Court Voids Land Acquisition for Violating NCRPB Act; Orders Compensation, Halts Unapproved Development Plans.

The HC invalidated land acquisition notifications for certain villages due to non-compliance with NCRPB Act, improper invocation of urgency clauses under the Land Acquisition Act, and colourable exercise of power by the Greater Noida Authority. It ordered additional compensation and plot allotments to affected landowners and halted development under the unapproved Master Plan 2021. An inquiry into the Authority's actions was also mandated. However, acquisitions in villages with established third-party rights and substantial developments were upheld. The court favored the precedent disapproving the unjustified invocation of Section 17(4) over conflicting prior judgments.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Requirement of approval from the National Capital Regional Planning Board (NCRPB).
2. Invocation of urgency clause under Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act.
3. Colourable exercise of power.
4. Taking of possession.
5. Impact of Section 11A on the acquisition process.
6. Compliance with Section 17(3A) of the Land Acquisition Act.
7. Waiver and acquiescence by the petitioners.
8. Effect of third-party rights and construction.
9. Conflicts in views of Division Benches.
10. Reliefs to be granted.

Summary:

1. Requirement of Approval from NCRPB:
The court noted that the Sub-Regional Plan must be in conformity with the Regional Plan and Functional Plans, as per Section 19 and 20 of the NCRPB Act, 1985. The Greater Noida Authority's Master Plan 2021 had not been cleared by the NCRPB, making the steps taken towards land acquisition and development activities non-compliant with the NCRPB Act, 1985.

2. Invocation of Urgency Clause under Section 17(1) and 17(4):
The court examined whether the urgency clause was validly invoked. It was found that the State Government did not apply its mind to the necessity of dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A. The court held that mere urgency under Section 17(1) does not automatically justify dispensing with Section 5A. The subjective satisfaction for invoking Section 17(4) was found to be vitiated due to lack of proper application of mind and irrelevant grounds.

3. Colourable Exercise of Power:
The court determined that the Greater Noida Authority acted in a colourable exercise of power by acquiring land ostensibly for industrial development but actually for transferring it to private builders for residential purposes. This was against the object of the 1976 Act, which aims at industrial development.

4. Taking of Possession:
The court found that the possession memos filed by the State did not constitute valid possession as they lacked signatures of landholders or independent witnesses. Thus, the possession was not taken in accordance with law.

5. Impact of Section 11A:
The court held that Section 11A, which mandates the making of an award within two years from the date of the declaration, does not apply to cases where Section 17 has been invoked and possession has been taken.

6. Compliance with Section 17(3A):
The court noted that the issue of whether Section 17(3A) is mandatory is pending before a larger bench of the Supreme Court. However, following existing precedents, the court held that non-compliance with Section 17(3A) does not vitiate the acquisition.

7. Waiver and Acquiescence by the Petitioners:
The court rejected the argument of waiver and acquiescence, stating that the acceptance of compensation under duress does not amount to a voluntary relinquishment of rights. The petitioners had not waived their right to challenge the acquisition.

8. Effect of Third-Party Rights and Construction:
The court acknowledged that third-party rights and substantial developments had taken place in some villages, making it inequitable to quash the acquisition. However, in villages where no third-party rights were created and no substantial developments took place, the notifications were quashed.

9. Conflicts in Views of Division Benches:
The court approved the view taken in Har Karan Singh's case, which held that the invocation of Section 17(4) was not justified, over the view in Harishchand's case, which upheld the notifications.

10. Reliefs to be Granted:
The court ordered additional compensation to be paid to the petitioners, similar to the settlement in village Patwari. It also directed the allotment of developed plots to the landowners to the extent of 10% of their acquired land. The Greater Noida Authority was directed not to carry on development under the Master Plan 2021 until it is approved by the NCRPB. An inquiry was ordered into the actions of the Greater Noida Authority regarding the implementation of the Master Plan 2021, land use changes, and indiscriminate land acquisition proposals.

---