Sidharth vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others

AFR
(Judgment reserved on 21.05.2026)
(Judgment delivered on 29.05.2026)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 20436 of 2026
Sidharth
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 4 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shiv Sagar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Tejasvi Misra
Along with :
WRIT - C No. - 20011 of 2026
Jay Veer And Another
Versus
State of U.P. and 4 others
1.
WRIT - C No. - 20024 of 2026
Chandra Pal And 4 Others
Versus
State of U.P. and 4 others
2.
WRIT - C No. - 20026 of 2026
Naresh Pal And 6 Others
Versus
State of U.P. and 4 others
3.
WRIT - C No. - 20032 of 2026
Satish Pal And 3 Others
Versus
State of U.P. and 4 others
4.
WRIT - C No. - 20035 of 2026
Amar Pal Singh And 23 Others
Versus
State of U.P. and 4 others
5.

2
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
Table of Contents
Section Description Para No.
A. Appearance of Counsel 1
B. Prayer 2
C. Facts of the Case 3
D. Submissions on Behalf of Petitioners 4
Submissions on Behalf of the respondent –
E. 5
GDA
Submissions on Behalf of the State -
EE. 5.4
respondents
Discussion and Findings
F. 6 – 6.15
I. Nature and Purpose of the Project 6.1
Effect of Earlier Proceedings Under the
II. 6.2
Land Acquisition Act of 1894
Section 11 – Preliminary Notification and
III. 6.3
its Legal Effect
SIA Process – Statutory Framework and
IV. 6.4
Compliance
V. Section 15 – Hearing of Objections 6.5
VI. Section 19 – Declaration of Acquisition 6.6
Section 21 – Notice to Persons Interested
VII. 6.7
and Opportunity of Hearing
Sections 23 and 26 to 31 – Enquiry, Award
VIII. 6.8
and Compensation
The 80% Purchase/Consent Requirement
IX. 6.9
under the Policy, 2023
Rehabilitation and Resettlement – Statutory
X. 6.10
Compliance
Right to Property under Article 300-A and
XI. 6.11
Safeguards under the Act, 2013
Non-Invocation of the Urgency Clause
XII. 6.12
Under Section 40 of the Act, 2013
Judicial Review of Acquisition – Governing
XIII. 6.13
Principles
Precedent in WRIT-C No. 41339 of 2025
(Vijay Pal Singh) reported in 2026 (5) ADJ
320 (DB):
XIV.
6.14
XV. Remedy under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 6.15
Conclusion
G. 7
Final Orders
H. 8

3
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
(Per: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.)
A. APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL:-
1. Heard Shri Shiv Sagar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri
Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State -
respondents, and Shri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Shri Tejasvi Misra, learned counsel for the respondent - Ghaziabad
1
Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "GDA").
1.1. All the aforesaid writ petitions, being WRIT-C No. 20436 of 2026,
WRIT-C No. 20011 of 2026, WRIT-C No. 20024 of 2026, WRIT-C No.
20026 of 2026, WRIT-C No. 20032 of 2026 and WRIT-C No. 20035 of
2026, raise a common challenge to the notification dated 07.03.2025
issued under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2
2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2013") and the subsequent
notification dated 17.04.2026 issued under Section 21(1) and 21(2) of
the Act, 2013, pertaining to the proposed acquisition of land in
connection with an Integrated Township Project in Village Mahrauli,
Pargana Dasna, District Ghaziabad, initiated by the respondent-GDA
under the Integrated Township Policy introduced by the State
Government in the year 2005. The facts and the questions of law arising
in all the writ petitions are substantially similar and interlinked. With the
consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, all the writ
petitions were heard together analogously and are being disposed of by
this common judgment. For the purpose of brevity, facts are drawn
mainly from WRIT-C No. 20436 of 2026, since the narration of facts
1 GDA
2 The Act, 2013

4
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
therein sufficiently represents the factual matrix common to all the
petitions.
B. PRAYER:-
2. The instant writ petitions have been filed challenging the land
acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 2013. The petitioners
have specifically challenged the notification issued under Section 11(1)
of the Act, 2013 dated 07.03.2025 in respect of land situated at Village
Mahrauli, Pargana Dasna, District Ghaziabad. They have also challenged
the subsequent notification issued under Section 21(1) and 21(2) of the
Act, 2013 dated 17.04.2026. According to the petitioners, after issuance
of the preliminary notification, they submitted their objections on
05/09.05.2025 within the prescribed period of 60 days. However, those
objections were rejected by respondent No. 3 (Collector, Ghaziabad) and
respondent No. 4 [Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition),
District Ghaziabad] through an undated order, without proper
consideration of the issues raised. The petitioners allege that the entire
acquisition proceedings are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the
provisions of the Act, 2013 as well as the Integrated Township Policy,
2023 of the State Government.
C. FACTS OF THE CASE:-
3. Before adverting to the submissions advanced by the parties, it is
necessary to set out the factual background of the present matter as
emerging from the record.
3.1. The acquisition proceedings in question have been initiated in
connection with an Integrated Township Project proposed by the
respondent-GDA under the Integrated Township Policy, 2005 of the
State Government, framed for development of integrated townships
through participation of private developers. The said policy was later
amended in the years 2014 and 2023. The amended policy, i.e., the Uttar

5
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
3
Pradesh Township Policy, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "the Policy,
2023"), came into force in the month of July, 2023. The Policy, 2023
prescribes specific qualifications and conditions for developers,
including the mandatory requirement that the developer must first
purchase or obtain consent for at least 80% of the land from tenure
holders before acquisition proceedings can be initiated for the remaining
20% of land through the State authorities.
3.2. Clause 3.4 of the Policy, 2023 deals with the procedure of Land
Assembly. Under this process, the developer or consortium is required to
purchase and assemble the land for the proposed township on its own.
The developer must also acquire and develop the land required for
approach roads at its own expense. Only in extreme or unavoidable
circumstances, a maximum of 20% of the total project land may be
acquired under the Act, 2013 through compulsory government
acquisition proceedings, in case tenure holders do not agree to transfer
their land in favour of the developer.
3.3. The record further reveals that earlier acquisition proceedings had
been initiated for the same integrated township project under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 through a notification under Section 4 dated
19.12.2013, followed by a declaration under Section 6 dated 20.10.2014.
However, those proceedings lapsed because the concerned developers
failed to deposit the acquisition cost and no award could be declared
within the prescribed period. The petitioners had also filed Writ-C No.
55473 of 2015, in which they claimed that the earlier proceedings had
lapsed.
3.4. In the aforesaid backdrop, the notification dated 07.03.2025 was
issued under Section 11(1) of the Act, 2013 in relation to land in
question situated at Village Mahrauli, Pargana Dasna, Tehsil Ghaziabad,
District Ghaziabad. Through the said notification, the State Government
expressed its intention to acquire private land measuring 2.86844
hectares comprising 23 khasra numbers for the development of an
3 The Policy, 2023

6
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
Integrated Township Scheme under the supervision of the respondent -
GDA, for a public purpose connected with planned urban development.
3.5. The notification records that before its issuance, a Social Impact
4
Assessment (hereinafter referred to as "SIA") study was conducted
through the authorised agency and the report was approved by the State
Government on 23.03.2024. The summary of the SIA Report as
incorporated in the preliminary notification is as follows:
(i) compensation for the acquired land shall be determined in
accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013;
(ii) private land measuring 2.86844 hectares comprising 23 khasra
numbers is proposed to be acquired;
(iii) in case trees standing over the acquired land are required to be
cut, three times the number of trees shall be planted by the
acquiring body;
(iv) appropriate action regarding the structures affected by the
acquisition proceedings shall be taken after assessment by the
competent technical department;
(v) approximately 280 land owners are likely to be affected by the
proposed acquisition proceedings;
(vi) no public property or community resource is affected by the
proposed acquisition;
(vii) proceedings shall be undertaken after preparing the
5
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme in accordance with the
provisions of the Act, 2013.
3.6. After consideration of the SIA Report and the recommendations
made therein, the Government formed an opinion that the land was
required for public purpose and accordingly acquisition proceedings
were set in motion under the Act, 2013.
3.7. The preliminary notification further provides that persons interested
in the land or affected by the proposed acquisition were entitled to file
objections under Section 15 of the Act, 2013 within 60 days from the
date of its publication. Under Section 11(4) of the Act, 2013, no person
shall, without prior approval of the Collector, transfer or create any
4 SIA
5 R&R Scheme

