Yeida: Will use land in Bhatta-Parsaul for planned development

The high court said that there was no merit in reopening the matter as the issue had already been settled by previous court’s decisions

GREATER NOIDA: With the Allahabad High Court dismissing petitions of farmers, who had objected to the land acquisition proceedings in Bhatta-Parsaul and other villages, the Yamuna Expressway industrial development authority (Yeida) on Sunday said that it will use the agricultural land for a planned development.

While disposing of all the petitions, the high court, however, clarified that if, in any case, an award had not been passed earlier due to an interim order, the concerned authority would be required to complete the process in accordance with law. (HT Archive)

The ruling (released online on Sunday) brings an end to long-pending litigation over land acquisition for the Yamuna Expressway project in Gautam Budh Nagar, and is expected to provide certainty to ongoing and future development activities in the region, said officials.

“After this high court order, Yeida will be able to take the possession of the land in dispute, and develop it to offer the possession to residential plot allottees who couldn’t get the possession due to the high court case. The move will help us in resolving issues in many planned areas, including Sector 20, where the allottees need possession,” Shailendra Bhatia, additional CEO, Yeida told HT on Sunday.

Due to the farmers’ objections Yeida’s plan of a planned development had been hit.

On Sunday, the Authority (Yeida) said the move will help them in offering possession to the plot allottees who have been suffering for the last many years.

The high court said that there was no merit in reopening the matter as the issue had already been settled by previous court’s decisions.

A division bench of Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Kunal Ravi Singh rejected 14 connected petitions, led by Mahipal and others, which questioned the acquisition of land in villages Parsol, Niloni Shahpur, Raburpura, Chandpur and Acheypur of Dankaur tehsil.

The land was acquired between 2009 and 2011 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with the state invoking urgency provisions for development linked to the Yamuna Expressway, said Yeida officials.

The petitioners had stated in the court, “The urgency clause was wrongly applied, depriving them of the opportunity to file objections.”

The parts of the land were Abadi land used for residential purposes and cattle rearing, and so the possession had either not been taken properly or had not been handed over to the development authority, said officials.

Yeida, however, opposed the petitions, on the ground that the acquisition was part of a planned and integrated development of the Yamuna Expressway corridor. The Authority also told the court that land was urgently required for infrastructure and industrial development and that possession had been taken and compensation awards passed in all the cases covered by the petitions.

Yeida placed records before the court showing village-wise details of acquisition notifications, dates of possession and dates of awards. It argued that similar challenges to the same acquisition process had earlier been examined and dismissed, and that the legality of invoking urgency provisions had already been upheld.

After examining the records, the bench observed that the issues raised by the petitioners were no longer res integra (a new, untouched matter) and that the acquisition proceedings had already attained finality. It also noted that awards had been made and possession of the acquired land had been taken on different dates in all the villages involved.

“At this stage, the court is not inclined to entertain any further challenge to the acquisition proceedings,” the bench said, and dismissed all petitions.

While disposing of all the petitions, it, however, clarified that if, in any case, an award had not been passed earlier due to an interim order, the concerned authority would be required to complete the process in accordance with law.