Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 249 (ALL)

GHANSHYAM v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2008-02-01

ASHOK BHUSHAN, RAKESH SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent-Greater NOIDA. 2. By this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 23rd March, 2007 passed by the Greater NOIDA authority by which representation of the petitioner was rejected. 3. Petitioner’s case, in the writ petition, is that in pursuance of an order passed by this Court on 31st January, 2007, petitioner’s representation was considered by the Greater NOIDA authority. The petitioner’s case in that writ petition was that petitioner’s land was acquired and hence he is entitled for residential plot to the extent of 5%. The petitioner has purchased the land from the original tenure-holder on 12-1-2000 and on the strength of the sale-deed, the petitioner has pursued the representation before the Greater NOIDA authority. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, referring to the Board’s meeting of the Greater NOIDA, dated 28-10-1997 and 20th March, 2006, has submitted that a decision has been taken by the Greater NOIDA authority in its Board meeting to the effect that those tenure-holders who were original residents of the area prior to the constitution of the Greater NOIDA authority, that is, 28th January, 1991 are entitled for the allotment of 5% land for Abadi site. For all those persons, whose land has been acquired and have acquired right after constitution of Greater NOIDA authority, a scheme for payment of a Bonus has been made. Petitioner claims entitlement of Abadi Plot which was rejected by the impugned order taking the view that the petitioner is entitled for payment of Bonus. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was also entitled for allotment of the Abadi Plot and error has been committed by rejecting the representation of the petitioner. 6. We have considered submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The decision of the Greater NOIDA authority to give allotment of 5% land to the tenure-holders, who were original residents of the area in question and whose land were acquired, is a policy decision. Further, the decision that those persons who have acquired right after constitution of the Greater NOIDA authority, that is, after 28th January, 1991 whose land has been acquired are entitled for Bonus is a policy decision. The classification made by the Greater NOIDA authority for implementing the policy has a rationale basis. Further, the decision that those persons who have acquired right after constitution of the Greater NOIDA authority, that is, after 28th January, 1991 whose land has been acquired are entitled for Bonus is a policy decision. The classification made by the Greater NOIDA authority for implementing the policy has a rationale basis. The petitioner, who has purchased the land from earlier tenure-holder and who has come up in the writ petition for claiming allotment of 5% residential land, is in a category and according to the decision taken by the Board of the Greater NOIDA authority, the petitioner was clearly not entitled for allotment of 5% residential land. 8. A finding has been recorded by the Authority in the impugned order that petitioner has purchased the land from Bhagmal, son of Battan and got his name mutated on 12-1-2000. The original tenure-holder, namely, Rampal and Sahaymal, sons of Battan and Ghanshyam-the petitioner, son of Meer Singh were recorded as Bhumidhars. It has been stated in the order that both, Rampal and Sahaymal, were allotted Abadi plot of 410 Sq. Meters in Pocket-‘D’, who have already transferred those lands. The petitioner, Ghanshyam, who was not the original resident at the time of constitution of the Authority, that is, on 28th January, 1991 nor the original tenure-holder of the land, is not entitled for 5% land for Abadi. The case of the petitioner was rightly distinguished from Rampal and Sahaymal, who were original tenure-holders. According to the decision of the Board’s meeting, petitioner was entitled for rehabilitation Bonus. No error has been committed by the Authority in rejecting the representation of the petitioner claiming entitlement of 5% land for Abadi. The decision, with regard to the petitioner, is in accordance with the Board’s meetings dated 28th October, 1997 and 20th March, 2006. We are not satisfied that any ground for interference with the impugned order dated 23rd March, 2007 is made out in the writ petition. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the Greater NOIDA authority has granted such benefit to some similar persons, hence he is also entitled for such benefit. Without dwelling any further, suffice it to say that the mere fact that certain benefit has been given to a person cannot be a basis for issuing a writ, unless it is established that such benefit has been extended in accordance with law. 10. Without dwelling any further, suffice it to say that the mere fact that certain benefit has been given to a person cannot be a basis for issuing a writ, unless it is established that such benefit has been extended in accordance with law. 10. In Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh, (1995) 1 SCC 745 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that mere fact that the respondent-authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person similarly situated can never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. If the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case, such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. 11. Present is a case where classification made by the Greater NOIDA authority has a rationale basis and it is in accordance with the object of providing benefit to those original residents of the area who were residents of the area prior to the constitution of the Greater NOIDA. The acquisition of their land and allotment of 5% land was on the object to rehabilitate them and the case of a person who has purchased the land subsequent to the constitution of the Greater NOIDA authority is on a different footing. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 10674 of 2002, Rajiv Jain and others v. State of U.P. and others. 13. In the said writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the notification issued by the Respondents under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said case was on a different background and the said judgment does not help petitioner in the present case. 14. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the observations made by the Division Bench in the said judgment. The said case was on a different background and the said judgment does not help petitioner in the present case. 14. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the observations made by the Division Bench in the said judgment. Following observation made by the Division Bench is being reproduced below : “We have given our considered thoughts to the aforesaid arguments and we find that even assuming that what has been submitted the acquisition is illegal, the acquisition cannot be quashed on this ground alone that area equivalent to 10% of the total area acquired from the petitioner. That in view of pleading of the petitioners, a suitable direction be issued to the respondents to allot area equivalent to 10% to the petitioner’ land which is acquired and in denial of the aforesaid 10% land in Abadi to the petitioners per se amounts to discrimination as we do not see that there is any reasonable ground on which the petitioner can be denied the aforesaid allotment when the respondents have already allotted the same to many persons whose land have been acquired like that of the petitioners by acquisition for the authority. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed in part while we are upholding the acquisition of the land by the respondents we direct the respondents to allot an area equivalent to 10% of the total area acquired from the petitioners in the Abadi land as is done by the respondents with regard to other persons whose land has been acquired.” 15. In the said case, the alternative argument of the petitioners was that they were entitled for allotment of 10% of the acquired land as Abadi. The Court had directed for consideration of the said claim of the petitioner. The issue which has been raised in that case was that there was a classification with regard to the allotment of Abadi land to those persons who were original residents of the area prior to constitution of Greater NOIDA authority and who purchased the land subsequent to that they were not under the category for consideration in the said judgment. In the present case, the claim for allotment has been considered by the Greater NOIDA authority. Thus, the said direction by the Court in the aforesaid Division Bench judgment does not support contention of the petitioner. 16. In the present case, the claim for allotment has been considered by the Greater NOIDA authority. Thus, the said direction by the Court in the aforesaid Division Bench judgment does not support contention of the petitioner. 16. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is dismissed. ———