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

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

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

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

Consent from 73.02% of affected families was recorded

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All three writ petitions were disposed of accordingly