Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 558 (ALL)

Praveen v. State of U. P.

2020-02-19

B.K.NARAYANA, PRAKASH PADIA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Prakash Padia, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3. 2. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition with the following prayers: "(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 6.9.2019 passed by respondent No. 3. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 3 to provide 10% developed land is well as 64.7% Additional Compensation in view of the full bench judgment Gajraj and others v. State of U.P. and others in respect of the land acquired of the petitioner No. 1 plot No. 344 Khasra number 699/2, 737/2, petitioner No. 2 plot No. 305 Khasra No. 740, 622 petitioner No. 3 plot No. 8 Khasra No. 621, petitioner No. 4 to 10 Khasra No. 670 village Surajpur, Pargana Dadri District Gautam Budh Nagar. (c) Issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (d) Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioners." 3. Fact in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioners are owners and Bhumidhar with transferable rights of their respective land situate in Village Surajpur, Pargana Dadri, District Gautam Buddh Nagar. The lands of the petitioners were acquired by the State Government by issuing a notification dated 13.9.1996 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1894) which was followed by a notification dated 28.10.1996 issued under section 6 of the Act, 1894. 4. It is stated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that the lands were acquired on the basis of conception that the acquiring authority will provide 10% developed land to each and every petitioner in order to sustain their livelihood after the acquisition of their entire lands. In this regard, learned Counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance upon a resolution dated 22.11.1997 passed by the respondent authorities. It is further stated in the writ petition that subsequently the aforesaid resolution was revised and now, a resolution has been passed to provide 10% developed land to the farmers of NOIDA and 5% to the farmers of the Greater NOIDA. 5. It is further stated in the writ petition that subsequently the aforesaid resolution was revised and now, a resolution has been passed to provide 10% developed land to the farmers of NOIDA and 5% to the farmers of the Greater NOIDA. 5. A large number of writ petitions were filed before this Court challenging the notification issued by the respondent authority and ultimately, the aforesaid writ petitions were decided by full bench of this Court in the case of Gajraj and others v. State of U.P. and others 2011 (11) ADJ 1 (FB). It further revealed from perusal of the record that the petitioners had also earlier filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ--C. No. 57766 of 2012 (Praveen and 9 orders v. State of U.P. and 2 others). The said writ petition was finally disposed of by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment and order dated 9.2.2015. The order passed in the aforesaid case is quoted here in below: "Petitioners have approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the additional compensation in respect of their land, which was subject matter of acquisition. The land of the petitioners was acquired vide notification dated 13.9.1996 and 28.10.1996 issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 respectively for planned industrial development by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority. Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the NOIDA Authority states that since the petitioners have already received compensation long back and there is inordinate delay and laches in filing the writ petition, therefore, the petitioners cannot be held for payment of any additional compensation and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. The issue came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gajraj and others v. State of U.P. and others 2011 (11) ADJ 1 (FB), and it has been answered in paragraph 481 as under: "481. As noticed above, the land has been acquired of large number of villagers in different villages of Greater Noida and Noida. Some of the petitioners had earlier come to this Court and their writ petitions have been dismissed as noticed above upholding the notifications which judgments have become final between them. As noticed above, the land has been acquired of large number of villagers in different villages of Greater Noida and Noida. Some of the petitioners had earlier come to this Court and their writ petitions have been dismissed as noticed above upholding the notifications which judgments have become final between them. Some of the petitioners may not have come to the Court and have left themselves in the hand of the Authority and State under belief that the State and Authority shall do the best for them as per law. We cannot loose sight of the fact that the above farmers and agricultures/owners whose land has been acquired are equally affected by taking of their land. As far as consequence and effect of the acquisition it equally effects on all land losers. Thus land owners whose writ petitions have earlier been dismissed upholding the notifications may have grievances that the additional compensation which was a subsequent event granted by the Authority may also be extended to them and for the aforesaid, further spate of litigation may start in so far as payment of additional compensation is concerned. In the circumstances, we leave it to the Authority to take a decision as to whether the benefit of additional compensation shall also be extended to those with regard to whom the notifications of acquisition have been upheld or those who have not filed any writ petitions. We leave this in the discretion of the Authority/State which may be exercised keeping in view the principles enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India." In view of above, the petitioners herein are entitled to be extended the same benefit as observed in the case of Gajraj (supra) quoted above. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations made in the case of Gajraj (supra)." 