Supreme Court Approves Urgent Land Acquisition for Yamuna Expressway Development

Supreme Court Approves Land Acquisition For Yamuna Expressway Development The Supreme Court today upheld the land acquisition proceedings commenced under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act), for the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) project in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. The Court justified the State’s act to invoke the urgency provisions under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act to bypass the hearing of objections under Section 5-A of the Act. Also Read – S.498A IPC | Ensure Husband’s Distant Relatives Aren’t Over-Implicated In Exaggerated Cases : Supreme Court Cautions Courts The bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard a batch of civil appeals filed by two sets of appellants. One set of appellants (landowners) assailed the correctness of Allahabad’s High Court decision in the Kamal Sharma v. State of UP (2010) which upheld the acquisition under urgency provisions, citing the project’s importance. Whereas, another set of appellants (YEIDA) challenged another Division Bench judgment of the same High Court passed in Shyoraj Singh v. State of UP (2010) where the High Court set aside the acquisition, holding that the urgency clause was improperly invoked. Also Read – Routine Transfer Of Cases To CBI Overburdens It, Demoralises State Police Officers : Supreme Court Approving Kamal Sharma’s dictum, Mehta J. in the judgment, rejected the landowner’s contention that land acquisition proceedings stand vitiated because the land acquisition was not a part of an integrated development plan involving the Yamuna Expressway. In Kamal Sharma’s case, the High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s case of Nand Kishore Gupta and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2010) where the Court observed that if there exists sufficient material that the acquisition was done for an integrated development then the State’s power to invoke Section 5-A to dispense with the inquiry cannot be challenged. The Court observed that since the Yamuna Expressway is a vital heartline providing access to millions of commuters from the National Capital Delhi to Agra, thus it would be unjustifiable to question the acquisition that it was not for integrated development of lands abutting the Yamuna Expressway. “However, it cannot be gainsaid that Yamuna Expressway is a vital heartline providing access to millions of commuters from National Capital Delhi to Agra. The Expressway also connects the prestigious upcoming Jewar Airport to adjoining areas. To assume that the Yamuna Expressway is a simple highway without any scope for simultaneous development of the adjoining lands for commercial, residential and other such activities would be unconceivable. A project of such magnitude and enormity would definitely require the involvement of the adjoining areas which would lead to an overall development of the State of Uttar Pradesh at large.” The Court held the High Court’s decision in Shyoraj Singh’s case to be per incuriam because it didn’t consider the ratio of the previous decision where the Division Bench of the High Court already affirmed the validity of invocation of the urgency clause in the land acquisition notifications for the integrated development plan of ‘Yamuna Expressway’ by respondent No.3-YEIDA, and the challenge to the three decision via SLP resulted into dismissal. “The view expounded by the Division Bench in Kamal Sharma, which relied upon Nand Kishore, sets forth the correct proposition of law, and the judgment of the High Court in Shyoraj Singh, which relied on Radhy Shyam, did not present a correct legal interpretation. The judgment in Shyoraj Singh is set aside as it does not lay down good law and was passed while overlooking at the earlier precedents, rendering it per incuriam.”, the court observed. Accordingly, the Court justified the State’s invocation of Section 5-A for land acquisition for an integrated development plan of the Yamuna Expressway initiated by the YEIDA. “As observed in the case of Nand Kishore, the development of land parcels for industrial, residential, and recreational purposes is complementary to the construction of the Yamuna Expressway. The objective of the acquisition is to integrate land development with the Yamuna Expressway’s construction, thereby promoting overall growth serving the public interest. Consequently, the Expressway and the development of adjoining lands are considered to be inseparable components of the overall project.” “the invocation of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was legal and justified in this case. The urgency clause was applied in accordance with the planned development of the Yamuna Expressway, as held in Nand Kishor.”, the court added. As a result of the above discussion, the appeals filed by the landowners i.e. Batch No. 1, were dismissed, and the appeals filed by YEIDA i.e. Batch No. 2, were allowed. UP gets SC booster for land acquisition along Yamuna Expressway Supreme Court upholds validity of land acquisition for planned development along Yamuna Expressway and its adjoining areas The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, upheld the Uttar Pradesh government’s land acquisition proceedings through the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority for planned development along the Yamuna Expressway. The 165.5-km long expressway links Noida with Agra. The court rejected a batch of petitions filed by the landowners against the acquisition of their land. The top court said that the acquisition formed part of the integrated development plan for the Yamuna Expressway initiated by the YEIDA. As observed by the Allahabad High Court, the development of land parcels for industrial, residential, and recreational purposes is complementary to the construction of the Yamuna Expressway, said the top court. The objective of the acquisition was to integrate land development with the Yamuna Expressway’s construction, thereby promoting overall growth and serving the public interest, said the bench of Justice B R Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta. Consequently, the expressway and the development of adjoining lands are considered to be inseparable components of the overall project, the bench added. The apex court said that the invocation of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by the state government for urgently acquiring the land was legal and justified in the case. The urgency clause was applied in accordance with the planned development of the Yamuna Expressway, said the court. The top court said that the Allahabad High Court had already granted additional compensation of 64.7% to the landowners, to be offered as “no litigation bonus” in consonance with the government order in 2015, and thus, there was no scope to direct further enhancement in compensation. The apex court said that the overwhelming majority of landowners have refrained from seeking judicial intervention in this case as only 140 out of 12,868 landowners have opted to challenge the acquisition by approaching them. This indicates that the majority of the landowners have accepted the escalated compensation granted by the high court, said the apex court. In 2009, a notification by the government was issued under Section 4(1), Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act for the acquisition of the tracts of land for planned development in the Gautam Buddh Nagar district. Thereafter, the landowners made representations to the Chief Executive Officer of the authority, requesting that their land not be acquired because the status of the land was “Abadi Bhoomi,” which was being used by the landowners as dwelling units and for rearing their cattle. However, the authorities concerned did not accede to the request of the landowners. The landowners challenged the acquisition of their lands by filing numerous petitions before the Allahabad High Court. The landowners said that the state government arbitrarily invoked Section 17(1) and Section 17(4) of the Act and deprived them of their valuable right to raise objections. There was no genuine public purpose behind the acquisition and thus, the action was illegal, arbitrary and unjustified, said the landowners. The issue moved to the Supreme Court after two contradicting opinions by two benches of the high court. The court on Tuesday upheld the view taken by the high court to favour the acquisition of land. The authority said that it had prepared the Master Plan of 2021 and 2031 with the intent to develop the eastern side of river Yamuna by construction of a six-lane expressway joining Noida to Agra and also for the integrated development of five distinct regions along it for residential, industrial, institutional and recreational purposes. In the present case, the acquisition involved approximately 2,979 hectares of land, affecting 12,868 farmers or landowners. The state government said that there was sufficient material before them to justify the invocation of the urgency clause, and there was no malice on their part in invoking the same. Summarise this news in a short format without leaving any thing important and link it with past and present with a good header, a paragraph and sub headers. Rewrite it with a header in the same line, context in a para like crux, specific sub-headers in a very targeted mannerand in very detail .

