The Allahabad High Court quashes the acquisition of 157 hectares of land in Saberi village in Gautam Budh Nagar by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority for the Noida Extension Residential Scheme.
May 13: The Allahabad High Court annuls acquisition of 72 hectares of land by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority in Surajpur village in Dadri.
May 30: The Allahabad High Court cancels the acquisition of 170 hectares of land in Gulistanpur in Greater Noida.
In all these cases, the court said acquisitions had been made arbitrarily and illegally by invoking the ?urgency clause?. The UP government had invoked the clause of urgency under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This allowed it to dispense with section 5-A of the Act, which allows for the right of the landowner to be heard by the land acquiring agency. The UP development authorities argued that the land being acquired was needed for public purpose and for planned industrial development; further, if the land wasn?t acquired quickly, there was sure to be unauthorised construction and illegal encroachment. Similarly, if a public inquiry was allowed, it would take several years, which would defeat the ?public purpose? of the acquisition.
What critics have been asking is if, with reference to the concerned projects, it was really ?urgent? for the government to acquire land for public purpose. Further, in Noida, there is the debate about whether such ?urgency? should be allowed for industrial projects only or whether it should be extended to providing housing for the millions who do not have access to affordable housing in our burgeoning cities.
Many voices are at play in this discourse: government circles, affected farmers, real estate developers, middle class customers who have booked flats in housing complexes with undecided fates, the Greater Noida Authority that is at the centre of this melting pot, etc. Different voices raise different questions, making the air in the state swirl with ?urgency? these days.
The one thought that comes to mind in this messy and unnerving affair is the ?urgent? need to have a clear and exact definition of ?public purpose?. Without that, the defective provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, will continue to confuse all: the judiciary, the official machinery and the public at large, be it the affected farmers or the urban investors. ?If the said Act is amended to give a clearer picture, we would be less confused as would be the judiciary, which is interpreting the provisions in its own way and we in our own,? says an official of the Greater Noida Authority, hoping that the Centre shows some real ?urgency? to end all confusion over the ?urgency?.