Name: Gyandeep Sahu, Kada Siddharth Achary, Kiran Kumar Mishra, Monalisa Mohanty,

Subhashree Sharma
Roll No: UR19020, UR19022, UR19023, UR19025, UR19049
Class: MBA (RM) Section: A
Assignment type: Decision Case 3

Addressing the Land Transfer Conundrum

1. Protagonist:
The chief secretary of Delhi government along with GMR group led consortium, Delhi
International Airport Limited (DIAL).

2. Summary:
The case revolves around the land acquisition related issues at Indira Gandhi International
Airport (IGIA), Delhi. The Delhi government want to resolve the land related issue for the
villagers whose land was acquired for the expansion of airport. The challenging thing in any
land acquisition related project lies in execution part. The project execution can be done
successfully only in case the concerned authorities get it right. There is a high chance of
corruption when government officials are involved in the decision making process of land
acquisition, and politics will enter into the land issue.
With the help of some experts the Delhi government is trying to resolve the issue by
providing necessary support. The Delhi government with the help of concerned authorities
like Airport Authority of India (AAI), Delhi development authority (DDA), Government of
National capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), etc. have to strategize for land related issues,
one strategy for Land acquired but possession not given to owner and another one for Land
under encroachment.
Findings of two reports from two different studies are presented in the case. The first report
covers challenges faced by DIAL in resolving land acquisition problem and strategic
approaches that are handled by the team. The second report was shared by lawyer and
resident of one of the village Mr. Baljeet Singh where he focused on rehabilitation and it
implementation process.

Page 1 of 5
3. Case Facts:

There are two major challenges for the Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL). One is
land possessed by the Airports Authority of India (AAI), and second is removal of
encroachments on some parts of land owned by AAI. The plan was to build a new terminal
with a capacity of 34 million passengers per annum by 2010, which was the first phase of the
five phases. At the time, DIAL took the control over the IGIA, there were 147 cases against
AAI by the villagers of Nangal Devat, with regards to land acquisition and the compensation
in the Delhi High Court. Meanwhile, the land provided to the villagers by the AAI, has been
sold by them which was allotted in Rangpuri. So, DIAL had to face the problem of
encroachment on the land housing 1952 families, which comprises the poor landless families.
As per Dial, INR 29,000 had been paid to each family per squatter, to evacuate the area.
Since, the village had 11 temples, according to DIAL, this issue is also, being taken care by
reallocating three of them already while 8 were still remained.

On the contrary, Mr. Baljeet Singh – one of the lawyers and resident of the village, has
brought the fact in that, AAI had given them INR one (1) to eight (8), per square ghaz during
1964-72. He also, made a statement that, AAI settled the area for 300 bighas only. Due, to
such disputes, the life of the villagers had been traumatic and development of the area had not
been possible a bit. Regarding the development issue, no settlement had been ever occurred.
Due to the time gaps, there has been information and cost asymmetry.

Despite of the 1982 policy decision by the Supreme Court the resettlement has never
happened as the villagers deserved. Mr. Singh also revealed about the nexus among AAI,
state, and the legal structure to support them with the rightful rehabilitation.

4. Situational Analysis:
4.1. Actors:
Airports Authority of India (AAI), Delhi government, Government of India, displaced
villagers and those involved in airport modernisation.
4.2. Challenges:
1. To get possession of land still under litigation – though it had already been acquired by
AAI
2. To remove encroachment by Nangal Devat villagers for development of airport terminal
4.3. Analysis:
The case begins in 1972 when land was acquired by AAI under the Land Acquisition Act
1894. According to this Act the state was entitled to take the land away even against the will
of villagers if they put the land to public use. However, the villagers must be paid
compensation. The rehabilitation scheme entailed that the villagers must be given a
residential site and 24 Rupees per square metre must be paid to the families. However, after
7000 Bigha of land was acquired, the price paid was only eight rupees per ghaz (1 metre =
1.099 ghaz) and the settlement area provided was only 300 Bighas. The cost of construction
was borne by the villagers. These villagers were landless and underprivileged people who
depend on daily wages for a living. After this ruling all development funds were stopped and
after 10 years, the villagers had to resort to strikes and protests in lieu of no action being