Rewrite the crux of the matter in short.

create a question for IBPS PO Mains exam where I make questions based on the top Current Affairs news. From the above news given, you have to make MCQs on that news according to the instructions given to you by me with detailed solution in bullet points explaining all the info regarding the answer only and don’t explain other options. The language of the question should be atleast 40-45 words, and begin with an information and then the question like who replaces . The language of the questions should be standard and tough. Question should have 5 small options and detailed solution in bullet points. For example like this question: Q. Recently, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) announced an increase in the pre-transaction limit for feature phone users through UPI123 Pay to ₹10,000. What was the previous per-transaction limit for UPI123 Pay users? (a) ₹2,000 (b) ₹3,000 (c) ₹5,000 (d) ₹7,000 (e) ₹8,000 S. Ans. (c) Sol. The RBI introduced UPI123 Pay to facilitate digital transactions for feature phone users, enabling them to access the Unified Payments Interface in a secure manner. Initially, the per-transaction limit for UPI123 Pay was set at ₹5,000. However, to encourage wider adoption and enable more significant use cases, the RBI recently increased the limit to ₹10,000. This change is expected to enhance digital payment accessibility, particularly in regions where feature phones are more prevalent. Another Prompt: Give the detailed solution in bullet points. Sol. Initially, the pre-transaction limit for UPI123 Pay was ₹5,000, which aimed to facilitate small-value digital transactions for feature phone users. Key Details: Introduction to UPI123 Pay: UPI123 Pay is an instant payment system introduced by the RBI, specifically designed for feature phone users to access UPI services securely and conveniently. Modes of Transaction: Users can transact through various methods such as: • Calling an IVR number, • App functionality on feature phones, • Missed call approach, • Proximity sound-based system. Previous Limit: Initially, the pre-transaction limit for UPI123 Pay was ₹5,000, which aimed to facilitate small-value digital transactions for feature phone users. Current Update: To encourage broader adoption and accommodate more significant use cases, the RBI increased the limit to ₹10,000, signaling the growing focus on financial inclusion. Official Action: The RBI has directed the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) to issue the necessary instructions to implement this change.

Make a table of the key points which are most relevant for the exams and in very short only, not like of importance, significance or relevance type or anythingh which is not for exam preparation etc, and begin the table with Why in news(and include most key points in this only) as first row of the article, also add complete static points from the points in the article if available in news or if something factual informations relevant according to you in the same table like if State is given the CM, Capital, or any thing in case of International or any personality, Schemes, Awards, etc.