Supreme Court reserves verdict on Ayodhya housing scheme land acquisition

The Supreme Court reserved its verdict on the challenge to an Ayodhya housing scheme's land acquisition. The dispute tests whether wider safeguards under the 2013 law must apply alongside compensation benefits.Stock photo used for illustrationNewdelhi,Oct 26, 2026 15:54 ISTThe Supreme Court on Monday reserved its verdict on a petition challenging the acquisition of land for a residential housing scheme in Ayodhya, news agency Press Trust of India reported.The Shri Saryu Nagar Vikas Samiti has appealed against an August 6 order of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court, which directed the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad to determine compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement benefits for compulsory land acquisition under the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965.The High Court had asked the authority to address the issues in line with the legal principles set out in its judgment, including those under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana reserved its verdict after hearing senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who appeared for the petitioner, and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, who represented the Uttar Pradesh government and its department. Sankaranarayanan argued that the authorities could not restrict the benefits available to affected landowners to monetary compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement while disregarding other safeguards under the 2013 Act. These included provisions on social impact assessment, the use of previously acquired land and the acquisition of multi-crop agricultural land.The bench observed that social impact assessment could not be brushed aside lightly but cautioned that it should not become a "millstone around the neck" of the state government. It also highlighted the need to consider the public interest in development projects that were already under way. According to PTI, Sankaranarayanan contended that the High Court judgment had effectively restricted the Samiti's rights to compensation under the 2013 Act, even though the law provided wider protections for landowners.He said the distinction made in earlier judgments between acquisitions initiated before the 2013 law came into force and those begun later was relevant to the dispute. He submitted that the acquisition in this case was initiated after the law came into force, but its provisions had not been fully applied.The Chief Justice questioned the claim that the High Court had restricted the Samiti's rights, pointing out that its judgment provided for the benefits under the 2013 Act, or at least the principles behind them, to be applied to the acquisition.Sankaranarayanan maintained that the dispute went beyond compensation and rehabilitation to safeguards that applied when deciding whether and how land could be acquired. Referring to Section 8(1)(d) of the 2013 Act, he said the government was required to ensure that land acquired earlier in the area had not remained unused before acquiring more land.He told the bench that three residential housing schemes involved the acquisition of 1,407 acres, of which only 70 acres had been used, according to his submissions. He said about 1,300 acres remained surplus under the first two schemes and argued that the authorities had not provided adequate details about how that land had been used.The senior advocate said the challenge was limited to the third scheme. He urged the court to stop it from proceeding until the social impact assessment process, which had been started and later discontinued, was completed.Bhati maintained that the authorities had provided, or were providing, all benefits available under the 2013 Act, including enhanced compensation, additional payment and other applicable entitlements, PTI reported. She said the acquisition framework had been treated as a complete legal system, with benefits under the central law extended to affected landowners.She argued that once these benefits were available, the dispute had largely become academic and should not delay the development plan. Bhati also said the project was part of a broader policy decision and development plan for Ayodhya that included several components.She offered to place the complete plan before the court and said development in a major pilgrimage destination could not be stalled in the manner sought by the petitioners. On future acquisitions, she said the authorities were open to improving the process and would continue to make changes where necessary.The respondents include the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, the Housing Commissioner, the Executive Engineer, the District Magistrate and the Special Land Acquisition Officer.The High Court had disposed of a group of petitions challenging land acquisition for three housing and development schemes in Ayodhya while directing the Parishad to determine compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement benefits in line with the principles laid down in its judgment. After hearing both sides in the Samiti's appeal, the Supreme Court reserved its verdict.- Ends