TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1637
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Rawat, Adv., Vishal Gupta, AOR, Tenzen Tashi Negi, Adv., Raj Kamal, Mudit Sharma, Tarun Gupta, Ravi Prakash, AORs, Sandeep Malik, Vagisha Nandini, Alok Kumar, Ajit Kumar Ekka, Subhash Siyag, Advs., Ravi Sikri, Sr. Adv., Vikalp Mudgal, Sandeep Kumar Jha, AORs, Arjun D. Singh, Shruti Jose, Advs., Vaibhav Manu Srivastava and Muddam Thirupathi Reddy, AORs JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This batch of appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 28th May, 2020, passed by the Allahabad High Court in various writ petitions filed by the allottees of plots of land. The writ petitions were filed challenging the demand of additional amount made by the Appellant herein-Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "YEIDA") in respect of plots of land leased out to the allottees; the resolution of the Board of YEIDA dated 15th September, 2014, and the Government Order dated 29th August, 2014, vide which the State Government had permitted YEIDA to recover the additional amount from the allottees. 3. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. For the sake of convenience, we will refer to the factual details as are found in Wr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t No. 1 that it was thereafter given possession of the aforesaid land and on it, a University known as Galgotias University was developed. 8. It was further the case of the Respondent No. 1 that subsequently YEIDA came out with a policy and gave an option to the Respondent No. 1 to deposit the entire premium amount in lump-sum rather than in installments. This was subject to certain rebate. It was stated that in accordance with the said policy, a lump-sum amount was worked out by YEIDA and the same was also paid by the Respondent No. 1. An undertaking was also taken from the Respondent No. 1 on an affidavit on 7th June, 2012, that in the event there was any clerical error or miscalculation of the lump-sum amount, the Respondent No. 1 would make good the deficiency. 9. The State of Uttar Pradesh had also made large-scale acquisition of lands for the benefit of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority ("NOIDA" for short) and Greater NOIDA. A number of writ petitions came to be filed by farmers challenging the said acquisition on various grounds before the Allahabad High Court. The main ground of challenge was that there was no urgency for acquiring the land and as such, invok....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner, Meerut Division, Meerut, vide its letter of the same day, i.e., dated 10th April, 2013, to meet various groups of farmers and submit a report. 12. Accordingly, the Commissioner held a meeting with various groups of farmers and the concerned District Magistrates, and submitted a report to the State Government on 16th July, 2013, recommending constitution of a High-Level Committee. 13. The State Government vide Office Memo dated 3rd September, 2013, constituted a High-Level Committee under the Chairmanship of Sri Rajendra Chaudhary, Minister of Prison, State of Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as "the Chaudhary Committee"). The Chaudhary Committee also consisted of the Divisional Commissioner of the concerned Division and the Collector of concerned District. The Chaudhary Committee submitted its recommendations to the State Government, inter alia, recommending for the payment of 64.7% additional amount as "no litigation incentive" to the farmers and for its reimbursement from the allottees in the appropriate proportion. 14. The State Government accepted the recommendations of the Chaudhary Committee and issued a Government Order dated 29th August, 2014 (hereinafte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s were acquired, Shri Nakul Dewan, Shri Sunil Gupta, Shri Ravindra Srivastava and Shri Sanjiv Sen, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents-original allottees of land. 21. The main contention of the Appellants in the present appeals is that the said G.O. was a policy decision of the State Government, taken in public interest. It is submitted that the said policy decision was taken after taking into consideration the farmers' agitation, the report of the Chaudhary Committee and all other relevant factors. It is submitted that in order to avoid acquisitions from being declared illegal, the Cabinet of Ministers of the State Government had taken a considered decision to adopt a formula, which was carved out by the judgment of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Gajraj (supra) and approved by this Court in the case of Savitri Devi (supra). 22. It is also the contention on behalf of the Appellants that the policy of the State Government was in consonance with the decision of this Court in the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2012) 3 SCC 1, wherein this Court has held that it is obligato....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is submitted that it is, in fact, the Respondents, who are the beneficiaries of the said measure and as such, having taken benefit of the said measure, they cannot be permitted to refuse to pay the additional compensation. 26. It is also submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the allottees had an option, either to make additional payment or to take refund with interest. Having opted not to seek refund with interest, it does not lie in the mouth of the Respondents to refuse to pay the additional compensation. 27. It is also submitted on behalf of Appellant-YEIDA that it had specifically submitted that stay orders passed by the High Court were in force in most of the cases related to residential plots, due to which the development work could not be completed. 28. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the farmers also support the stand of YEIDA. It is submitted that the builders had already recovered additional compensation from the homebuyers. As such, the additional compensation was already passed on by the builders to the homebuyers. It is submitted that if the contention of the Respondents is accepted, it will amount to nothing else but allowing of unjust enrichment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 the present case were under different notification than the notification which fell for consideration in the case of Gajraj (supra); (ii) That this Court in the case of Savitri Devi (supra) has categorically held that the directions given in the case of Gajraj (supra) were issued by the High Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and therefore, the same could not have been applied to the facts of the present case; (iii) That some other petitions filed before the High Court claiming the benefit on the basis of Gajraj (supra) were ultimately rejected by the High Court; (iv) That the State Government has to strictly act in accordance with the law or statutory provisions. It cannot act arbitrarily or in an unfair manner in breach of specific provisions of law; (v) That it is only for the Courts to grant equitable relief and the Government is not entitled to pass order on equitable ground of law. 33. We ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 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 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 38059 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 41339 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 47427 of 2011 and Writ Petition No. 47412 of 2011 are allowed and Notifications dated 26-5-2009 and 22-6-2009 and all consequential actions are quashed. The Petitioners shall be entitled for restoration of their land subject to deposit of compensation which they had received under agreement/award before the Authority/Collector. (ii) Writ Petition No. 17725 of 