7
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
encumbrance over the notified land from the date of publication of the
preliminary notification till completion of the acquisition proceedings.
3.8. In response to the notification dated 07.03.2025, the petitioners
filed objections on 05/09.05.2025. The said objections were considered
and rejected by the competent authority. Thereafter, by notification dated
05.03.2026 issued under Section 19(1) of the Act, 2013, a declaration
was made in respect of 2.030021 hectares of land at Village Mahrauli for
the Integrated Township Scheme. It may be noted that out of the
originally notified 2.86844 hectares, the developer had in the meanwhile
directly purchased 0.838419 hectares from tenure holders through
mutual agreement, and accordingly the Section 19 declaration was
confined to the remaining 2.030021 hectares. Subsequently, a general
notice under Section 21(1) and 21(2) of the Act, 2013 was issued on
17.04.2026, fixing 18.05.2026 as the last date for submission of claims
and objections before the Collector/ADM (Land Acquisition),
Ghaziabad, with hearing scheduled on 21.05.2026.
3.9. According to the report of the Tehsildar/Sub-Divisional Officer
placed on record, out of the total project area of 46.5212 hectares, the
developer had already purchased 33.9013 hectares (approximately 73%)
from land owners through willing agreements, and consent of more than
7% of the affected families had also been separately obtained. The
acquisition under Section 11 was accordingly limited to 2.86844
hectares, which is less than 20% of the total project area, fully consistent
with the mandate of the Policy, 2023.
3.10. Aggrieved by the notifications dated 07.03.2025 and 17.04.2026,
the aforenoted writ petitions have been filed.
D. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:-
4. Shri Shiv Sagar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that
the entire acquisition proceedings are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to

8
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
the Integrated Township Policy, 2005 as well as the provisions of the
Act, 2013. He submitted that the developers had not fulfilled the
mandatory pre-condition of prior purchase of, or consent for, 80% of the
land before initiating compulsory acquisition proceedings.
4.1. He states that the present dispute relates to an integrated township
project known as “Park Town” situated in Village Mahrauli. The
petitioners are owners and tenure holders of plots in question situated in
the said village. The total area of the proposed project in Village
Mahrauli was only about 3.2827 hectares, whereas acquisition
proceedings have been initiated for about 2.86844 hectares. This itself
clearly shows that 80% land had never been purchased by the developers
in respect of Village Mahrauli. He contended that the respondents
wrongly clubbed lands purchased by different developers in different
villages in order to falsely show compliance of the 80% requirement,
whereas the project in Village Mahrauli was separate and independent
and could not be merged with acquisitions relating to other villages.
4.2. Learned counsel further argued that the objections filed by the
petitioners were rejected mechanically without proper consideration and
without recording any findings on the issues raised. He pointed out that
the rejection order does not even bear any date, which reflects total non-
application of mind. He submitted that the petitioners had specifically
objected that no valid 80% consent existed, that the market value had not
been properly revised, and that the petitioners were residing upon and
using the land for their livelihood.
4.3. It was also argued that many consent deeds and sale transactions
were executed only after issuance of the notification and therefore such
documents could not be considered for satisfying the mandatory 80%
requirement under the policy. Learned counsel further submitted that the
earlier acquisition proceedings had already lapsed due to non-deposit of
acquisition cost, and the present proceedings are merely an attempt to
benefit private developers by misusing the powers of compulsory

9
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
acquisition. He contended that no R&R scheme was prepared as required
under the Act, 2013.
4.4. In the backdrop of these grounds, learned counsel submitted that the
entire acquisition proceedings smacks a colourable exercise of power,
violating the constitutional right of the petitioners guaranteed under
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, and prayed for quashing of
the impugned notifications dated 07.03.2025 and 17.04.2026.
E. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE-RESPONDENTS:-
5. Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-
respondents, vehemently opposed the writ petitions and submitted that
the acquisition proceedings have been initiated strictly in accordance
with the provisions of the Act, 2013 and there is no illegality in the
process adopted by the authorities. He submitted that the State
Government, through the respondent-GDA, initiated acquisition
proceedings for development of an Integrated Township Scheme in
Village Mahrauli, Pargana Dasna, which is a project undertaken for
planned urban development and a genuine public purpose.
5.1. He submitted that a preliminary notification under Section 11(1)
was first issued on 07.03.2025, followed by a declaration under Section
19 on 05.03.2026, and thereafter a general notice under Section 21(1)
and 21(2) was issued on 17.04.2026, granting all interested persons an
opportunity to submit their claims and objections before the Collector.
The notice fixed 18.05.2026 as the deadline and 21.05.2026 as the
hearing date.
5.2. Learned counsel submitted that the Social Impact Assessment study
was duly conducted in accordance with the Act, 2013, and the report was
approved by the appropriate Government on 23.03.2024 before the
preliminary notification was issued. All statutory requirements including
publication of notifications, invitation of objections, grant of hearing,

10
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
and appointment of Administrator for Rehabilitation and Resettlement
have been complied with by the State authorities.
5.3. He submitted that the petitioners have an adequate remedy for
claiming compensation and raising their grievances before the competent
authority under the provisions of the Act, 2013 and urged that no
interference is called for in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
EE. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT – GDA:-
5.4. Shri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Tejasvi Misra, learned counsel for the respondent -GDA, while opposing
the writ petitions precisely submitted that the very purpose of issuing a
notice under Section 21 of the Act, 2013 is to give a fair and reasonable
opportunity to all interested persons to submit their claims with respect
to compensation for the acquired land, and such claims are required to be
considered on the basis of all relevant factors pertaining to the
acquisition proceedings.
5.5. Learned counsel submitted that pursuant to the notice under Section
21, interested persons are also entitled to make submissions before the
Collector under Section 22 of the Act, 2013, whereupon the Collector is
required to conduct an enquiry and pass an award with regard to: (a) the
true area of the land; (b) compensation determined under Section 27
along with the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award under Section 31;
and (c) apportionment of compensation amongst all persons interested.
He also drew the Court's attention to Sections 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the
Act, 2013 governing determination of market value and compensation.
5.6. He submitted that under the Integrated Township Policy, the project
is to be treated as one unit. The developers had already purchased more
than 80% of the land under the entire project of 46.5212 hectares
through mutual negotiations with tenure holders, and acquisition

11
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
proceedings under the Act, 2013 were initiated only for the remaining
2.86844 hectares, which constituted less than 20% of the total project
area, which is fully in consonance with the Policy, 2023.
5.7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon
the judgment and order dated 28.04.2026 passed by this Court in WRIT-
C No. 41339 of 2025 (Vijay Pal Singh and 12 others v. State of U.P. and
6
6 others) reported in 2026 (5) ADJ 320 (DB), wherein this Court, after
exhaustively examining an identical range of issues including SIA
compliance, consent satisfaction, Section 15 objection procedure, R&R
scheme adequacy, and the right to property under Article 300-A,
dismissed similar challenges to land acquisition proceedings under the
Act, 2013.
F. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:-
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and having
carefully perused the record, the pleadings, the documents placed on
record, and the judgment cited at bar, this Court proceeds to consider and
examine the respective contentions.
I. Nature and Purpose of the Project:-
6.1. The acquisition in question has been undertaken for the
development of an Integrated Township Scheme in Village Mahrauli,
Pargana Dasna, District Ghaziabad, through the respondent-GDA under
the Integrated Township Policy, 2005/2023 of the State Government. The
record clearly shows that the land was acquired for public purposes such
as planned urban development, housing, and urban infrastructure to meet
the growing needs of the National Capital Region, and this Court finds
no valid ground to dispute it. The Act, 2013 itself recognises, in Section
2(1)(e), that project for planned development or the improvement of
village sites or any site in the urban areas or provision of land for
residential purposes for the weaker sections in rural and urban areas
6 2026 (5) ADJ 320 (DB)

