The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered a broadened investigation into alleged manipulations in NOIDA’s land acquisition compensation system, instructing a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to examine financial records, bank accounts, and assets of the authority’s senior officials spanning nearly 15 years. The move reflects the court’s growing concern over what it described as entrenched “connivance” and “collusion” between officials and private builders, which may have resulted in inflated compensation payouts to select landowners.
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and N. Kotiswar Singh, granted the SIT an extension of two months to complete the inquiry. The court emphasized that farmers many of whom were summoned by the SIT after receiving higher-than-entitled compensation should not be subjected to coercive action, as they appeared to be secondary actors in a larger institutional breakdown.
A System Under Scrutiny
The origins of the case trace back to August 13, when the Supreme Court first ordered an SIT probe into allegations that NOIDA officials had improperly collaborated with builders to offer compensation above statutory entitlements. The irregularities, the court noted, suggested a pattern of discretionary payments that may have benefited a network of private developers, middlemen, and internal decision-makers.
The initial investigation prompted the court to consider whether NOIDA’s governance model required a structural overhaul. At one stage, the bench asked that SIT recommendations be placed before the Uttar Pradesh chief secretary to evaluate whether the authority should be converted into a “metropolitan council,” signaling judicial concern over administrative autonomy and oversight.
Farmers Caught in the Middle
As the probe intensified, several farmers reported receiving repeated notices from the SIT to record statements. One farmer, represented by senior advocate Siddharth Dave, told the court that while he had received higher compensation, he feared becoming a target of the investigation.
“Kindly protect the farmers, as it is not their fault,” he pleaded, underscoring the growing anxiety among landowners who maintain that they acted within the offerings and directions of NOIDA officials.
10 IAS Officers and Noida Authority CEO Under CBI Probe in Sports City Land Scam
The bench responded firmly, clarifying that the inquiry’s focus was on systemic corruption rather than individual landowners. Farmers who accepted payments even those exceeding mandated compensation would not be penalized, the judges reiterated. The court’s assurances reflect its recognition that any excessive payouts were likely facilitated by internal actors, not demanded by beneficiaries.
SIT Mandate Widens Amid Serious Findings
Following what the court described as “serious findings” in the preliminary stages, a new SIT was formed with an expanded mandate. The team has been tasked with examining bank accounts, land registries, and asset records of NOIDA’s chief executive officers, senior bureaucrats, and other key officials who served over the past 10 to 15 years. Forensic auditors have been brought in to map financial trails and analyze potential links between compensation approvals and property acquisitions.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for NOIDA, was allowed time to file an affidavit clarifying the authority’s position. The court’s intervention indicates a measured but firm approach to uncovering whether the compensation system was exploited systematically and whether beneficiaries within the authority accumulated assets out of proportion to known income.
A Path Toward Institutional Accountability
While the inquiry remains ongoing, the court’s stance suggests a broader shift toward demanding transparency in land governance an area long mired in allegations of favoritism, inflated payouts, and opaque administrative decisions. With the SIT’s mandate extending into financial forensics and historical audits, the investigation may serve as a litmus test for how deeply the judiciary is willing to intervene in restructuring local development authorities.
