The Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority acquired land from farmers between 2002 and 2009 for the development of townships and urbanisation in and around Noida.
In 2011, a group of farmers filed a petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging the acquisition procedure and demanding increased compensation rates. In October 2011 the Court directed the authority to increase the compensation of petitioning farmers by 64.7 percent, and return 10 percent of the land in the form of developed residential land. The state government and authorities challenged the verdict before the Supreme Court. The court dismissed the challenges in 2015.
Meanwhile, another set of affected farmers filed a petition before the High Court asking for the increased compensation decided in the previous case. However, the court dismissed this petition and directed the Authority to decide whether they were willing to extend the same benefit to the other landowners. The Authority chose not to extend this benefit. There are about 15,000 landowners who would have benefited from the increased compensation. Farmers appealed before the Supreme Court, which also dismissed the appeal in 2018.
In addition, the SC asked the Chief Secretary to conduct an inquiry to look into the process of land acquisition. Meanwhile other farmers continued to protest claiming that authorities are trying to violate the court orders by allotting 6 percent of total area, instead of the agreed upon 10 percent, due to the paucity of land, as per a news report.
On 27 December 2017, farmers from more than 45 villages protested in front of the office Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) under the banner of Kisan Sangharsh Samiti. The meeting with the additional CEO of GNIDA failed to satisfy the protesters. However, in January 2018, the government assured the farmers that their demands will be addressed after the protests started again. Finally, in February 2018, Uttar Pradesh government agreed to allot 10 percent of developed residential plots to all the petitioners, according to a report. The state governments announcement and the SC's decision has been well received by the authorities.
In October 2019, the Authority demanded additional payment from allotees due to the increased compensation rate. "Following the orders of the Allahabad High Court to give additional 64.7 percent compensation to the farmers, the authority will charge more money from people (allottees of the township) at Rs 1,287 per square metre rate, with a 11 percent interest rate." According to the notification, people who have been allotted flats will have to deposit this amount in four installments on per quarter basis in a year.
These allottees are situated on the plots of farmers of those 39 villages who approached to the court. Those who are based out of those 39 villages' lands will remain unaffected from the order. These nine sectors include, Alpha 1,2, Beta 1,2, Gama 1,2, and Delta 1,2 and 3.
Between 23 April 2023 and 24 June 2023, hundreds of farmers protested outside the GNIDA office stating that they are yet to receive extra compensation. They also asked the GNIDA to fulfil other promises it made while taking their land. Following a A 61-day dharna, the State government set up a committee to address their demands.
Following court's order, the Authority had distributed the compensation amount to the farmers. Some RWAs had considered approaching the court against this demand, but there is no information on whether they filed a case.
Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Demand for more compensation than promised
Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Region Classification
Urban
Type of Land
Private
N/A
What was the action taken by the police?
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)
Status of Project
Project completed
Original Project Deadline
Whether the Project has been Delayed
Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users
Agricultural land
Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict
Source/Reference
Total investment involved (in Crores):
₹
Type of investment:
Year of Estimation
Has the Conflict Ended?
Yes
When did it end?
February, 2018
Why did the conflict end?
Court decision in favour of community
The High Court and Supreme Court refused to extend increased compensation to landowners who were not petitioners in the original case. The GNIDA has also not increased the compensation.
Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict
Land Acquisition Laws
Legislations/Policies Involved
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute
No
What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?
What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?
Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:
Controversial land acquisition by the government
Incorrect estimation of compensation
Legal Status:
In Court
Status of Case In Court
Disposed
Whether any adjudicatory body was approached
Name of the adjudicatory body
Name(s) of the Court(s)
Allahabad High Court; Supreme Court
Case Number
WRIT - C No. - 66367 of 2015, CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 500 OF 2010; WRIT C No. 37443 of 2011; Supreme Court, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4506 OF 2015, Supreme Court, CIVIL APPEAL NO.2127 OF 2018
Main Reasoning/Decision of court
Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:
Whether criminal law was used against protestors:
Reported Details of the Violation:
Date of Violation
Location of Violation
Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority
PSUs Involved in the Conflict:
Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?
Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached
Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:
Suraksha Realty
Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?
Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:
What was the action taken by the police?
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?