Page 2 of 5
taken by the concerned authorities. Three hundred sixty six families filed a petition pleading
for the notification under Section 4 and 6 of LAA 1894 to be revoked. Thus the government
gave a limited stay of operation and that the rehabilitation issue be sorted out in three months.
Till 1986, again, no action or resettlement plan was in sight. Thus, the agitations by the
villagers started. Four years passed during which period land was acquired by Delhi
Development Authority (DDA) in Rangpuri village for rehabilitation. The lieutenant
Governor of Delhi intervened and ordered a fresh survey to be undertaken in 1988 as already
16 years had passed from the time of land acquisition. It was found by the DDA and AAI that
there are 953 families eligible for compensation and rehabilitation as compared to 308
families in 1972 survey. The real irony is that the plot allocation was done in 2007 according
to the data of 1972 records. In such a large time span it is only natural that the villagers will
sell their land to land owners and middle men who profit by buying land from them at rates
far cheaper than the market rates. They use this land for industrial operations and to further
their business motives. This long duration for undertaking rehabilitation and providing
compensation to the displaced gave rise to multitude of challenges faced by DIAL such as:
1. 147 pending cases in land acquisition and compensation
2. Increase in the number of families from 308 in 1972 to 1500 in 2009
3. Selling of land to outsiders who refused to have dialogue with DIAL regarding giving up
the land.
4. There was also lack of contractual clarity on who should carry out Rehabilitation and
Resettlement.
DIAL approached this problem by constituting a nine member team known as the Land
Management Department that had one employee familiar with the local culture and
vernacular language. This helped them during the evacuation for rapport building and gaining
the good will of families. The team also brought all pending cases under one judge for speedy
disposal. They met with all parties involved to understand their situation and carry out
evacuation. On 31st May 2007, the ruling was in favour of DIAL. The High court gave
instructions to them that all essential services (schooling, post office, labour, transport, and
bank) should be provided to the displaced villagers and proper land allocation must be done.
However, there was a mistake in land computation and only 7760 square metre of land was
allocated as opposed to 19,904 square metre – a difference of 12,144 square metre! The
mistake was claimed to have been occurred as they did not take into consideration the
‘Abadi’ area communities. This led to strikes and processions. DIAL agreed to increase plot
sizes and pay the rent of each family for 6 months if the ‘eligible’ families gave an
undertaking in the high court that they would vacate the plot in the time frame given by the
court. The evacuation was undertaken according to Jhuggi Jhompri Resettlement Policy.
DIAL also took help of the CSR wing of GMR to provide food, lighting and medical
facilities during evacuation. According to the second report, there are still families who have
not received their due and just compensation. The AAI and Land Acquisition Commissioner
denied to pay packages to the displaced because they have already been given resettlements.
Till date there are families who have been denied the basic right of having a roof over their
head only because of a flawed law. Therefore the dilemma of the Chief Secretary of Delhi

Page 3 of 5
Government in simplifying the complexities around land acquisition is justified and the
necessity of a time bound approach is reflected very clearly.

5. Decision Problem:
1. Complexities in litigation due to land acquisition between Villagers and Airports Authority
of India
2. Absence of any fixed plan regarding the Resettlement and rehabilitation of villagers
belonging Nangal Dewat resulting in delays spanning over years thus resulting in many
homeless and landless residents.

6. Objective:
Short term – Address the land acquisition and evacuation issue at hand
Long term – To ensure that such issues do not arise in the future.

7. Criteria for evaluating the solution:

1. No further litigation regarding Land transfer
2. Adequate compensation
3. Proper plot allocation to the displaced families
4. Timely compensation and rehabilitation

8. Alternative Solutions:
1. The Land Acquisition Act of 1984 is outdated and must be revised. It served the purpose of
the Colonials – now it has to be revamped to include necessary provisions such as increased
monetary compensation and cover costs of building a house.
2. The Rehabilitation and resettlement must be done in accordance with the most recent
survey undertaken which must include the ‘Abadi’ areas. The R and R must be done within a
tie frame of 3 years to prevent complexities such as increase in the family members.
3. Reduced legal complexities so that the villagers do not fall victim to land owners and
middlemen.
4. Similar revamping of Jhuggi Jhompari resettlement policy must be done.
5. If the land is awarded to a private company, the contract should be very clear as to who
will be involved in the R and R process to avoid delays and ensure responsibility.
6. Corporate Social Responsibility wings of private companies involved can help in solving
the issue at hand.

9. Action Plan:
A revamping of the Land Acquisition Act is very necessary. This should be done keeping in
view the rights of the villagers who are being displaced against their will for a project which
does nothing for them. A revamped law will stop further litigation while solving long term
objective of not giving rise to such issues.

Page 4 of 5
For the short term objective, it is necessary to undertake a proper survey, provide monetary
compensation and resettlements. Clearly, there are families in need of help who need help
where the CSR wings come into play.

10. Contingency Plan:

If the CSR wings of the companies do not agree, the DDA has to undertake the survey and
provide necessary compensations at all costs ensuring basic human rights.

Page 5 of 5