Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1895 (ALL)

Lachhu Singh v. State Of U. P.

2019-08-05

PIYUSH AGRAWAL, PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH BAGHEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of a direction to the respondents to allot the developed abadi to the extent of 10% of the acquired land. The relief claimed in the writ petition reads as under: "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to allot the developed Abadi Plot to the extent of 10% of the acquired land, subject to maximum of 2500 square meter in pursuance of the land of the petitioner acquired by the Authority bearing Khata No. 278 Khasra No. 152 measuring 2.6070 hectare situated at Village Pali, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar." 2. It is stated that Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (for short, "the Authority") acquired petitioner's bhumidhari land being Khata No. 278 Khasra No. 152 situated at Village Pali, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. 3. A large number of writ petitions were filed by the farmers. A batch of petitions was decided by a common judgment in the case of Gajraj and others v. State of U.P. and others, (2011) 11 ADJ 1 (FB). The petitioner claims that he has also filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46933 of 2011 (Raghubar & others v. State of U.P. & others) which was clubbed with the lead petition Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37443 of 2011 (Gajraj and others v. State of U.P. and others). This Court in Gajraj (supra) has passed the following directions: “482. ... 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. 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. 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.” 4. The said judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Savitri Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2015) 7 SCC 21 Relevant part of the judgment of the Supreme Court reads as under: “48. To sum up, the following benefits are accorded to the land owners: 48.1.Increasing the compensation by 64.7%; 48.2 Directing allotment of developed abadi land to the extent of 10% of the land acquired of each of the land owners; 48.3. Compensation which is increased at the rate of 64.7% is payable immediately without taking away the rights of the land owners to claim higher compensation under the machinery provided in the Land Acquisition Act wherein the matter would be examined on the basis of the evidence produced to arrive at just and fair market value. 49. This, according to us, provides substantial justice to the appellants. Conclusion 50. Keeping in view all these peculiar circumstances, we are of the opinion that these are not the cases where this Court should interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution. 49. This, according to us, provides substantial justice to the appellants. Conclusion 50. Keeping in view all these peculiar circumstances, we are of the opinion that these are not the cases where this Court should interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution. However, we make it clear that directions of the High Court are given in the aforesaid unique and peculiar/specific background and, therefore, it would not form precedent for future cases. 51.... 52. The Full Bench judgment of the High Court is, accordingly, affirmed and all these appeals are disposed of in terms of the said judgment of the Full Bench.” 5. In the present case the petitioner claims that he has filed writ petition, therefore, he is entitled for 64.7% additional compensation and is also entitled for allotment of developed abadi plot to the extent of 10% of acquired land. The petitioner claims that his 2.6070 hectares land was acquired thus he is entitled for 2607 sq.mtrs. but in view of maximum limit of 2500 sq. mtrs he is entitled for the same. 6. The petitioner has made several representations but no decision has been taken as yet. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3. 8. Sri Singh has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Khatoon and others v. State of U.P. and others, Civil Appeal No. 2127 of 2018 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 35758 of 2016) : 2018(2) RCR (Civil) 164. and a Division Bench judgment in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 26718 of 2018, Atar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others and 16647 of 2018, Suresh Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others. 9. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The petitioner's plot no. 278 area 2.6070 hectare was said to be acquired. The petitioner has not enclosed the notification issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In paragraph-6 of the writ petition the petitioner has claimed that he has filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 46933 of 2011. A copy of the judgment of the said order is on the record as annexure-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner has not enclosed the notification issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In paragraph-6 of the writ petition the petitioner has claimed that he has filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 46933 of 2011. A copy of the judgment of the said order is on the record as annexure-2 to the writ petition. The said writ petition has been filed by Raghubar and others which was disposed of on 21.10.2011 in terms of the judgment in Gajraj (supra). 