12
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
constitutes a public purpose. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
7
Ramniklal N. Bhutta and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others ,
the courts, while balancing competing interests in matters of land
acquisition, must also bear in mind that the public, which is the greater
beneficiary, is a silent party in all such proceedings, and extraordinary
reasons must exist for quashing an acquisition for public benefit.
II. Effect of Earlier Lapsed Proceedings Under the Land Acquisition
Act of 1894 :-
6.2. The petitioners have sought to bank upon the lapse of the earlier
acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as a
ground to impugn the present proceedings. This contention is wholly
untenable in law. Section 24 of the Act, 2013 deals with the specific
consequences of lapsed proceedings under the Act of 1894. Where
proceedings under the Act of 1894 have lapsed, the appropriate
Government is expressly empowered by Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013
to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013 afresh, if it
so chooses. The initiation of fresh proceedings under the Act, 2013 after
lapse of earlier proceedings under the Act of 1894 is therefore not only
permissible but is expressly contemplated by the legislature. The
petitioners cannot derive any vested right from the lapse of prior
proceedings so as to permanently immunise their land from acquisition
for a public purpose. The fresh proceedings are independent proceedings
initiated under the Act, 2013, and must be judged entirely on their own
merits under that Act, 2013.
III. Section 11 – Preliminary Notification and its Legal Effect:-
6.3. Section 11 of the Act, 2013 governs the publication of the
preliminary notification and its effects thereafter. Sub-section (1)
requires the appropriate Government, when it appears that any land is
required or is likely to be required for a public purpose, to publish a
preliminary notification along with details of the land to be acquired, in
7 AIR 1997 SC 1236

13
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
the Official Gazette, in two daily newspapers (one regional language), in
the local language in the offices of the District Collector, SDM and
Tehsil, on the website, and in the affected areas. Section 11 provides as
under:
"11. Publication of preliminary notification and power of officers.–(1)
Whenever, it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any
area is required or likely to be required for any public purpose, a
notification (hereinafter referred to as preliminary notification) to that
effect along with details of the land to be acquired in rural and urban
areas shall be published in the following manner, namely:—
(a) in the Official Gazette;
(b) in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality of such area
of which one shall be in the regional language;
(c) in the local language in the Panchayat, Municipality or
Municipal Corporation, as the case may be and in the offices of
the District Collector, the Sub-divisional Magistrate and the
Tehsil;
(d) uploaded on the website of the appropriate Government;
(e) in the affected areas, in such manner as may be prescribed.
(2) Immediately after issuance of the notification under sub-section
(1), the concerned Gram Sabha or Sabhas at the village level,
municipalities in case of municipal areas and the Autonomous
Councils in case of the areas referred to in the Sixth Schedule to the
Constitution, shall be informed of the contents of the notification
issued under the said sub-section in all cases of land acquisition at a
meeting called especially for this purpose.
(3) The notification issued under sub-section (1) shall also contain a
statement on the nature of the public purpose involved, reasons
necessitating the displacement of affected persons, summary of the
Social Impact Assessment Report and particulars of the Administrator
appointed for the purposes of rehabilitation and resettlement under
section 43.
(4) No person shall make any transaction or cause any transaction of
land specified in the preliminary notification or create any
encumbrances on such land from the date of publication of such
notification till such time as the proceedings under this Chapter are
completed:
Provided that the Collector may, on the application made by the
owner of the land so notified, exempt in special circumstances to be
recorded in writing, such owner from the operation of this sub-
section:
Provided further that any loss or injury suffered by any person due to
his wilful violation of this provision shall not be made up by the
Collector.
(5) After issuance of notice under sub-section (1), the Collector shall,
before the issue of a declaration under section 19, undertake and
complete the exercise of updating of land records as prescribed within
a period of two months.”

14
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
6.3.1. In the present case, the preliminary notification dated 07.03.2025
was issued under Section 11(1) of the Act, 2013 in respect of land
measuring 2.86844 hectares at Village Mahrauli. The notification was
published in newspapers including Dainik Jagran and Amar Ujala on
12.03.2025. It contains the summary of the SIA Report as required under
Section 11(3). The restriction on transactions under Section 11(4) started
from the date of publication, and this Court finds that all the
requirements of Section 11 were fully complied with.
IV. The SIA Process – Statutory Framework and Compliance:-
6.4. The Social Impact Assessment process is the first and foundational
requirement of the Act, 2013 before any land acquisition can be initiated.
It serves the vital purpose of ensuring that the impact of acquisition on
affected communities is properly assessed, minimised and mitigated.
Section 4 of the Act, 2013 sets out the mandatory framework for conduct
of the SIA study. It provides as under:
"4. Preparation of Social Impact Assessment study.–(1) Whenever the
appropriate Government intends to acquire land for a public purpose,
it shall consult the concerned Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal
Corporation, as the case may be, at village level or ward level, in the
affected area and carry out a Social Impact Assessment study in
consultation with them, in such manner and from such date as may be
specified by such Government by notification.
(2) The notification issued by the appropriate Government for
commencement of consultation and of the Social Impact Assessment
study under sub-section (1) shall be made available in the local
language to the Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as
the case may be, and in the offices of the District Collector, the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate and the Tehsil, and shall be published in the
affected areas, in such manner as may be prescribed, and uploaded on
the website of the appropriate Government:
Provided that the appropriate Government shall ensure that adequate
representation has been given to the representatives of Panchayat,
Gram Sabha, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may
be, at the stage of carrying out the Social Impact Assessment study:
Provided further that the appropriate Government shall ensure the
completion of the Social Impact Assessment study within a period of
six months from the date of its commencement.
(3) The Social Impact Assessment study report referred to in sub-
section (1) shall be made available to the public in the manner
prescribed under section 6.

15
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
(4) The Social Impact Assessment study referred to in sub-section (1)
shall, amongst other matters, include all the following, namely:—
(a) assessment as to whether the proposed acquisition serves
public purpose;
(b) estimation of affected families and the number of families
among them likely to be displaced;
(c) extent of lands, public and private, houses, settlements and
other common properties likely to be affected by the proposed
acquisition;
(d) whether the extent of land proposed for acquisition is the
absolute bare- minimum extent needed for the project;
(e) whether land acquisition at an alternate place has been
considered and found not feasible;
(f) study of social impacts of the project, and the nature and cost
of addressing them and the impact of these costs on the overall
costs of the project vis-a-vis the benefits of the project:
Provided that Environmental Impact Assessment study, if any, shall
be carried out simultaneously and shall not be contingent upon the
completion of the Social Impact Assessment study.
(5) While undertaking a Social Impact Assessment study under sub-
section (1), the appropriate Government shall, amongst other things,
take into consideration the impact that the project is likely to have on
various components such as livelihood of affected families, public
and community properties, assets and infrastructure particularly
roads, public transport, drainage, sanitation, sources of drinking
water, sources of water for cattle, community ponds, grazing land,
plantations, public utilities such as post offices, fair price shops, food
storage godowns, electricity supply, health care facilities, schools and
educational or training facilities, anganwadis, children parks, places
of worship, land for traditional tribal institutions and burial and
cremation grounds.
(6) The appropriate Government shall require the authority
conducting the Social Impact Assessment study to prepare a Social
Impact Management Plan, listing the ameliorative measures required
to be undertaken for addressing the impact for a specific component
referred to in sub-section (5), and such measures shall not be less than
what is provided under a scheme or programme, in operation in that
area, of the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State
Government, in operation in the affected area.”
6.4.1. Section 5 of the Act, 2013 mandates a public hearing at the
stage of Social Impact Assessment. It provides as under:
"5. Public hearing for Social Impact Assessment.–Whenever a Social
Impact Assessment is required to be prepared under section 4, the
appropriate Government shall ensure that a public hearing is held at
the affected area, after giving adequate publicity about the date, time
and venue for the public hearing, to ascertain the views of the
affected families to be recorded and included in the Social Impact
Assessment Report."

