Allahabad HC Rejects Challenge to YEIDA Land Acquisition, Says Issue Settled by Supreme Court

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the acquisition of land in Village Dankaur, Gautam Budh Nagar, holding that the notifications issued in 2009 for the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority’s (YEIDA) planned development projects have already been upheld through multiple rounds of judicial scrutiny, including by the Supreme Court.

The bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Kunal Ravi Singh held that the present challenges were no longer sustainable in view of binding precedent, while allowing the petitioners the limited liberty to contest the award independently.

The petitions, led by Ranjeet Singh and Others vs State of UP, questioned the notifications issued on October 16, 2009 under Sections 4, 17(1), and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the subsequent declaration issued on December 1, 2009 under Section 6. The petitioners, who claimed to be bhumidhars of Khasra Plot No. 333, argued that their land was being used for abadi purposes and should have been exempted. They contended that the compensation had neither been paid to them nor deposited before any court, and although the authorities recorded paper possession on February 5, 2010, they continued to remain in physical possession.

A significant part of their grievance centred on the award dated December 31, 2013. The petitioners submitted that under Section 11-A of the 1894 Act, the collector must make an award within two years of the declaration, failing which the acquisition lapses. Since the declaration was made in December 2009, the award in 2013 was time-barred, they argued.

Opposing the petitions, YEIDA submitted that the acquisition was undertaken for planned development and formed part of the larger Yamuna Expressway project. It argued that the State had sufficient material to invoke urgency provisions under Sections 17(1) and 17(4), thereby dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A. Counsel for YEIDA submitted that the possession was taken on February 5, 2010 and that the award was made on December 31, 2013 as part of the acquisition process.

YEIDA and the State relied heavily on the recent Supreme Court judgment in Kali Charan vs State of UP (2024), where the court upheld the acquisition concerning the same set of notifications. The Supreme Court had ruled that the urgency clause had been validly invoked for the project and granted a 64.7% enhancement in compensation. Importantly, the Supreme Court held that the only issue left open for affected landowners was the question of non-issuance of the final award, which they were free to challenge independently.

The High Court noted that the notifications challenged in the present petitions had already been upheld by multiple benches including in Natthi vs State of UP (2010), Yogesh Kumar vs State of UP (2013), and Dharmendra vs State of UP (2021), and the Supreme Court had affirmed the High Court’s view on more than one occasion. The bench reiterated that the larger legality of the acquisition, including the invocation of urgency powers, was no longer open to examination.

“Invocation of Section 17(4) cannot be said to be vitiated,” court quoted from earlier judgment, adding that the petitioners had failed to present any new grounds that would permit reopening the settled issues.

Concluding the proceedings, the bench held that the challenge to the notifications was “unsustainable” in view of the Supreme Court’s binding pronouncements. However, echoing paragraph 45 of the Supreme Court’s Kali Charan judgment, the High Court granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue an independent challenge to the award, if so advised.

All connected writ petitions and pending applications were accordingly disposed of.

Case Title: Ranjeet Singh and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others

Order Date: November 11, 2025

Bench: Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Kunal Ravi Singh