Compliance With Integrated Township Policy 80% Threshold Is Assessed Against Entire Project Area, Not Individual Villages.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the acquisition was vitiated by the failure to purchase/obtain consent for 80% of the land prior to notification as per the 2023 Policy

The court held

The Court dismissed all six writ petitions, holding that the acquisition proceedings were conducted in strict conformity with the 2013 Act and the 2023 Policy

It also directed

It held that the 80% threshold is project-wide and not village-specific

The Court directed the Collector to conclude the award inquiry under Sections 22 and 23, pass a Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award under Section 31, and ensure possession is taken only after full payment of compensation as per Section 38. Petitioners were granted liberty to approach the Section 64 Reference Authority for disputes regarding compensation or measurement

01Facts

The Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) initiated land acquisition for an "Integrated Township Project" (Park Town) in Village Mahrauli under the U.P. Township Policy, 2023

¶ 3.1, 4.1

This followed earlier lapsed proceedings from 2013-2014 under the old 1894 Act

¶ 3.3

A preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the 2013 Act was issued on 07.03.2025 for 2.86844 hectares of land

¶ 3.4

Petitioners filed objections under Section 15, which were rejected by the Collector; subsequently, a declaration under Section 19 and a notice under Section 21 were issued in 2026

¶ 2, 3.8

Petitioners challenged the notifications primarily on grounds of non-compliance with the 80% prior-purchase rule of the 2023 Policy, lack of a valid R&R scheme, and mechanical rejection of objections

¶ 2, 4.1-4.3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the acquisition was vitiated by the failure to purchase/obtain consent for 80% of the land prior to notification as per the 2023 Policy

¶ 6.9

ii.2. Whether the rejection of Section 15 objections via an undated order constituted a violation of natural justice or non-application of mind

¶ 6.5.2

iii.3. Whether fresh proceedings under the 2013 Act are barred if earlier proceedings under the 1894 Act had lapsed

¶ 6.2

iv.4. Whether the acquisition complied with the procedural safeguards under Article 300-A of the Constitution

¶ 6.11

03Law Applied

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, specifically Section 11 (Notifications), Section 15 (Objections), Section 19 (Declaration), Section 21 (Notice), and Section 24(2) (Lapse of earlier proceedings)

¶ 6.2, 6.3, 6.5, 6.7

U.P. Township Policy, 2023, regarding the 20% acquisition limit

¶ 3.1, 6.9

Precedent: Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah regarding the seven sub-rights under Article 300-A

¶ 6.11

Precedent: Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra on balancing public versus private interest

¶ 6.1, 6.13.2

Precedent: Vijay Pal Singh v. State of U.P. regarding the calculation of consent thresholds and SIA compliance

¶ 6.14

Provisions in the judgment · 35 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 35 provisions

Section 2 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 8 Section 11 Section 14 Section 15 Section 16 Section 18 Section 19 Section 20 Section 21 Section 22 Section 23 Section 24 Section 25 Section 26 Section 27 Section 28 Section 29 Section 30 Section 31 Section 32 Section 33 Section 34 Section 35 Section 36 Section 37 Section 38 Section 40 Section 43 Section 64 Section 74

04Reasoning

The Court found that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act expressly permits fresh acquisition after the lapse of 1894 Act proceedings

¶ 6.2

Regarding the 80% purchase/consent threshold, the Court held that the calculation must be based on the entire project area (46.5212 hectares) and not village-wise; since the developer purchased/consented to ~80% of the total project land, acquiring the remaining ~20% (including Mahrauli) was valid

¶ 3.9, 6.9.2, 6.9.4

The Court dismissed the challenge to the undated Section 15 order, noting that since a Section 19 declaration was subsequently issued, the Government must have considered the report, and a mere lack of date is a curable irregularity, not an illegality

¶ 6.5.4, 6.5.5

The SIA process was found compliant as hearings were held and reports approved by the Government

¶ 6.4.3

The Court ruled that since the Act provides a complete mechanism for notice, hearing, and compensation, the sub-rights of Article 300-A were satisfied

¶ 6.11.1

05Holding

The Court dismissed all six writ petitions, holding that the acquisition proceedings were conducted in strict conformity with the 2013 Act and the 2023 Policy

¶ 8, 8.2

It held that the 80% threshold is project-wide and not village-specific

¶ 7(iii)

¶ 8.1, 8.1(d)

LawLens.Allahabad High Court

Original Court PDF