Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1093 (ALL)

Hariram v. State of U. P.

2019-04-26

B.AMIT STHALEKAR, YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Heard Sri Pramod Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 04.10.2018 passed by respondent no.2/Chief Executive Officer, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar in terms of which his claim for allotment of 5% abadi land has been rejected for the reason that in the earlier writ petition, Writ-C No.49133 of 2011 (Bhanwar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.), in which the petitioner was a party, the plots in question i.e. khasra nos.403 and 470 were not mentioned although the said khasra numbers did find mention in Form11, containing particulars of distribution of the compensation amount, which has been annexed alongwith the writ petition. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that he was a party to the earlier writ petition, Writ C No.49133 of 2011 and the challenge raised by him was in respect of the two plots in question i.e. khasra nos.403 and 470. 4. We have summoned the records of the aforementioned writ petition to verify the facts. 5. The petitioner herein was petitioner no.5 in the earlier writ petition and in terms of the relief clause in the said writ petition a challenge was raised to the notifications dated 30.03.2002 and 28.06.2003 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 respectively with regard to certain land in Village Sadarpur, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar. 6. The only reason which has been assigned in the order impugned is that the two plots i.e. khasra nos.403 and 470 do not find mention in any of the paragraphs of the earlier writ petition. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein was a party in the earlier writ petition i.e. Writ-C No.49133 of 2011 which as disposed of on 17.02.2012 in terms of the order passed on the writ petition, Writ C No.6022 of 2008 (Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.). The order is being reproduced below: “Disposed of. For order, see order of date passed on the Writ Petition No.6022 of 2008.” 8. State of U.P. & Ors.). The order is being reproduced below: “Disposed of. For order, see order of date passed on the Writ Petition No.6022 of 2008.” 8. It has been brought to our notice that insofar as Writ-C No.6022 of 2008 is concerned, it had been taken up alongwith a bunch of writ petitions and vide judgment dated 17.02.2012 the same was disposed of in terms of direction no.3 and other directions issued in the judgment and order dated 21.10.2011 passed in the case of Gajraj & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2011 (11) ADJ 1 . 9. The aforementioned direction nos.3 and 4 issued by this Court in the case of Gajraj & Ors. (supra), as extracted in the impugned order dated 04.10.2018, are as follows : “3. All other writ petitions except as mentioned above at (1) and (2) are disposed of with following directions: (a) The petitioners shall be entitled for payment of additional compensation to the extent of same ratio (i.e. 64.70%) as paid for village Patwari in addition to the compensation received by them under 1997 Rules/award which payment shall be ensured by the Authority at an early date. It may be open for Authority to take a decision as to what proportion of additional compensation be asked to be paid by allottees. Those petitioners who have not yet been paid compensation may be paid the compensation as well as additional compensation as ordered above. The payment of additional compensation shall be without any prejudice to rights of land owners under section 18 of the Act, if any. (b) All the petitioners shall be entitled for allotment of developed Abadi plot to the extent of 10% of their acquired land subject to maximum of 2500 square meters. We however, leave it open to the Authority in cases where allotment of abadi plot to the extent of 6% or 8% have already been made either to make allotment of the balance of the area or may compensate the land owners by payment of the amount equivalent to balance area as per average rate of allotment made of developed residential plots. 4. 4. The Authority may also take a decision as to whether benefit of additional compensation and allotment of abadi plot to the extent of 10% be also given to; (a) those land holders whose earlier writ petition challenging the notifications have been dismissed upholding the notifications; and (b) those land holders who have not come to the Court, relating to the notifications which are subject matter of challenge in writ petitions mentioned at direction No.3.” 10. It has been stated in the order impugned that the benefit of 5% additional developed abadi land is being given only to those tenure holders who were petitioners in the aforementioned case of Gajraj & Ors. (supra) and the connected matters. 11. The order duly takes note of the fact that the petitioner was a party in Writ-C No.49133 of 2011, which was disposed of in terms of the directions issued in the case of Gajraj & Ors. (supra) and connected matters. The only objection which has been taken with regard to petitioner's claim is that the plots in question i.e. khasra nos.403 and 470 situate in Sadarpur have not been mentioned. This objection cannot be accepted for the reason that once it is admitted that the petitioner was a party in the case of Bhanwar Singh (supra), which in turn had been disposed of in terms of the judgment in the case of Gajraj & Ors. (supra) and connected matters, and the respondent authority had taken a decision to grant benefit of the additional 5% abadi land to all the petitioners who were party in the case of Gajraj & Ors. (supra) and connected matters and also in the writ petitions which were covered in terms of the judgment in the case of Gajraj & Ors. (supra), the claim of the petitioner cannot be non-suited only for reason that the plots in question had not been mentioned in the paragraphs of the writ petitions. This is more so, for the reason that the plots in question i.e. plot nos.403 and 470 did find mention in Form11 a copy whereof had been annexed along with the writ petition. This is more so, for the reason that the plots in question i.e. plot nos.403 and 470 did find mention in Form11 a copy whereof had been annexed along with the writ petition. Also, the petitioner being a party in the case of Bhanwar Singh (supra) in which the notifications pertaining to the Village Sadarpur had been challenged and the only plots regarding which the petitioners had raised a claim being khasra nos.403 and 470 the order impugned which has been passed by the respondent authority for the reason that the plots in question were not mentioned in the paragraphs of the writ petitions, cannot be legally sustained. 12. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 04.10.2018 passed by the respondent no.2, and remit the matter for a fresh decision by the said respondent. The respondent no.2 is expected to take decision in the light of the aforementioned observations in accordance with law after due notice and opportunity to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 13. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms.