Authorities forced farmers to give land for meagre compensation: Allahabad HC

A special bench,comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan,S U Khan and V K Shukla,noted that many petitioners submitted that the land owners were told that either they could either take whatever was offered,or wait for several years for higher compensation. In some cases,they were allegedly forced to accept the compensation.

In the case of Badalpur,the ancestral village of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati,the petitioners alleged: “When (they) did not accept the compensation,they were tortured by the local police,and their signatures were forcibly obtained on the agreement. They were also taken away by the police,and proceedings were initiated against the petitioners under Sections 107/116 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) on September 13,2007.”

In another petition pertaining to Sadarpur village in Noida,they mentioned that the district authorities had summoned them for accepting the compensation. When they objected to the amount,they were told that they would have to wait for several years. “When the petitioners appeared (before Additional District Magistrate,Gautam Budh Nagar),they were informed that they would be paid compensation (at a certain rate),(When) petitioners did not accept the said compensation,they were told that …the petitioners shall be deprived of compensation for a long time and they have no option but to accept it,” the court noted. Fearing that they would get nothing,the petitioners accepted 90 per cent of compensation.

One of the contentions of the Authority and the interveners was that the land owners had waived their rights to challenge the land acquisition,after their right to get a hearing was nullified through the urgency clause. However,the court said that once the urgency clause is invoked,the state government did not provide any forum where the land owners could register their protest.

While directing the Authority to provide enhanced compensation to the tune of 64.7 per cent of the cash amount and 10 per cent of the developed land,the court also took into account the fact that most of the petitioners had parted with their land under the belief that it was being acquired for ‘Planned Industrial Development’. The bench said that when the petitioners realised that it was being given away to private builders,they were entitled to approach the court.