2010 Omveer v. State of U.P. (Group 38) relating to Village Yusufpur Chak Sahberi is allowed. Notifications dated 10-4-2006 and 6-9-2007 and all consequential actions are quashed. The Petitioners shall be entitled for restoration of their land subject to return of compensation received by them under agreement/award to the Collector. (iii) Writ Petition No. 47486 of 2011 (Rajee v. State of U.P.) of Group 42 r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....licable 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 conduct a thorough inquiry regarding the acts of Greater Noida (a) in proceeding to implement Master Plan 2021 without approval of NCRP Board, (b) decisions taken to change the land use, (c) allotment made to the builders, and (d) indiscriminate proposals for acquisition of land, and thereafter the State Government shall take appropriate action in the matter. (emphasis in original) 22. We may point out at this stage that in respect of all these three categories, the High Court has provided its justification for granting relief in the aforesaid nature. We shall be referring to the same while discussing the cases of the Appellants belonging to one or the other category. 35. After considering various judgments, this Court in the case of Savitri Devi (supra) observed thus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 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 this Court in Savitri Devi [Savitri Devi v. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 21 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 473], as claimed by the Appellant in which case the Respondents will be entitled to relief of higher compensation and allotment of land instead of quashing of acquisition proceedings. 39. Answering the aforesaid question, this Court in the said case observed thus: 13. A perusal of the above shows that compensation had already been disbursed to the extent of 76%. Thereafter, for the entire land of Village Chhapraula falling in Group 18, the relief granted is payment of additional compensation and allotment of land. As already noted, the part of the order where relief of quashing of notification has been given is not of the category of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 the Farmers. The main issue of farmers is that they want increased compensation, and for compensating the same, the Authority wants money from the Builders. Builders are not ready to pay this amount, due to which, we are stopping the construction works of Builders." During the discussion, it was said by the Company that "We are not against the farmers or against their rights and company gives it's consent on this fact that whatever the consent would be made out between the Authority and Government on the compensation amount of farmers, that would be accepted by the company. 43. The said letter/representation categorically states that the Company was not against the farmers or against their rights a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h 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 interrupting the development work. It is necessary to solve the problems of farmers. It was also informed by him that he will cooperate in the decision to be taken by the Government/Committee for disposal of the problems. 4. It was informed by the representatives of M/s. Silverline and other Units/Institutions that due to interrupting their development works as a result of the demands being raised by the farmers of the area, the project cost is getting escalated. Due to solving the problems of farmers, the investment will be increased in the area and in disposal of the same, they will provide their assistance. 5. Regarding the demand of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny 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 in the Hon'ble High Court or in any other Court and if they give written assurance for future that they will not file any claim against the Authority or it's allottees in any Court and will not cause any obstruction in the Development Works, then, like the Greater Noida Authority, the Authority may consider to give amount equivalent to 64.7% additional compensation in the form of No Litigation Incentive/Additional Compensation, which may be compensated proportionally from the concerned allottees and same may also be imposed proportionally in the costing of allotment of land available ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssary 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 land in future. Regarding the other demands, the Committee will give it's recommendation after further consideration. 50. It could thus be seen that the recommendations of the Chaudhary Committee were principally intended to resolve the issue between the farmers and the allottees, and to find out a workable solution to the problem. The Chaudhary Committee recommended similar treatment to be given to the farmers whose lands were acquired for YEIDA, as was given to the farmers whose lands were acquired for the benefit of NOID....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sitive 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 of equity must forever be present to the mind of the court, while considering the applicability of the doctrine. The doctrine must yield when the equity so demands if it can be shown having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that it would be inequitable to hold the Government or the public authority to its promise, assurance or representation. 13. The ambit, scope and amplitude of the doctrine of promissory estoppel has been evolved in this country over the last quarter of a century ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ales 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 the contrary they are to be construed as incorporating an implied term that such powers remain exercisable. This is broadly true of other public authorities also. But the status and functions of the Crown in this regard are of a higher order. The Crown cannot be allowed to tie its hands completely by prior undertakings is as clear as the proposition that the Courts cannot allow the Crown to evade compliance with ostensibly binding obligations whenever....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh 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 to YEIDA and withdraw all the litigations. 56. It could thus be seen that the recommendations, which were accepted by the State Government and formulated in the policy, were made taking into consideration the interests of all the stakeholders. As held by this Court, it is not only the interest of a small Section of the allottees which should weigh with the Government, but the Government should also give due weightage to the interest of the lar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 sitting in the jurisdiction cannot sit in judgment over the commercial or business decision taken by parties to the agreement, after evaluating and assessing its monetary and financial implications, unless the decision is in clear violation of any statutory provisions or perverse or taken for extraneous considerations or improper motives. States ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nterest 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. v. RBI, (1992) 2 SCC 343], wherein it was observed as under: (SCC p. 375, para 31) 31. ... Courts are not to interfere with economic policy which is the function of experts. It is not the function of the courts to sit in judgment over matters of economic policy and it must nece....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 in the larger public interest but also in the interest of the Respondents. 66. We further find that the Respondents have indulged into the conduct of approbate and reprobate. They have changed their stance as per their convenience. When the....