Allahabad High Court upholds land acquisition for expansion of Noida Airport

The Allahabad High Court recently upheld the land acquisition for the expansion of the Noida International Airport at Jewar in Gautam Buddha Nagar district.

Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Kunal Ravi Singh found that the acquisition process had been carried out in full compliance with the Land Acquisition Act 2013, which governs compulsory acquisition of land while ensuring safeguards.

Hence, it rejected a batch of petitions filed by a group of villagers challenging the process on the ground of violation of right to property under Article 300A.

"In the present case, this Court has found, upon detailed examination, that the entire acquisition process has been carried out strictly in accordance with the Act, 2013, which is a valid law enacted by Parliament specifically to govern land acquisition while safeguarding the interests of landowners and affected families through mandatory SIA, public hearings, consent requirements, fair compensation, and rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements... there is no deprivation of property otherwise than by authority of law, and no violation of Article 300-A is made out. The constitutional challenge accordingly fails,” the Court said.

In its order dated April 28, the Court noted that the 12 farmers (petitioners) had raised multiple objections, including alleged non-compliance with statutory provisions under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, improper assessment of land, and concerns over displacement of abadi areas (residential settlements).

However, it found no material irregularity in the process and emphasised that the statutory framework was followed at every stage from notification to award of compensation.

Significantly, the Court observed that even the petitioners did not oppose the acquisition of agricultural land per se, and their grievance was limited to displacement-related concerns.

“The petitioners' own case is that they do not oppose the acquisition of their agricultural land. Even the challenge to displacement of abadi is a private interest that must, upon due compliance with the R&R framework under the Act, 2013, yield to the public interest of airport expansion. The R&R Scheme provides comprehensive entitlements and the awards have been passed. This principle directly supports dismissal of the present petitions,” held the Court.

It also underscored the principle that courts must balance individual property rights with larger public interest in infrastructure projects.

Citing settled law on judicial restraint in land acquisition matters, the Court observed,

“It is, however, natural that in most of these cases, the persons whose lands are acquired are not happy with the same. They seek to challenge the acquisition in the courts. While the rights of such persons have to be scrupulously respected, an acquisition for the benefit of the public at large is not to be lightly quashed. Extraordinary reasons must exist for doing so. The court, while balancing the competing interests must also bear in mind that the public, which is the greater beneficiary, is a silent party in all such proceedings.”

The Court also noted that compensation awards had already been passed and disbursement initiated, with affected landowners having the statutory remedy of seeking enhanced compensation through a formal challenge before the designated authority.

Thus, the Court disposed of the petitions with directions to the authorities to strictly implement the R&R (rehabilitation and resettlement) scheme during the execution of Phase II and Phase III of the international airport project.

It further directed that possession of abadi land be taken only after all rehabilitation measures, including the allotment of developed plots, are completed.

Advocate Mahesh Chand Sharma appeared for the petitioners.

Chief Standing Counsel (CSC) Aditya Bhushan Singhal, Additional Chief Standing Counsel Devesh Vikram and Standing Counsel Fuzail Ahmad Ansari represented the State respondents.

Senior Counsel Rahul Agarwal along with advocates Abhay Pratap Singh and AB Singhal represented the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA).

[Read Order]