16
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
6.4.2. Section 7 of the Act, 2013 requires the appropriate Government to
get the SIA Report evaluated by an independent multi-disciplinary
Expert Group. The composition of the Expert Group under Section 7(2)
includes two non-official social scientists, two representatives of
Panchayat/Gram Sabha, two experts on rehabilitation and a technical
expert. Section 7(5) provides that if the Expert Group is of the opinion
that the project will serve a public purpose and the potential benefits
outweigh the social costs, it shall make specific recommendations,
within two months, as to whether the extent of land proposed to be
acquired is the absolute bare minimum needed for the project and
whether there are no less displacing options available. Section 8 of the
Act, 2013 then requires the appropriate Government to examine the SIA
Report along with the Expert Group's report and satisfy itself that there
is a legitimate and bona fide public purpose, and that only the minimum
area required for the project is proposed to be acquired.
6.4.3. In the present case, the SIA study was conducted through the
authorised State Social Impact Assessment Agency and the report was
submitted to the State Government. A public hearing was held as
required under Section 5 of the Act, 2013. The SIA Report was then
considered and approved by the appropriate Government on 23.03.2024
as mandated under Section 8 of the Act, 2013. The summary of the SIA
Report was duly incorporated in the preliminary notification dated
07.03.2025 as required under Section 11(3). The SIA Report found that:
(i) the proposed acquisition serves the public purpose; (ii) 2.86844
hectares comprising 23 khasra numbers is the minimum land required;
(iii) no public property or community resource is affected; (iv)
approximately 280 land owners are affected; (v) no family is likely to be
displaced; and (vi) R&R Scheme shall be prepared as required under the
Act, 2013. This Court finds that the SIA process was conducted in full
compliance with Sections 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the Act, 2013 and the
corresponding provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement

17
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
8
(Uttar Pradesh) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules,
2016’). No specific infirmity in the conduct of the SIA process has been
pointed out.
6.4.4. This Court is fortified in this conclusion by the judgment of this
Court in Vijay Pal Singh (supra), wherein, while examining the SIA
process in a similar land acquisition matter, it was observed that Section
5 of the Act, 2013 limits the purpose of public hearing only to ascertain
the views of the affected families for inclusion in the SIA Report, and
that the Act, 2013 does not contemplate adjudication of individual
objections at the SIA stage. It was further held in paragraph 6.3.4 of the
judgment that:
"6.3.4. A perusal of the record reflects that the Section 4 Notification was
duly issued on 30.06.2023, nominating Gautam Buddha University as the
SIA Agency, and was published in three newspapers on 06.07.2023. Public
hearings were conducted on 19.12.2023 at Village Khwajpur and on
21.12.2023 at Village Neemka Shahjahanpur. Under Section 5, the purpose
of the public hearing is limited to ascertaining the views of the affected
families to be recorded in the SIA Report; the Act does not contemplate
adjudication of individual objections at the SIA stage. Insofar as the Expert
Group's recommendation for a re-survey is concerned, the record reveals
that PwC, the technical consultant, was specifically asked to examine
whether displacement could be avoided. PwC confirmed by letter dated
22.02.2024 that Villages Thora and Neemka Shahjahanpur fall within the
proposed runway alignment and that no alternative alignment exists. Village
Khawajpur was confirmed to lie between the taxiways of two runways and
the proposed aircraft parking area, making its retention a threat to aviation
safety. The Expert Group's suggestion was thus duly acted upon. The State
Government, in compliance with Section 8(3) of the Act, 2013, read with
Rule 11(3) of the Rules, 2016, granted approval to the SIA Report on
08.01.2025. The challenge to the SIA process is accordingly rejected.”
6.4.5. The above principle applies with full force to the present case.
The challenge to the SIA process is accordingly rejected.
Expert Group's Report (Section 7) and Section 8 Compliance:-
6.4.6. This Court has also considered the question whether the
mandatory requirement of appraisal of the SIA Report by an independent
Expert Group under Section 7 of the Act, 2013 has been complied with
in the present case. Section 7(1) requires the appropriate Government to
ensure that the SIA Report is evaluated by an independent multi-
disciplinary Expert Group constituted by it. Section 7(2) prescribes the
8 the Rules, 2016

18
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
composition of such Expert Group, which must include two non-official
social scientists, two representatives of the Panchayat or Gram Sabha,
two experts on rehabilitation, and a technical expert in the subject
relating to the project. Section 7(4) and 7(5) require the Expert Group to
make its recommendations within two months from the date of its
constitution, specifying whether the project serves a public purpose,
whether the potential benefits outweigh the social costs, whether the
extent of land proposed to be acquired is the absolute bare minimum
needed, and whether there are no less displacing options available.
6.4.7. In the present case, the Expert Group's report has not been
separately produced on record as a distinct document. However, this
Court is of the considered view that the absence of the Expert Group's
report as a separate document before this Court does not by itself
invalidate the acquisition proceedings, for the following reasons. Firstly,
the preliminary notification dated 07.03.2025 records that the SIA
Report was approved by the appropriate Government on 23.03.2024
under Section 8 of the Act, 2013. The approval of the SIA Report by the
appropriate Government under Section 8 necessarily presupposes and
implies that the Expert Group's evaluation under Section 7 was
completed before such approval was granted, since Section 8 itself
requires the appropriate Government to examine the SIA Report along
with the Expert Group's report before taking a decision to proceed with
acquisition. Secondly, the SIA Report on record contains all the findings
and recommendations that are required to be made under Section 7(5),
namely: that the project serves a public purpose; that the potential
benefits outweigh the social costs and adverse social impacts; that the
extent of land proposed to be acquired is the absolute bare minimum
needed; and that no less displacing alternative is available. Thirdly, and
most importantly, the petitioners have not specifically pleaded or alleged
before this Court that no Expert Group was constituted, or that the
Expert Group's evaluation was not carried out, or that the Expert Group
made any recommendation adverse to the acquisition under Section 7(4).
In the absence of any such specific challenge supported by any material,

19
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
it is not open to this Court, at this stage of judicial review under Article
226, to presume non-compliance with Section 7 merely from the non-
production of the Expert Group's report as a separate document. The
9
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Brijendra Singh , has held that
in writ jurisdiction the Court does not sit as a Court of appeal over the
decision of the acquiring authority and must proceed on a presumption
of regularity of official acts unless the contrary is specifically pleaded
and established. This Court accordingly holds that Section 7 compliance
has been substantially demonstrated on the record and the challenge, if
any, on this ground is not available to the petitioners at this stage.
V. Section 15 – Hearing of Objections:-
6.5. Section 15 of the Act, 2013 provides for hearing of objections to the
proposed acquisition. It confers a statutory right upon any person
interested in the land to raise objections within sixty days from the date
of publication of the preliminary notification. Section 15 of the Act,
2013 provides as under:
“15. Hearing of objections.- (1) Any person interested in any land which has
been notified under sub-section (1) of Section 11, as being required or likely
to be required for a public purpose, may within sixty days from the date of
the publication of the preliminary notification, object to-
(a) the area and suitability of land proposed to be acquired;
(b) justification offered for public purpose;
(c) the findings of the Social Impact Assessment report.
(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in
writing, and the Collector shall give the objection an opportunity of being
heard in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf or by an
Advocate and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such
further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect
of the land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of Section 11, or
make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the
appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections,
together with the record of the proceedings held by him along with a separate
report giving therein the approximate cost of land acquisition, particulars as
to the number of affected families likely to be resettled, for the decision of
that Government.
(3) The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections made
under sub-section (2) shall be final.”
9 (1974) 2 SCC 461

20
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
6.5.1. In the present case, the petitioners filed their objections on
05/09.05.2025, within the prescribed period of 60 days from the date of
publication of the preliminary notification on 12.03.2025. Those
objections were considered by the competent authority. Thereafter, the
declaration under Section 19 was issued on 05.03.2026 and the notice
under Section 21 was issued on 17.04.2026.
6.5.2. The petitioners have raised a precise contention that the order
rejecting their objections filed under Section 15 of the Act, 2013 does
not bear any date, and was therefore passed without proper application
of mind and in a mechanical manner. This Court has carefully considered
this submission.
6.5.3. Section 15(2) of the Act, 2013 casts a clear duty upon the
Collector to give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or
through an authorised representative or advocate, and thereafter to make
a report to the appropriate Government containing his recommendations
on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings, along with
a separate report giving the approximate cost of land acquisition and
particulars as to the number of affected families likely to be resettled.
Section 15(3) then requires the appropriate Government to take a final
decision on the objections, and provides that such decision shall be final.
6.5.4. The sequence of events in the present case is as follows. The
preliminary notification under Section 11(1) was issued on 07.03.2025
and published in newspapers on 12.03.2025. The petitioners filed their
objections on 05/09.05.2025 within the prescribed period of 60 days.
The declaration under Section 19(1) was issued on 05.03.2026. This
sequence itself establishes that the Section 15 process was undertaken
and completed before the Section 19 declaration was issued, since
Section 19(1) expressly provides that the appropriate Government shall
be satisfied, "after considering the report, if any, made under sub-section
(2) of section 15", before making the declaration. The issuance of the

21
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
Section 19 declaration on 05.03.2026 is therefore conclusive evidence
that the Collector's report under Section 15(2) had been submitted and
the appropriate Government had taken a decision on the objections under
Section 15(3) before that date.
6.5.5. The absence of a date on the face of the rejection order can be an
irregularity, but not an illegality which may travel upto the root of the
matter. The distinction between an irregularity and an illegality in
administrative proceedings is well established. In Prabhakar v. Joint
10
Director of Sericulture Department , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that an administrative act does not become void merely because of a
procedural irregularity, unless the irregularity has caused prejudice to the
party complaining of it. In the present case, the petitioners have been
heard under Section 15(2), their objections have been duly considered,
and a decision has been taken. The absence of a date on the order has not
prevented the petitioners from knowing the outcome of their objections,
nor has it caused any prejudice to them in challenging the acquisition.
They have, in fact, been able to prefer these writ petitions and have been
heard at length by this Court.
6.5.6. Furthermore, the scope of objections under Section 15(1) is
limited to only three issues: (a) the area and suitability of land proposed
to be acquired; (b) the justification offered for public purpose; and (c)
the findings of the Social Impact Assessment Report. Section 15(3)
makes the decision of the appropriate Government on such objections
final. The petitioners have not demonstrated before this Court that any of
their objections fell within these three categories and was wrongly
rejected on merits. The petitioners' real grievance is about the amount of
compensation they will receive and the terms on which their land is
being taken. These issues do not come under the ambit of Section 15.
These issues are to be decided by the Collector in the award proceedings
under Sections 21 to 23 of the Act, 2013. If the petitioners are not
satisfied with the award, they have a remedy to challenge it before the
10 (2015) 15 SCC 1

22
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority under
Section 64 of the Act, 2013.
6.5.7. In Vijay Pal Singh (supra), this Court, after examining the Section
15 procedure in full detail, including the text of Section 15 and Rule 23
of the Rules, 2016, held in paragraph 6.6.2 as follows:
“6.6.2. From the record, it is evident that notices dated 03.07.2025
were duly issued under Rule 23 of the Rules, 2016 fixing 08.07.2025
for hearing of objections from Village Neemka Shahjahanpur and
10.07.2025 for Villages Khwajpur and Thora. The public notice was
published in newspapers on 03.07.2025 and local public
announcements were made. Some of the petitioners, including
representatives of the Sangharsh Samiti, appeared and were afforded
a personal hearing. After due consideration, the Collector passed a
reasoned order dated 11.07.2025, dismissing the objections on the
ground that they fell outside the limited statutory scope of Section
15(1), which confines objections only to the area and suitability of
land, justification for public purpose, and findings of the SIA Report.
The Collector's report was forwarded to and approved by the State
Government on 29.07.2025 under Section 15(3). The decision of the
appropriate Government under Section 15(3) is final. This Court finds
no infirmity in the procedure followed under Section 15 of the Act,
2013. ……….”
(Emphasis supplied)
6.5.8. The principles laid down in Vijay Pal Singh (supra) are fully
applicable here. The challenge to the Section 15 rejection order merely
on the ground that it does not bear a date is therefore rejected.
VI. Section 19 – Declaration of Acquisition:-
6.6. Section 19 of the Act, 2013 governs the publication of the
declaration of acquisition. Sub-section (1) provides that when the
appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report under
Section 15(2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, a
declaration shall be made to that effect. Sub-section (6) provides that
such declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is required for
a public purpose. Section 19(7) provides that where no declaration is
made under sub-section (1) within twelve months from the date of the
preliminary notification, the notification shall be deemed to have been
rescinded. In the present case, the preliminary notification was issued on

23
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
07.03.2025 and the declaration under Section 19(1) was issued on
05.03.2026, i.e., within twelve months. This Court finds no violation of
Section 19 of the Act, 2013.
VII. Section 21 – Notice to Persons Interested and the Opportunity of
Hearing:-
6.7. Section 21 of the Act, 2013 provides for issuance of a general
notice to all persons interested in the acquired land, granting them an
opportunity to appear before the Collector and submit their claims
regarding compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement. Section 21
provides as under:
“21. Notice to persons interested.–(1) The Collector shall publish the
public notice on his website and cause public notice to be given at
convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the
Government intends to take possession of the land, and that claims to
compensations and rehabilitation and resettlement for all interests in
such land may be made to him.
(2) The public notice referred to in sub-section (1) shall state the
particulars of the land so needed, and require all persons interested in
the land to appear personally or by agent or advocate before the
Collector at a time and place mentioned in the public notice not being
less than thirty days and not more than six months after the date of
publication of the notice, and to state the nature of their respective
interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to
compensation for such interests, their claims to rehabilitation and
resettlement along with their objections, if any, to the measurements
made under section 20.
(3) The Collector may in any case require such statement referred to
in sub-section (2) to be made in writing and signed by the party or his
agent.
(4) The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the
occupier, if any, of such land and on all such persons known or
believed to be interested therein, be entitled to act for persons so
interested, as reside or have agents authorised to receive service on
their behalf, within the revenue district in which the land is situated.
(5) In case any person so interested resides elsewhere, and has no
such agent, the Collector shall ensure that the notice shall be sent to
him by post in letter addressed to him at his last known residence,
address of place or business and also publish the same in at least two
national daily newspapers and also on his website.”
6.7.1. In the present case, a general notice under Section 21(1) and 21(2)
of the Act, 2013 was duly issued on 17.04.2026, fixing 18.05.2026 as the

