Savitri Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors. (part of the Gajraj batch of Noida land-acquisition appeals)
Background
This appeal (C.A. No. 4506/2015, filed by Savitri Devi) was one of several hundred appeals arising out of land acquired by the U.P. Government in Noida and Greater Noida under 2008 notifications for "planned industrial development," using the emergency/urgency clause (Section 17) that bypassed landowners' normal right to object. Conflicting Division Bench rulings of the Allahabad High Court on whether that urgency clause was validly invoked were referred to a Full Bench, which in the lead case Gajraj vs. State of U.P. held the urgency invocation unjustified but, rather than quashing most acquisitions outright, gave landowners enhanced compensation and a right to allotment of developed residential ("Abadi") land, quashing acquisition entirely only for three villages where no development work had occurred. Landowners (including Savitri Devi) and the acquiring authorities both appealed the Full Bench's "middle path" to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court (per A.K. Sikri, J.) dismissed the landowners' appeals and affirmed the Full Bench's balanced approach, holding that given the peculiar facts, substantial development already carried out, compensation already paid, and long delay by many landowners in challenging decades-old notifications, it was not a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Court summarized the relief actually available to landowners as a 64.7% increase in compensation (without prejudice to claiming still higher compensation through the ordinary statutory machinery) plus allotment of developed Abadi land up to 10% of the land acquired, while expressly directing that this outcome was based on unique facts and would not serve as precedent for future cases. All appeals in the batch, including Civil Appeal No. 4506 of 2015, were disposed of in terms of the Full Bench judgment, and related contempt petitions were also disposed of.
Lesson Learnt
Even where a court finds that the government wrongly invoked an "urgency" clause to acquire land without hearing objections, the court may still decline to unwind acquisitions where substantial time has passed, development has already occurred, and compensation has been paid, instead ordering enhanced compensation and in-kind relief rather than reversing the acquisition; landowners should challenge such notifications promptly rather than waiting years.