Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1719 (ALL)

KANNI v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-08-06

PANKAJ MITHAL, SARAL SRIVASTAVA

body2018
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. -1 and 2 and Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. -3. 2. The petitioners are claiming the benefit of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Gajraj and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2011(11) ADJ 1 (FB) and want that 5% of the developed land may be allotted to them in addition to the compensation paid to them for their acquired land. 3. The Full Bench in the case of Gajraj and others (Supra) upholding the validity of the notifications, granted additional benefits over and above the compensation admissible to the land owners i.e. additional compensation to the extent of 64.70%, as was paid for village Patwari, and for allotment of developed abadi land to the extent of 10% of their acquired land subject to the maximum of 2,500 sq. meter or equivalent value of compensation in lieu thereof. 4. It is in view of the above Full Bench decision, the petitioners have preferred this petition claiming grant of additional benefits of 5% developed land. 5. The additional benefits granted by the Court in Gajraj’s case (Supra) are available only to the petitioners who were before the Court as it was a judgment in persona and not in rem. Undisputedly, the petitioners in the present case were not the petitioners before the Court in the bunch of cases decided with the case of Gajraj and others (Supra). 6. A bunch of similar writ petitions seeking a direction for the allotment of 10% developed abadi land in terms of the Full Bench decision in the case of Gajraj and others (Supra) came up before another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mange @ Mange Ram v. State of U.P. and others, 2016(8) ADJ 97 (DB). The said Division Bench opined that the ratio decendi of the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj and others (Supra) cannot be applied to the similarly situated persons as the benefit therein was extended to the petitioners only and not to each and every person who was similarly situated and whose land had been acquired under the same notification. Thus, the action of the authorities in not giving additional benefit of developed abadi land to the non-petitioners was neither held to be arbitrary nor discriminatory. 7. Thus, the action of the authorities in not giving additional benefit of developed abadi land to the non-petitioners was neither held to be arbitrary nor discriminatory. 7. The above view expressed by the Division Bench was not disturbed even by the Supreme Court as Civil Appeal No. 2127 of 2018 (Khatoon and others v. State of U.P. and others) against the aforesaid decision was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 15.2.2018 and it was reiterated that the benefit of the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj and others (Supra) would only be available to the persons who were before the High Court and not to the other persons. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as the petitioners were not before the High Court in any of the petitions decided alongwith the Gajraj’s case (Supra) they are not entitle to be extended any benefit granted therein. 8. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar v. District Magistrate, Agra and others, 2005 (2) AWC 1650 (FB), while considering a similar proposition with regard to extending employment to one family member of the land holder whose land was acquired held that the acquiring body for whose benefit the land is acquired is not bound to extend such additional benefit. The Court held therein that there is no provision under the Act for granting such additional benefit, other than the compensation admissible under the Act and since the Act is a self contained code in itself, any Government Order or Circular granting such additional benefit would be violative of the Act and Article 16 of the Constitution of India and, as such, are liable to be ignored. Thus, in short, no additional benefit other than the compensation as provided under the Act is admissible to the land holders whose land is acquired under the Act. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the legal position, the petitioners are not entitle to any additional benefit such as allotment of 5% of developed or abadi land. The writ petition is, therefore, devoid of merit and is dismissed.