Statutory Process Under Act 2013 For Public-Private Partnership Projects Complies With Article 300-A Property Rights.

01Facts

The Government of Uttar Pradesh initiated acquisition of 1,857.8871 hectares of land across fourteen villages for Stage-2, Phase-2 and Phase-3 of the Noida International Airport project at Jewar

¶ 3.1, 3.5

The project is implemented via a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model involving Noida International Airport Limited (NIAL) and Zurich Airport International AG

¶ 3.2

A Social Impact Assessment (SIA) was conducted and approved by an Expert Group and the State Government

¶ 3.6–3.9

Consent from 73.02% of affected families was recorded

¶ 3.10

Preliminary notifications under Section 11 were issued on 11.04.2025, and a Section 19 declaration was made on 24.10.2025

¶ 3.13, 3.19

Petitioners challenged the notifications primarily regarding the displacement of village abadi (residential) land, alleging lack of requisite consent, procedural irregularities, and violation of food security norms

¶ 4, 4.2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the mandatory 70% consent threshold for PPP projects under Section 2(2) was satisfied.

¶ 6.4

ii.2. Whether the acquisition of irrigated multi-cropped land violated the food security safeguards under Section 10.

¶ 6.10

iii.3. Whether the conduct of parallel proceedings under Sections 15 and 16 vitiated the acquisition process.

¶ 6.7

iv.4. Whether the declaration under Section 19(2) identifying a "resettlement area" constituted an illegal expansion of the acquisition without a Section 11 notification.

¶ 6.9

03Law Applied

The court applied the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("Act, 2013") and the U.P. Rules, 2016.

Section 2(2) mandates 70% consent from "affected families" (defined broadly in Section 3(c)) for PPP projects

¶ 6.2.1

Section 10 restricts the acquisition of multi-cropped land to a notified limit (5% for the district) to safeguard food security

¶ 6.10

Section 15 provides the right to object, while Section 16 mandates the R&R scheme

¶ 6.6, 6.7

The court relied on Kichhu Ram v. State of U.P. [2019 SCC OnLine All 5071] regarding consent computation

¶ 6.4.3

The court relied on Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1997 SC 1236] regarding the balancing of private vs. public interest in infrastructure

¶ 6.21.1

Provisions in the judgment · 34 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 30 provisions

Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 8 Section 10 Section 11 Section 12 Section 14 Section 15 Section 16 Section 17 Section 18 Section 19 Section 21 Section 23 Section 25 Section 26 Section 30 Section 31 Section 35 Section 37 Section 38 Section 40 Section 45 Section 46 Section 64 Section 74

SIKKIM LAND (REQUSITION AND AQUISITION) ACT,1977 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 7

04Reasoning

The Court found that the consent of 73.02% of "affected families" met the statutory 70% requirement; it clarified that the unit of measurement is the "family" across the project, not village-wise landholdings

¶ 6.4.1, 6.4.2

Regarding food security, the court noted that the total acquisition remained within the 5% net sown area limit for the district, and petitioners failed to provide documentary evidence (e.g., Khasras) to prove the land was irrigated multi-crop

¶ 6.10.2, 6.10.3

The Court rejected the argument against parallel proceedings, ruling that Sections 15 and 16 are designed to operate concurrently to meet the 12-month mandatory timeline in Section 19

¶ 6.7.2

Furthermore, the land identified in Schedule-B of the Section 19 declaration was held to be a mandatory identification of a "resettlement area" under Section 19(2), not a new acquisition for the project itself

¶ 6.9.1

The court also distinguished Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah [2024 5 SCR 831], noting that unlike the vacuum in that case, the Act, 2013 provides a comprehensive procedural code that was meticulously followed here

¶ 6.16.1

05Holding

The Court dismissed the challenge to the acquisition, holding that all statutory and constitutional requirements (including Article 300-A) were satisfied

¶ 7, 8

It directed that possession of abadi land shall only be taken after the passing of R&R awards and the actual handing over of developed relocation plots to displaced families, as per the State's undertaking

¶ 8.1(a)

Petitioners were granted liberty to pursue compensation disputes before the Reference Authority under Section 64

¶ 8.1(b)

All three writ petitions were disposed of accordingly

¶ 8.1

LawLens.Allahabad High Court

Original Court PDF