80% Consent Requirement For Integrated Township Projects To Be Calculated For Entire Project, Not Village-Wise: Allahabad High Court

"Policy, 2023 treats the Integrated Township as one single project. An Integrated Township may cover more than one village, and the land purchase process under Clause 3.4 is meant for the entire project, not village-wise," Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling dated May 29, 2026, held that the mandatory requirement of 80% land purchase or consent under the Uttar Pradesh Township Policy, 2023, must be computed with reference to the total project area and not separately for each village.

A bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Kunal Ravi Singh observed that the policy treats an integrated township as a single unit, and once the threshold is met for the project as a whole, the State is empowered to acquire the remaining 20% land through compulsory proceedings under the Act, 2013.

The dispute arose from land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) for an Integrated Township Project named “Park Town” in Village Mahrauli, Ghaziabad. The petitioners, who are tenure holders of the land, challenged the preliminary notification under Section 11(1) and the notice under Section 21 of the Act, 2013. They primarily contended that the developers had not fulfilled the mandatory pre-condition of purchasing 80% of the land in Village Mahrauli before initiating compulsory acquisition for the remaining portion.

The primary question before the court was whether the 80% consent/purchase threshold under the Integrated Township Policy must be satisfied village-wise or for the project as a whole. The court was also called upon to determine if the lapse of earlier acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, created a bar against fresh proceedings under the Act, 2013, and whether the absence of a date on a Section 15 rejection order rendered the acquisition illegal.

Scope Of 80% Consent Threshold Under Township Policy

The Court meticulously examined the Uttar Pradesh Township Policy, 2023, which requires a developer to assemble 80% of the land through mutual agreement. The bench rejected the petitioners' argument that this calculation should be village-specific. It noted that the project in question spanned 46.5212 hectares, of which the developer had already secured approximately 80% through direct purchase and consent across the entire project area.

The bench clarified that if a developer has purchased more than 80% of the total project land, the remaining land up to 20% can be acquired under the Act, 2013. The Court emphasized that the policy does not require separate 80% compliance for each constituent village.

"The principle that consent or purchase percentage must be calculated for the entire project, and not separately for each village, fully applies in the present case."

Lapse Of 1894 Act Proceedings No Bar To Fresh Acquisition

Addressing the petitioners' reliance on the lapse of earlier proceedings initiated in 2013 under the old Land Acquisition Act, the Court held this contention to be "wholly untenable." It observed that Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, expressly empowers the Government to initiate fresh proceedings if earlier ones have lapsed. The bench noted that the lapse of prior proceedings does not permanently immunise land from future acquisition for a public purpose.

"Fresh proceedings are independent proceedings initiated under the Act, 2013, and must be judged entirely on their own merits under that Act, 2013."

Undated Section 15 Order Categorized As Mere Irregularity

The petitioners had challenged the rejection of their objections under Section 15 on the grounds that the order was undated, alleging a mechanical application of mind. However, the Court distinguished between a procedural irregularity and a terminal illegality. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Prabhakar v. Joint Director of Sericulture Department, the bench held that an administrative act does not become void merely due to an irregularity unless it causes substantial prejudice.

The Court noted that the issuance of the Section 19 declaration was conclusive evidence that the Collector's report had been duly considered by the Government. Since the petitioners were heard and were able to challenge the acquisition through writ petitions, no prejudice was found.

"The absence of a date on the face of the rejection order can be an irregularity, but not an illegality which may travel upto the root of the matter."

SIA Public Hearing Is Not An Adjudicatory Stage

Regarding the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) process, the Court reiterated the principles laid down in Vijay Pal Singh v. State of U.P., noting that the purpose of a public hearing under Section 5 is limited to ascertaining views for the SIA Report. The Act does not contemplate the adjudication of individual objections at the SIA stage. The bench found that the SIA process in the present case was conducted in full compliance with the statutory framework.

Non-Invocation Of Urgency Clause Proves Bona Fide Intent

In a notable observation, the Court remarked that the authorities' decision not to invoke the 'Urgency Clause' under Section 40 of the Act, 2013, was evidence of their bona fide intent to follow the complete due process of law. By following every statutory step—from SIA appraisal to Section 21 notices—the State ensured that the rights of the landholders were not curtailed by undue haste.

Compliance With Article 300-A And Kolkata Municipal Corp Precedent

The Court tested the acquisition against the seven sub-rights of property owners identified by the Supreme Court in Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah. It found that the Act, 2013, incorporates all these safeguards, including the right to notice, the right to be heard, and the right to fair compensation. Consequently, the constitutional challenge under Article 300-A was dismissed.

"The private interest of the petitioners must give way to the larger public interest of planned urban development."

The High Court dismissed all six writ petitions, holding that the acquisition was for a valid public purpose and conducted with meticulous adherence to the Act, 2013. While declining to interfere with the notifications, the Court directed the Collector to ensure that the compensation and Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) awards are passed strictly in accordance with Sections 26 to 31 of the Act. It further clarified that possession should only be taken after full payment of compensation as per Section 38(1).

Date of Decision: May 29, 2026