24
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
last date for submission of claims and objections, with hearing scheduled
on 21.05.2026 before the Collector/ADM (Land Acquisition),
Ghaziabad. All affected persons were thus afforded a full and reasonable
opportunity to appear and submit their claims before the Collector in
accordance with the Act, 2013.
6.7.2. The importance of the Section 21 notice as a cornerstone of the
fair procedure under the Act, 2013 was authoritatively stated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Tirupati Developers v. The Union
11
Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Others , wherein the Supreme
Court held in paragraphs 5 and 8 as under:
"5. It appears to us that the very object of issuing notice under Section
21 of the 2013 Act is to give a fair and reasonable opportunity to the
interested persons to submit their claim with respect to the
compensation for the acquired land. Such compensation can be
claimed on the basis of various factors that may be relevant in the
context of acquisition. The interested persons are further entitled to
make a statement before the Collector in terms of Section 22 of the
2013 Act, whereupon the Collector is obligated to hold an inquiry on
the objections submitted by the interested persons and pass an award
with respect to: (a) the exact area of the acquired land; (b) the
compensation as may be determined under Section 27 of the Act; and
(c) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons
known or believed to be interested in the land.
8. For a fair and just determination of compensation within the
statutory scheme of the 2013 Act, it is imperative that a fair
opportunity of hearing is given to the persons whose rights are
affected. This requires that the interested person is given an effective
opportunity to put forth his or her claim. Any deviation to the
prescribed procedure, especially when it has seemingly affected the
interested person, would militate with the very object of legislative
mandate."
6.7.3. The Bombay High Court, in Sheshrao Venkatrao Shinde v. State
12
of Maharashtra and Others, also held as under, while dealing with a
challenge at the stage of notice under Section 21 of the Act, 2013:
“2. On 31-01-2022 the notice has been issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer/
Land Acquisition Officer, Nilanga under Section 21 of the Right to Fair
compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "Act of 2013"). After the notice under
Section 21 of the Act of 2013, the petitioner has got every right to raise
objection and demonstrate his interest and/or claim. Section 21 prescribes
for publication of notice stating that the Government intends to take
possession of the land, and that claims to compensations and rehabilitation
and resettlement for all interests in such land may be made to him. Sub-
11 Civil Appeal No.4952 of 2023 [Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.13402 of 2022] decided on
07.08.2023
12 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 5296 (Writ Petition No. 2375 of 2022, decided on 17.02.2022)

25
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
section (2) to Sub-section (5) of Section 21 of the Act of 2013 provides the
procedure of referring the statement to be made in writing and signed by the
party. Section 22 of the Act of 2013 further imposes obligation on the
person to make statement containing so far as may be practicable, the name
of every other person possessing any interest in the land. Under Section 23
of the Act of 2013, the Collector has to proceed to enquire into the
objections, if any, which any person interested has stated pursuant to a
notice given under Section 21 of the Act of 2013, the same has to be
decided.
3. The petitioner has earlier raised objection, petitioner may again raise
objection to the said notice. The authority has to consider the objections on
its own merits and consider the stand of all parties, documents on record,
the representations, earlier decisions by adhering to the provisions of
Sections 21 and 22 of the Act of 2013.”
6.7.4. In the present case, a notice under Section 21 has already been
issued, giving the petitioners full opportunity to place their claims and
objections before the Collector. Therefore, the petitioners are not without
a legal remedy. Any issue relating to compensation, land measurement,
or rehabilitation benefits can be effectively and adequately decided by
the Collector under Sections 21, 22 and 23 of the Act, 2013.
VIII. Sections 23 and 26 to 31 – Enquiry, Award and Compensation:-
6.8. Section 23 of the Act, 2013 requires the Collector to hold an
enquiry on the day fixed and to consider all objections stated pursuant to
the notice under Section 21, and to pass an award specifying: (a) the true
area of the land; (b) the compensation determined under Section 27
along with the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award under Section 31;
and (c) the apportionment of compensation among all interested persons.
Sections 26 to 30 govern determination of market value and
compensation. Section 26 requires the Collector to determine the market
value of the land on the date of notification under Section 11, taking the
highest of: (a) the market value specified under the Indian Stamp Act,
1899 for the registration of sale deeds; (b) the average sale price for
similar land in the nearest village/vicinity, determined on the basis of
half the sale deeds showing highest sale prices in the preceding three
years; or (c) consented compensation in case of PPP/private company
acquisitions. Section 30(1) requires that solatium equivalent to 100% of

26
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
the total compensation be added to the final award. Section 31 requires
the Collector to pass a Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award for each
affected family in terms of the Second Schedule to the Act, 2013.
6.8.1. In the present case, proceedings under Sections 21, 22 and 23 of
the Act, 2013 are at the stage of enquiry and award, the Section 21 notice
having been issued on 17.04.2026, with hearing having been scheduled
on 21.05.2026 before the Collector/ADM (Land Acquisition),
Ghaziabad. The petitioners were at liberty to appear before the Collector
and submit their claims in accordance with law. The Collector is directed
to consider all claims and objections on their merits and to pass the
award strictly in accordance with the provisions of Sections 23 to 31 of
the Act, 2013.
IX. The 80% Purchase/Consent Requirement Under the Integrated
Township Policy, 2023:-
6.9. The principal ground of challenge raised by the petitioners is that
the mandatory precondition under the Policy, 2023 of prior purchase of
or consent for 80% of the land had not been fulfilled in respect of Village
Mahrauli before the preliminary notification was issued. This Court has
carefully examined this contention in the light of the material on record.
6.9.1. According to the report of the Tehsildar/Sub-Divisional Officer
and the instructions dated 14.05.2026 sent by Additional District
Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Ghaziabad, the total area of the
Integrated Township Project is 46.5212 hectares. Out of this, the
developer had purchased 33.9013 hectares (approximately 73%) from
land owners through willing agreements, and an additional 7% of the
affected families had given their consent. The acquisition under Section
11 was accordingly limited to 2.86844 hectares. This represents less than
20% of the total project area of 46.5212 hectares, well within the
permissible limit under the Policy, 2023.

27
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
6.9.2. The said compliance is not merely asserted by the respondents in
their pleadings. It is independently and contemporaneously documented
by a letter dated 03.03.2025 addressed by M/s Utility Estates Private
Limited - the developer of the Integrated Township "Park Town" to the
Secretary, Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad, specifically in
the context of providing consent-related information prior to initiation of
compulsory acquisition proceedings. The said letter, which is on record
before this Court, specifically states that t he total area of the project is
46.5212 hectares. The developer has purchased 33.9013 hectares, i.e.,
73% of the land, from the affected families through their consent. From
the remaining land, consent of more than 7% of the affected families has
been obtained. Thus, in the project as a whole, purchase/consent of more
than 80% of the affected families has been obtained. The list of the
remaining 2.86844 hectares of land to be acquired was enclosed
therewith.
6.9.3. This letter dated 03.03.2025 is a significant piece of documentary
evidence for three reasons. First, it establishes that the developer's
declaration of 80% compliance preceded the Section 11 preliminary
notification dated 07.03.2025 by four days, confirming that the
mandatory precondition was satisfied before the compulsory acquisition
was set in motion. Second, it demonstrates that the 80% computation
was made with reference to the total project area of 46.5212 hectares and
not village-wise, which is the correct approach under the Policy, 2023 as
already held above. Third, it identifies the acquiring body as the GDA
and confirms that the land after acquisition is to be transferred to the
GDA for the Integrated Township Scheme, establishing beyond doubt
that the acquisition is for a public purpose and not for the private benefit
of the developer.
6.9.4. The argument of the petitioners that the 80% calculation should
be made only for Village Mahrauli cannot be accepted. The Policy, 2023
treats the Integrated Township as one single project. An Integrated
Township may cover more than one village, and the land purchase

28
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
process under Clause 3.4 is meant for the entire project, not village-wise.
Therefore, if the developer has purchased and obtained consent for more
than 80% of the total project land, the remaining land up to 20% can be
acquired under the Act, 2013. The Policy does not require separate 80%
compliance for each village.
6.9.5. Moreover, as is apparent from the record, subsequent to issuance
of the preliminary notification for 2.86844 hectares, the developer
further purchased 0.838419 hectares directly from tenure holders
through mutual agreement, thereby reducing the area for compulsory
acquisition under Section 19 to only 2.030021 hectares. This itself
demonstrates that the process of private purchase was ongoing and that
the authorities were seeking to minimise compulsory acquisition as far
as possible, which is precisely the spirit of the Policy, 2023.
6.9.6. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Court in the
judgment in Vijay Pal Singh (supra). In that case, while dealing with the
requirement of 70% consent under Section 2(2) of the Act, 2013 for a
PPP project, the Court held that consent has to be calculated on the basis
of the total number of affected families in the entire project, and not
separately village-wise on the basis of landholdings. The Court further
approved the earlier judgment in Kichhu Ram and Another v. State of
13
U.P. and 5 Others , wherein, it was held as under:
“11. According to the petitioners, consent has not been obtained from atleast
70% of the affected families in terms of Section 2(2) of the Act. The counsel
for the respondents, on the basis of information received, have placed
reliance upon a report of the Collector dated 05.01.2019 to contend that there
are six villages that would fall within the area covered for the purpose of the
project and the number of families to be affected would be 5926 out of which
4235 families have already given their consent for the project. The
percentage of affected families which have given consent comes to 72%,
which is more than 70%. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that no consent has been obtained and atleast consent of 70% of
the affected families is required under Section 2(2) of the Act, is not
sustained.”
6.9.7. The principle that consent or purchase percentage must be
calculated for the entire project, and not separately for each village, fully
13 Writ-C No. 6499 of 2019 decided on 08.04.2019, reported as 2019 SCC OnLine All 5071

