The Supreme
Court ruled that the classification of land as 'Pushtaini' (ancestral) and
'Gair-Pushtaini' (non-ancestral) for the purpose of compensation for land
acquired by the Greater Noida authority would be "bad in law,
and liable to be set aside".
It stressed that ancestry as a concept, especially
before times of modern private property ownership, had remained to be a tool
for inclusivity and not exclusion.
A bench of Justices Krishna Murari and S. Ravindra
Bhat said word "Pushtaini" is a Persian word and finds its origin
from the word "Pusht", which means "back" and it has been
historically used in the context of ancestry.
It further added that any possession, tale or legend,
that has roots to a particular ancestry, to denote its significance to the said
ancestry, the word "Pushtaini" is used. As is obvious, since the word
"Gair" which finds its origin in Urdu language means "other
than", thus, "Gair-Pushtaini" would mean one which is not
aPushtaini', noted the bench.
Justice Murari, who authored the judgment on behalf of
the bench, said: "What we find most interesting however, is that ancestry
as a concept, especially before times of modern private property ownership, had
remained to be a tool for inclusivity and not exclusion. In such a context, the
use of the word 'Pushtaini' by the authority, to exclude compensation might be
a historically inaccurate interpretation."
He said that while this is not consequential to the
merits of the case, "it is in our opinion a worthwhile observation, for
law has to power to legitimise the meaning of words and can change the context
in which a word is used, and in turn, can change the course of history
itself."
The bench noted that the establishment of Greater Noida was
done for a noble purpose, i.e., to accommodate in the city all those who came
travelling from every corner of the country in search of a better life.
"While doing so however, as can be seen in the
present case, some residents whose land was subject to acquisition in the
pursuit of the said aim, were faced with discrimination. In such circumstances,
it becomes the duty of this court to dispense justice, and rectify the harm
caused to those at the receiving end of the discrimination," said Justice
Murari.
The bench concluded that it is of the opinion that the
classification made by both the executive actions is bad in law, and is liable
to be set aside.
"The Land Acquisition Act does not envisage any
differential compensation on the basis of such classification, and hence, this
court must infer the compensation to be provided by the executive actions
within the confines of Section 23 of the Act," it said.
The bench noted that the objective of the said
classification might have been noble, however, such classification only on the
basis of conjectures and surmises cannot be sustained.
"If a claim is being made to differentiate
between class of persons, such a claim must be backed by empirical data. While
this court is not a fact-finding court and is a court of law, however, the law
must also not be understood in isolation, but in the context in which it
exists, as the law does not exist like an object within the statutes, but lives
and evolves with the people it governs," the bench said.
It framed legal questions while examining the matter
and answered them in favour of the appellants, who were a group of landholders.
The apex court set aside the Allahabad High Court's
full bench decision of March 30, 2018, upholding the authorities' order to
provide additional compensation to 'Pushtaini' landholders for the land
acquired.
Senior advocates Pradeep Kant represented the appellants, Ravindra Kumar
Greater Noida, and Additional Advocate General Ravindra Kumar Raizada
represented the Uttar Pradesh government.