11. The grievance of the petitioner is that in compliance of the judgment in Gajraj (supra) similarly placed persons have been paid 64.70% developed plot up to 10% of the total acquired land for residential purposes but the petitioner has been denied the allotment of developed abadi plot to the extent of 10% of his acquired land. 12. We find that the petitioner has made representations dated 26.9.2017 and 19.6.2019 to the authority concerned which is on the record. 13. Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the Supreme in Khatoon (supra). In paragraph-15 of the said judgment it is recorded that the appellants in those cases have not filed any writ petition and for the first time on 15.2.2016 they approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Paragraph-15 of the said judgment reads as under : “15. The appellants herein, whose lands were also acquired in these acquisition proceedings, then woke up out of slumber and filed the writ petitions for the first time on 15.02.2016 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad out of which these appeals arise.” 14. It is pertinent to mention that the Full Bench in its operative portion of the judgment in Gajraj (supra) has made it clear that the land holders who have not filed writ petition, their case shall be considered by the Authority which shall take a decision as to whether the benefit of additional compensation and the allotment of abadi plot be also given to those land holders who have not come to the Court relating to the notification which are subject matter of challenge in Gajraj (supra) and companion petitions and all those land holders whose earlier writ petitions challenging the notifications have been dismissed. 15. 15. It was urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance of the said directions the Authority has taken a resolution to extend the benefit to those persons also who have not filed writ petition and has sought approval of the State Government, however, the State Government vide its order dated 21.9.2016 addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar has rejected the said proposal. The said Government Order reads as under: **la[;k & 1214@77&3&56,e@16 Ás"kd] vfuy dqekj] vuq lfpo] mRrj Áns'k 'kkluA lsok esa] eq[; dk;Zikyd vf/kdkjhA xzsVj uks,Mk] xkSrceq)uxjA vkS|ksfxd fodkl vuqHkkx & 3 y[kuÅ% fnukad 21 flrEcj] 2016 fo"k; %& ek0 mPpre U;k;ky;@ek0 mPPk U;k;ky; ds fofHkUu vkns'kksa ls vukPNkfnr vftZr Hkwfe ds mu d`"kdksa dks Hkh ftUgsa Ákf/kdj.k cksMZ ds fofHkUu fu.kZ;ksa ls 64-70 Áfr'kr dh nj ls vfrfjDr Áfrdj@vfrfjDrrk dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS] dks Ákf/kdj.k }kjk iwoZ fu/kkZfjr vgZrk@uhfr ds vuqlkj ik= d`"kdksa dks 10 Áfr'kr ¼vf/kdre 2500 oxZ ehVj½ dh lhek rd fodflr Hkw[k.Mks ds vkoaVu ds lEcU/k esaA egksn;] d`i;k mi;qZDr fo"k;d vius i= la[;k & 106@Hkwys[k@Hkw0 i0@2016] fnukd 20-04-2016 dk lUnHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsa] ftlesa Ákf/kdj.k dh 104 oha cksMZ cSBd esa fy;s x;s fu.kZ; ds vuqØe esa ek0 mPpre U;k;ky;@ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds fofHkUu vkns'kksa ls vukPNkfnr vftZr Hkwfe ds mu d`"kdksa dks Hkh ftUgsa Ákf/kdj.k cksMZ ds fofHkUu fu.kZ;ksa ls 64-70 Áfr'kr dh nj ls vfrfjDr Áfrdj@ vfrfjDrrk dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS] dks Ákf/kdj.k }kjk iwoZ fu/kkZfjr vgZRkk@uhfr ds vuqlkj ik= d`"kdksa dks 10 Áfr'kr ¼vf/kdre 2500 oxZ ehVj½ dh lhek rd fodflr Hkw[k.Mksa dks vkaofVr fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa 'kklu dh vuqefr fn;s tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gSA 2- bl lEcU/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd lUnfHkZr i= }kjk miyC/k djk;k x;k ÁLrko lE;d fopkjksijkUr Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha ik;k x;kA d`i;k rn~uqlkj voxr gksus dk d"V djsaA Hkonh; g0 vi0 ¼vfuy dqekj½ vuq lfpoA** 16. In the present case the said issue need not to be decided since the petitioner's case is that he had filed writ petition and it was tagged and decided along with the case of Gajraj and others. 17. In the present case the said issue need not to be decided since the petitioner's case is that he had filed writ petition and it was tagged and decided along with the case of Gajraj and others. 17. In the present case the petitioner has averred that he has filed a writ petition and a copy of the order of Raghubar (supra) is also on the record hence the judgment of Khatoon (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the present case as the petitioner had filed writ petition which was tagged with the case of Gajraj and others as also it was disposed of in the same terms. 18. In any view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the grievance of the petitioner be considered at the first instance by the authority concerned by passing a reasoned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the second respondent to consider the cause of the petitioner and pass appropriate order. The authority concerned shall make an endeavour to address the grievance of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order. 19. Needless to say that we have not expressed our opinion on the merits of the case, the authority concerned shall pass the order independently and in accordance with law. No order as to costs.