29
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
applies in the present case. Therefore, the objection that the 80%
requirement of prior purchase/ consent was not fulfilled, is rejected.
X. Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R Scheme) – Compliance with
Statutory Requirements:-
6.10. The petitioners have argued that no R&R Scheme has been
prepared as required under the Act, 2013. This argument is
misconceived. Section 16 of the Act, 2013 requires the Administrator for
Rehabilitation and Resettlement to prepare the draft R&R Scheme upon
publication of the preliminary notification under Section 11. Section 18
requires the Commissioner's approval of the R&R Scheme, and Section
19 requires that the summary of the R&R Scheme be published
simultaneously with the declaration. In the present case, the SIA Report
itself records that the R&R Scheme will be prepared in accordance with
the Act, 2013 and that no family is likely to be displaced due to the
acquisition. The Government Order dated 06.08.2014 has already
designated the Sub-Divisional Officer/Deputy Collector as the
Administrator for Rehabilitation and Resettlement for all acquisitions
within the relevant tehsil.
6.10.1. The proceedings under Sections 21, 22 and 23 of the Act, 2013,
including the R&R Award under Section 31, are yet to be completed.
The argument that no R&R Scheme exists cannot therefore be used to
interdict proceedings at this stage. The petitioners' grievances regarding
rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements can be fully addressed
during the award proceedings under Section 23 read with Section 31 of
the Act, 2013. This Court directs that when passing the award, the
Collector shall also pass the R&R Award in terms of the Second
Schedule to the Act, 2013 for each affected family.
XI. The Right to Property Under Article 300-A and the Safeguards
Under the Act, 2013:-

30
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
6.11. The petitioners have invoked Article 300-A of the Constitution of
India, which provides that no person shall be deprived of his property
save by authority of law. This Court fully recognises that the right to
property, though no longer a fundamental right after the 44th
Constitutional Amendment, remains a constitutional right under Article
300-A and is entitled to the full protection of law. The right to property
under Article 300-A has been expansively interpreted by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Another v. Bimal
14
Kumar Shah and Others , wherein it was held that the constitutional
protection under Article 300-A comprises at least seven intersecting sub-
rights or procedural safeguards, namely: (i) the right to notice; (ii) the
right to be heard; (iii) the right to a reasoned decision; (iv) the duty to
acquire only for a public purpose; (v) the right of restitution or fair
compensation; (vi) the right to an efficient and expeditious process; and
(vii) the right of conclusion. The Supreme Court held that all these sub-
rights must be satisfied before a person is deprived of his property.
6.11.1. In the present case, upon detailed examination, this court finds
that the entire acquisition process has been carried out in accordance
with the Act, 2013. Specifically: (i) notice was given under Section 11
(right to notice); (ii) objections were invited under Section 15 and heard,
and a fresh opportunity has been given under Section 21 (right to be
heard); (iii) a reasoned declaration has been issued under Section 19
(right to a reasoned decision); (iv) the acquisition is for planned urban
development which is a recognised public purpose under Section 2(1)(e)
of the Act, 2013 (acquisition only for public purpose); (v) compensation
is to be determined under Sections 26 to 30 of the Act, 2013 with 100%
solatium under Section 30(1) (right to fair compensation); (vi) strict
timelines under Sections 14, 19(7) and 25 are being followed (efficient
and expeditious process); and (vii) the award and possession will be
taken upon completion of proceedings under Sections 23 to 38 of the
Act, 2013 (right of conclusion). All seven sub-rights as articulated in
Kolkata Municipal Corporation (supra) are thus not merely present in the
14 (2024) 5 SCR 831

31
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
statutory scheme of the Act, 2013 but have been and are being complied
with in the present acquisition. Thus, the constitutional challenge under
Article 300-A accordingly fails.
XII. Non-Invocation of the Urgency Clause Under Section 40 of the Act,
2013:-
6.12. This Court deems it appropriate to record that the present
acquisition was not carried out under the urgency clause provisions of
Section 40 of the Act, 2013. Section 40 of the Act, 2013 confers special
power upon the appropriate Government, in cases of urgency, to enable
the Collector to take possession of land even before the award is passed.
On the contrary, the entire acquisition in the present case has been
processed through the normal, full and complete procedure prescribed
under the Act, 2013, beginning from the SIA Notification under Section
4, through the Expert Group's appraisal under Section 7, the
Government's examination under Section 8, the preliminary notification
under Section 11, the hearing of objections under Section 15, the
preparation of the R&R Scheme under Section 16, the declaration under
Section 19, and the general notice under Section 21, i.e. each step having
been duly completed before proceeding to the next.
6.12.1. Far from disclosing any procedural shortcut or undue haste, the
non-invocation of the urgency clause under Section 40 is, in fact,
conclusive evidence of the bona fide intent of the respondent authorities
to follow the complete due process of law without curtailing the rights of
the petitioners at any stage. As held by this Court in Vijay Pal Singh
(supra): "The very fact that no urgency clause was invoked means that
the fullest possible statutory procedure was followed without any
curtailment of the petitioners' rights at any stage. Far from disclosing
any illegality, the absence of the urgency clause is conclusive evidence
of the bona fide intent of the respondent authorities to follow the
complete due process of law." This circumstance is a further factor
supporting the validity of the acquisition.

32
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
XIII. Judicial Review of Acquisition for Public Purpose – Governing
Principles:-
6.13. The scope of judicial review in matters of land acquisition for
public purpose is well-settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.
15
Somawanti and Others v. State of Punjab and Others , (a Constitution
Bench judgment) held as under:
“40. ……….. If the purpose for which the acquisition is being made is not
relatable to a public purpose, then a question may well arise whether, in
making the declaration, there has been, on the part of the Government, a
fraud on the power conferred upon it by the Act. In other words, the
question would then arise whether that declaration was merely a colourable
exercise of the power conferred by the Act, and, therefore, the declaration is
open to challenge at the instance of the party aggrieved. To such a
declaration the protection of Section 6(3) will not extend. For, the question
whether a particular action was the result of a fraud or not is always
justiciable, ………...”
6.13.1. The ratio of the Constitution Bench is clear, i.e. the
Government's declaration of public purpose is final and is not ordinarily
justiciable; judicial review is confined to cases of fraud or colourable
exercise of power. In the present case, the public purpose, namely
planned urban development through an integrated township, is apparent.
The petitioners have neither specifically alleged nor proved any fraud or
misuse of power.
6.13.2. In Ramniklal N. Bhutta (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
emphasised the need for courts to balance public and private interests in
matters of acquisition and observed as under:
“10. Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to make a
few observations relevant to land acquisition proceedings. Our
country is now launched upon an ambitious programme of all-round
economic advancement to make our economy competitive in the
world market. We are anxious to attract foreign direct investment to
the maximum extent. We propose to compete with china
economically. We wish to attain the pace of progress achieved by
some of the Asian countries, referred to as "Asian tigers", e.g., South
Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. It is, however, recognised on all hands
that the infrastructure necessary for sustaining such a pace of progress
is woefully lacking in our country. The means of transportation,
power and communications are in dire need of substantial
improvement, expansion and modernisation. These things very often
call for acquisition of land and that too without any delay. It is,
however, natural that in most of these cases, the persons affected
challenge the acquisition proceedings in courts. These challenge the
15 AIR 1963 SC 151