6. From perusal of the same, it is clear that directions were given by this Court to take a decision as to whether the benefit of additional compensation shall also be extended to the petitioners or not. 7. It appears from perusal of the record that pursuant to the directions given by this Court on 9.2.2015, an order dated 21.11.2015 was passed by the respondent No. 3. The order dated 21.11.2015 is not brought on record by the petitioners for the reasons best known to them. 8. 7. It appears from perusal of the record that pursuant to the directions given by this Court on 9.2.2015, an order dated 21.11.2015 was passed by the respondent No. 3. The order dated 21.11.2015 is not brought on record by the petitioners for the reasons best known to them. 8. The order dated 21.11.2015 was again challenged by the petitioners before this Court by filing a writ petition before this Court being Writ--C No. 17258 of 2019 (Praveen and 8 others v. State of U.P. and 2 others). The aforesaid writ petition was finally allowed by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment and order dated 20.5.2019. The order dated 21.11.2015 was quashed only in view of the facts that no reasons were assigned for rejecting the claim of the petitioners. Pursuant to the order dated 20.5.2019 passed by this Court, now a decision has been taken by the Chief Executive Officer Greater NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar/respondent No. 3 dated 6.9.2019 rejecting the claim of the petitioners. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the aforesaid order dated 6.9.2019 passed by the respondent No. 3. 9. It is argued by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court passed in Gajraj and others (supra) and as such, the petitioners are entitled for 10% developed land as well as 64.7% additional compensation. It is further argued that in large number of writ petitions, similar relief was also granted in favour of the farmers similarly situate. 10. It is an admitted position that the petitioners did not challenge the land acquisition proceedings. The writ petition is also silent as to whether the notifications under which the land of the petitioners was acquired, were under challenge in the bunch of writ petitions which were decided alongwith the case of Gajraj Singh and others (supra). 11. 10. It is an admitted position that the petitioners did not challenge the land acquisition proceedings. The writ petition is also silent as to whether the notifications under which the land of the petitioners was acquired, were under challenge in the bunch of writ petitions which were decided alongwith the case of Gajraj Singh and others (supra). 11. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and also the learned Counsel for the Greater Noida have submitted that the benefit granted by the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj Singh and others would not be applicable to the case of the petitioners for the reason that the petitioners were neither parties in the writ petitions which had been decided alongwith the case of Gajraj Singh and others nor there is any assertion by the petitioners that the notifications under which their land had been acquired were subject matter of challenge in the case of Gajraj Singh and others. Furthermore, it has been submitted that in terms of the direction contained in the Full Bench judgment, the Greater Noida had taken a decision not to allot the abadi plot to the extent of 10% to those land owners who had not approached the Writ Court and had not challenged the acquisition proceedings. 12. The question which thus falls for consideration is as to whether as per the directions in the case of Gajraj Singh and others (supra), the petitioners, who were neither parties in the writ petitions which had been decided alongwith the case of Gajraj Singh and others (supra) nor had their land been acquired under the notifications which were subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions decided by the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj Singh and others and connected matters, could claim entitlement to additional compensation and allotment of abadi plot to the extent of 10% of their acquired land. 13. In the case of Gajraj Singh and others (supra), the writ petitions challenging the notifications in respect of land acquisition proceedings with respect to tracts of land situate in different villages of Greater Noida and Noida were decided and the writ petitions were disposed of in terms of the following directions: "481. As noticed above, the land has been acquired of large number of villagers in different villages of Greater Noida and Noida. As noticed above, the land has been acquired of large number of villagers in different villages of Greater Noida and Noida. Some of the petitioners had earlier come to this Court and their writ petitions have been dismissed as noticed above upholding the notifications which judgments have become final between them. Some of the petitioners may not have come to the Court and have left themselves in the hand of the Authority and State under belief that the State and Authority shall do the best for them as per law. We cannot loose sight of the fact that the above farmers and agricultures/owners whose land has been acquired are equally affected by taking of their land. As far as consequence and effect of the acquisition it equally effects on all land losers. Thus land owners whose writ petitions have earlier been dismissed upholding the notifications may have grievances that the additional compensation which was a subsequent event granted by the Authority may also be extended to them and for the aforesaid, further spate of litigation may start in so far as payment of additional compensation is concerned. In the circumstances, we leave it to the Authority to take a decision as to whether the benefit of additional compensation shall also be extended to those with regard to whom the notifications of acquisition have been upheld or those who have not filed any writ petitions. We leave this in the discretion of the Authority/State which may be exercised keeping in view the principles enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 482. In view of the foregoing conclusions we order as follows: 1. We leave this in the discretion of the Authority/State which may be exercised keeping in view the principles enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 482. In view of the foregoing conclusions we order as follows: 1. The Writ Petition No. 45933 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 47545 of 2011 relating to village Nithari, Writ Petition No. 47522 of 2011 relating to village Sadarpur, Writ Petition No. 45196 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45208 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45211 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45213 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45216 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45223 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45224 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45226 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45229 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45230 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45235 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45238 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45283 of 2011 relating to village Khoda, Writ Petition No. 46764 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 46785 of 2011 relating to village Sultanpur, Writ Petition No. 46407 of 2011 relating to village Chaura Sadatpur and Writ Petition No. 46470 of 2011 relating to village Alaverdipur which have been filed with inordinate delay and laches are dismissed. 2(i) The writ petitions of Group 40 (Village Devla) being Writ Petition No. 31126 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 59131 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 22800 of 2010, Writ Petition No. 37118 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 42812 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 50417 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 54424 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 54652 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 55650 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 57032 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 58318 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 22798 of 2010, Writ Petition No. 37784 of 2010, Writ Petition No. 37787 of 2010, Writ Petition No. 31124 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 31125 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 32234 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 32987 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 35648 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 38059 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 41339 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 47427 of 2011 and Writ Petition No. 47412 of 2011 are allowed and the notifications dated 26.5.2009 and 22.6.2009 and all consequential actions are quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled for restoration of their land subject to deposit of compensation which they had received under agreement/award before the authority/Collector. The petitioners shall be entitled for restoration of their land subject to deposit of compensation which they had received under agreement/award before the authority/Collector. 2(ii) Writ petition No. 17725 of 2010 Omveer and others v. State of U.P. (Group 38) relating to village Yusufpur Chak Sahberi is allowed. Notifications dated 10.4.2006 and 6.9.2007 and all consequential actions are quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled for restoration of their land subject to return of compensation received by them under agreement/award to the Collector. 2(iii) Writ Petition No. 47486 of 2011 (Rajee and others v. State of U.P. and others) of Group-42 relating to village Asdullapur is allowed. The notification dated 27.1.2010 and 4.2.2010 as well as all subsequent proceedings are quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled to restoration of their land. 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. 5. The Greater NOIDA and its allottees are directed not to carry on development and not to implement the Master Plan 2021 till the observations and directions of the National Capital Regional Planning Board are incorporated in Master Plan 2021 to the satisfaction of the National Capital Regional Planning Board. We make it clear that this direction shall not be applicable in those cases where the development is being carried on in accordance with the earlier Master Plan of the Greater NOIDA duly approved by the National Capital Regional Planning Board. 6. We direct the Chief Secretary of the State to appoint officers not below the level of Principal Secretary (except the officers of Industrial Development Department who have dealt with the relevant files) to conduct a thorough inquiry regarding the acts of Greater Noida (a) in proceeding to implement Master Plan 2021 without approval of N.C.R.P. Board, (b) decisions taken to change the land use, (c) allotment made to the builders and (d) indiscriminate proposals for acquisition of land, and thereafter the State Government shall take appropriate action in the matter." 14. The question as to whether the benefit of the directions issued by the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj Singh and others (supra) for providing additional compensation to the extent of 64.70% and developed abadi plot to the extent of 10% of the land acquired was liable to be extended to such tenure holders also whose lands were not acquired in terms of the notifications which were under challenge in the case of Gajraj Singh and others (supra), has also been considered by a Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Rameshwari and 3 others v. State of U.P. and 2 others in Writ-C No. 18948 of 2017 decided on 3.5.2017 and in terms of judgment dated 3.5.2017, it has been held as follows: "A perusal of the Full Bench judgment in the case of Gajraj Singh (supra) goes to show that in order to save the acquisition proceedings, direction for payment of additional compensation and allotment of developed abadi plot was issued in peculiar facts and circumstances, particularly, the fact that extensive development had taken place even though the Full Bench found that opportunity to file objection under section 5-A Act had been wrongly denied to the tenure holders. However, the benefit extended to the land owners in lieu of saving the acquisition proceedings, even though the same were found to be illegal and liable to be quashed, was restricted to the acquisition proceedings challenged before it. However, the question of extending the benefits of additional compensation and allotment of developed abadi plot to such land holders whose challenge to the land acquisition notification already stood dismissed or such land holders who did not approach this Court challenging the land acquisition notification though the said notifications were subject matter of challenge before the Full Bench, was left open to be decided by the authority. As already noticed above, in pursuance of the aforesaid directions, the authority took a decision in its Board meeting for making payment of additional compensation to the extent of 64.7% to all land holders whether they had put challenge to the land acquisition notifications or not. However, in respect of allotment of abadi plot to the extent of 10%, the authority took a decision not to extend the benefit to such land holders who had not approached the Writ Court and had not questioned the acquisition proceedings. However, in respect of allotment of abadi plot to the extent of 10%, the authority took a decision not to extend the benefit to such land holders who had not approached the Writ Court and had not questioned the acquisition proceedings. In the case in hand, the petitioners' land was acquired by means of notification dated 9.9.1997. Equally admitted fact is that the petitioners accepted the award and did not come forward to challenge the land acquisition proceedings. Not only that, notification dated 9.9.2017 whereunder an area 1275-18-18 including Gata No. 582 area 6-5-13, 538 area 0-15-6, 609 area 1-2-12 and 615 area 9-10-10 of the petitioners situate at village Tugalpur was acquired was not subject of matter of challenge before the Full Bench. In view of above facts and discussions, it is clear that the relief which was granted by the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj Singh (supra) affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Savitri Devi (supra) cannot be made applicable to the acquisition proceedings which were not assailed and were not subject matter of adjudication before the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj Singh (supra). Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the ratio decidendi of the Full Bench does not stand attracted in the case of the petitioners and they cannot claim parity with those tenure holders who were before the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj Singh (supra). The petitioners are thus not entitled to the relief claimed in this petition. The impugned order therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity requiring any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition fails and accordingly stands dismissed." 15. A similar view has been taken in a recent judgment of this Court in Ramesh and others v. State of U.P. and others 2019 (4) ADJ 225 , wherein it was stated as follows: "14. Writ petition fails and accordingly stands dismissed." 15. A similar view has been taken in a recent judgment of this Court in Ramesh and others v. State of U.P. and others 2019 (4) ADJ 225 , wherein it was stated as follows: "14. Moreover, the directions issued by the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj Singh and others under para 482(4) in terms of which the Authority was to take a decision as to whether benefit of additional compensation and allotment of abadi plot to the extent of 10% was to be given, was confined to those land holders whose writ petitions challenging the notifications had been dismissed earlier and to those who had not approached the Court to challenge the notifications which were subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions decided alongwith the case of Gajraj Singh and others. The directions under para 482(4) were not in respect of those persons such as the petitioners in the present case whose land had been acquired in terms of notifications which were not subject matter of challenge in the case of Gajraj Singh and others and connected matters." 16. It is to be noted at this juncture that earlier also a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar v. District Magistrate, Agra and others, 2005 (1) UPLBEC 118 , has held that land acquisition act is itself a self contained code. Any other provision providing for further benefit has not been mentioned in the Land Acquisition Act. In that case the petitioner had claimed employment in the State Government over and above the compensation paid which the Court declined. The paragraph 22 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below here in below: "22. There is no provision under the Land Acquisition Act under which the Circular dated 28.12.1974 could be issued. Whatever compensation has to be given for acquisition of the land is provided under the Land Acquisition Act itself which is a self-contained Code. Any G.O. providing for any further benefit not mentioned in the Land Acquisition Act would be inconsistent with the intention of Parliament as contained in the Land Acquisition Act. Hence any such G.O. would be violative of the Land Acquisition Act and would hence be invalid. Such a G.O. will also violate Article 16 of the Constitution as already mentioned above." 17. Hence any such G.O. would be violative of the Land Acquisition Act and would hence be invalid. Such a G.O. will also violate Article 16 of the Constitution as already mentioned above." 17. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefits claimed by them in the present writ petition. The case of the petitioners is not at all covered by the Full Bench judgment of Gajraj Singh and others (supra). After going through the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by this Court, we are of the opinion that the order dated 6.9.2019 passed by the respondent No. 3 is absolutely perfect and valid order and does not call for any interference by this Court specially under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further clear on the facts as narrated above that the petitioners have neither any legal right nor any factual foundation to claim the relief of additional compensation as well as allotment of additional developed abadi land. 18. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.