challenged various decisions of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court invalidating the self-same land acquisition proceedings for integrated development of notified areas including the decision in Shyoraj Singh and Others vs. State of U.P., which said that the urgency clause was improperly invoked. The SC bench approved the dictum in the Kamal Sharma case and said that the Kamal Sharma case referred to the top court’s Nand Kishore Gupta and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others case where it observed, “…executive's subjective satisfaction in dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A can be subjected to judicial review only on the grounds of insufficient material to justify dispensing with the enquiry or malice in the impugned action, neither of these elements exist in the present case. 

After hearing the matter, the bench said, “However, it cannot be gainsaid that Yamuna Expressway is a vital heartline providing access to millions of commuters from National Capital Delhi to Agra. The Expressway also connects the prestigious upcoming Jewar Airport to adjoining areas. To assume that the Yamuna Expressway is a simple highway without any scope for simultaneous development of the adjoining lands for commercial, residential and other such activities would be unconceivable. A project of such magnitude and enormity would definitely require the involvement of the adjoining areas which would lead to an overall development of the State of Uttar Pradesh at large.” It added, “The view expounded by the Division Bench in Kamal Sharma, which relied upon Nand Kishore, sets forth the correct proposition of law, and the judgment of the High Court in Shyoraj Singh, which relied on Radhy Shyam, did not present a correct legal interpretation. The judgment in Shyoraj Singh is set aside as it does not lay down good law and was passed while overlooking at the earlier precedents, rendering it per incuriam.”

Further, the bench said, “As observed in the case of Nand Kishore, the development of land parcels for industrial, residential, and recreational purposes is complementary to the construction of the Yamuna Expressway. The objective of the acquisition is to integrate land development with the Yamuna Expressway's construction, thereby promoting overall growth serving the public interest. Consequently, the Expressway and the development of adjoining lands are considered to be inseparable components of the overall project…the invocation of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was legal and justified in this case. The urgency clause was applied in accordance with the planned development of the Yamuna Expressway, as held in Nand Kishor.” Lastly, the top court dismissed the appeals filed by the landowners and allowed the appeals filed by YEIDA.