33
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
acquisition proceedings in courts. These challenges are generally in
shape of writ petitions filed on High Courts. Invariably, stay of
acquisition is asked for and in some cases, orders by way of stay or
injunction are also made. Whatever may have been the practices in
the past, a time has come where the courts should keep the larger
public interest in mind while exercising their power or grant in
stay/injunction. The power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will
be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice and not merely
on the making out of a legal point. And in the matter of land
acquisition for public purposes, the interests of justice and the public
purposes, the interests of justice and the public interest coalesce. They
are very often one and the same. Even in civil suit, granting of
injunction or other similar orders, more particularly of an
interlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. The courts have to
weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest while exercising
the power under Article 226 - indeed any of their discretionary
powers. It may even be open to the High Court to direct, in case it
finds finally that the acquisition was vitiated on account of non-
compliance with some legal requirement that the persons interested
shall also be entitled to a particular amount of damages to be awarded
as a lumpsum or calculated at a certain percentage of compensation
payable. There are many ways of affording appropriate relief and
redressing a wrong; quashing the acquisition proceedings is not the
only mode of redress. To wit, it is ultimately a matter of balancing the
competing interests. Beyond this, it is neither possible nor advisable
to say. We hope and trust that these considerations will be duly borne
in mind by the courts while dealing with challenges to acquisition
proceedings.”
(emphasis supplied)
6.13.3. In Daulat Singh Surana v. First Land Acquisition Collector and
16
Others, , the Supreme Court held:
"40. Public purpose will include a purpose in which the general
interest of community as opposed to the interest of an individual is
directly or indirectly involved. Individual interest must give way to
public interest as far as public purpose in respect of acquisition of
land is concerned."
6.13.4. Applying these principles to the present case, the land acquisition
is for planned urban development, which is a public purpose. The legal
procedure under the Act, 2013 has also been properly followed. No
special or exceptional circumstances have been shown for interference
by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, after
payment of fair compensation as required under the Act, 2013, the
private interest of the petitioners must give way to the larger public
interest of planned urban development.
16 (2007) 1 SCC 641

34
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
XIII. The Precedent in WRIT-C No. 41339 of 2025 (Vijay Pal Singh and
12 others v. State of U.P. and 6 others) reported in 2026 (5) ADJ 320
(DB):-
6.14. This Court has carefully considered the judgment and order dated
28.04.2026 passed in Vijay Pal Singh (supra) , which has been heavily
relied upon by the respondents, wherein similar challenges to land
acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 2013 were examined and
dismissed after a comprehensive analysis of the entire statutory process
under the Act, 2013 and the Rules, 2016, including the SIA process, the
Section 15 objection procedure, the consent and purchase threshold
requirement, the R&R framework, the Section 19 declaration, and the
right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. We
find that the legal principles laid down and the findings recorded in that
judgment on each of these issues are directly applicable to the present
case and have been applied by this Court at the appropriate places in the
preceding discussion. Since the judgment in Vijay Pal Singh (supra)
directly applies to the present case and is binding on this Court, it also
provides an additional and separate reason for dismissing these writ
petitions.
XV. The Remedy Under Section 64 of the Act, 2013:-
6.15. Section 64 of the Act, 2013 provides a proper and effective legal
remedy to any person who is dissatisfied with the award passed by the
Collector. A person who has not accepted the award can ask for the
matter to be referred to the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Authority regarding disputes relating to (a) measurement of
land, (b) amount of compensation, (c) the person entitled to receive
compensation, (d) Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) rights, and
(e) apportionment of compensation. Section 74 provides for an appeal to
the High Court against the award of the Authority. This complete
statutory mechanism provides an efficacious remedy for all

35
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
compensation and R&R related grievances. In light of the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation (supra),
the existence of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is a ground
for restraint in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, except
in cases involving enforcement of fundamental rights, violation of
principles of natural justice, acts wholly without jurisdiction, or
challenge to the vires of a statute. None of these exceptional
circumstances are present in the instant case. The petitioners are thus not
without remedy in law, and their specific grievances relating to
compensation and measurement are appropriately redressable before the
statutory reference authority.
G. CONCLUSION:-
7. In the light of the foregoing analysis, the legal framework of the Act,
2013 and the Integrated Township Policy, 2023, the statutory provisions
set out above, the judicial precedents considered herein, and the material
available on record, this Court holds as follows:
(i) The SIA process was duly conducted in compliance with Sections 4,
5, 7 and 8 of the Act, 2013. The SIA Report was approved by the
appropriate Government and its summary was incorporated in the
preliminary notification as required under Section 11(3). No infirmity in
the SIA process has been established.
(ii) The preliminary notification dated 07.03.2025 was issued in
compliance with Section 11(1) of the Act, 2013. Objections were duly
invited under Section 15 and the petitioners' objections filed on
05/09.05.2025 were considered and rejected by the competent authority.
The declaration under Section 19(1) was issued on 05.03.2026, within
twelve months as required.
(iii) The requirement of prior purchase/consent for 80% of the project
land under the Policy, 2023 has been substantially met as the project is

36
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
computed as a whole. The acquisition is confined to less than 20% of the
total project area of 46.5212 hectares, in accordance with the Policy,
2023.
(iv) The petitioners have been provided a full opportunity to submit
their claims and objections under Section 21 of the Act, 2013 through the
notice dated 17.04.2026. Any grievance regarding compensation,
measurement or rehabilitation entitlements may be raised before the
Collector in the award proceedings and, thereafter, before the Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority under Section 64
of the Act, 2013.
(v) The acquisition is for a recognised public purpose and does not
constitute a colourable exercise of power. No fraud or malafides have
been alleged or established. The constitutional challenge under Article
300-A of the Constitution fails in view of meticulous compliance with all
seven sub-rights identified in Kolkata Municipal Corporation (supra) and
the provisions of the Act, 2013.
(vi) All the legal challenges raised by the petitioners have been
examined and rejected for the reasons set out above.
H. FINAL ORDERS:-
8. In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons stated
hereinabove, this Court finds no merit in the challenge raised by the
petitioners to the impugned notifications dated 07.03.2025 and
17.04.2026, and to the order rejecting the petitioners' objections under
Section 15 of the Act, 2013. This Court declines to interfere in the
acquisition proceedings, which have been conducted in conformity with
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
8.1. It is, however, directed that:

37
WRIC No. - 20436 of 2026
(a) The Collector/Additional District Magistrate (Land
Acquisition), Ghaziabad, shall conduct the enquiry under Sections
22 and 23 of the Act, 2013 and pass the award strictly in
accordance with the provisions of Sections 26 to 31 of the Act,
2013, ensuring that full and fair opportunity is given to all
interested persons including the petitioners to submit their claims
and to be heard.
(b) The Collector shall also pass the Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Award in terms of Section 31 of the Act, 2013 read
with the Second Schedule thereto for each affected family.
(c) Possession of the acquired land shall not be taken by the
respondents in violation of the provisions of Section 38 of the Act,
2013. Possession shall be taken only after full payment of the
compensation as determined and the monetary components of the
R&R Award, in accordance with Section 38(1) of the Act, 2013.
(d) Any petitioner or affected person aggrieved by the quantum
of compensation or the R&R Award shall be at liberty to avail the
remedy of reference under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 before the
competent Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Authority.
8.2. All the six writ petitions, being WRIT-C No. 20436 of 2026, WRIT-
C No. 20011 of 2026, WRIT-C No. 20024 of 2026, WRIT-C No. 20026
of 2026, WRIT-C No. 20032 of 2026 and WRIT-C No. 20035 of 2026,
are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
May 29, 2026
NLY
Digitally signed by :-
NAND LAL YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad