Aastha Pareek
The Supreme Court of India, on November 26 (Tuesday), in the case of Kali Charan and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others upheld the legality of land acquisitions carried out for the development of the Yamuna Expressway, concluding a long-standing dispute that pitted public development projects against private property rights. Initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the project involved acquiring large tracts of land to foster industrial and infrastructural growth in areas managed by the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA). While the government justified the acquisitions as urgent and necessary for public benefit, landowners and farmers contested the process, alleging violations of their rights under the Act.
The Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta approved the actions of the State to invoke the urgency clause under sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the 1894 Act for acquisition of land and depriving the landowners of their rig clause under Section 17 of the Act, which bypassed landowners’ right to object under Section 5A. Farmers argued that the urgency clause was misused, depriving them of due process. The Allahabad High Court previously sided with the petitioners in a related case involving NOIDA land, observing that the urgency clause had been wrongly applied and awarding additional compensation to the affected parties. This ruling fueled unrest among farmers impacted by the YEIDA acquisition, leading to prolonged litigation and stalled development projects.
The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirmed the principle that public interest can supersede private grievances if due compensation and equitable measures are ensured. The Court noted that balancing competing equities is crucial when third-party rights have been created and significant development has occurred on disputed lands. The Court also validated the government’s resolution to provide additional compensation and benefits to the farmers in exchange for withdrawing their objections, emphasizing that such measures reflected a pragmatic approach to resolving conflicts arising from large-scale public projects.
This decision highlights the judiciary’s role in mediating between developmental imperatives and individual rights while reinforcing the importance of fair compensation and adherence to legal procedures during land acquisition processes.
Case Name:- Kali Charan and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Case Number:- Civil Appeal No. Of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 15782 of 2023)
Bench:- Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta