Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1063 (ALL)

Satish v. State of U. P.

2022-07-12

J.J.MUNIR, RAJESH BINDAL

body2022
ORDER : 1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 30.10.2019 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA, refusing additional compensation for his acquired land, claimed on the basis of a right hereinafter detailed. 2. The petitioner's land comprising Khasra No. 545 admeasuring 7-14-15 situate in village Tugalpur, Pargana Dadari, Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Buddh Nagar was proposed to be acquired by the State Government vide notification issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ''the Act') dated September 9, 1997. A declaration under Section 6 read with Section 17 (1) of the Act dated October 9, 1998 followed. The acquired land of Khasra No. 545 (supra) shall hereinafter be referred to as ''the land in dispute'. 3. The land in dispute was acquired according to the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6(1) for the purpose of "planned industrial development" for Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority. Besides the land in dispute, lands of other tenure holders of village Tugalpur were also acquired. Award in respect of the acquired land in the village including the land in dispute was pronounced on March 31st, 2010 under Section 11(2) of the Act. After pronouncement of the award, compensation for individual tenure holders has been drawn up in Form 11, which includes compensation for the land in dispute. 4. Number of notifications relating to different villages within the development area of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority were challenged before this Court. One of the challenge that was laid by the landholders related to village Patwari. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.17068 of 2009, Har Karan Singh vs. State of U.P. and others was filed relating to the subject acquisition in village Patwari. The writ petition aforesaid, along with connected writ petitions, also relating to the same village, were allowed and the acquisition notifications quashed. 5. Later on, a Division Bench of this Court, hearing a challenge to the same notifications dated March 12, 2008 and June 30, 2008 that was in issue in Har Karan Singh's case (supra) in Writ Petition No. 37443 of 2011, Gajraj and others vs. State of U.P. and others along with similar petitions, doubted the correctness of the judgment in Har Karan Singh's case. A reference was made for the constitution of a Larger Bench. 6. A reference was made for the constitution of a Larger Bench. 6. Shorn of unnecessary detail, the Full Bench that was constituted pursuant to the reference, proceeded to decide a large bunch of writ petitions challenging the land acquisition notifications relating to various villages falling in the development area of Greater Noida and Noida vide judgment in Gajraj and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (11) ADJ 1 (FB). In Gajraj's case (supra) the following directions were issued : "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. 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. 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. 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 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." 7. Some of the land owners, aggrieved by the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj, petitioned the Supreme Court seeking Special Leave to Appeal. Leave was granted and Civil Appeal No. 4506 of 2015, Savitri Devi vs. State of U.P. and others along with connected matters was decided by the Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated May 14, 2015, reported as (2015) 7 SCC 21 . In Savitri Devi (supra) the following orders were passed by their Lordships : "48. To sum up, the following benefits are accorded to the landowners: 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 landowners; 48.3. Compensation which is increased @ 64.7% is payable immediately without taking away the rights of the landowners 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. 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." (Emphasis by Court) 8. 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." (Emphasis by Court) 8. In between the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi as well as post Savitri Devi, there was lot of turmoil about the rights of parties relating to the additional compensation of 64.70% and allotment of 10% land to the ousted landholders. The Greater Noida Board and the Noida Board adopted resolutions determining the entitlement of parties in terms of the decision of the Full Bench in Gajraj and later reviewed those decisions after the decision in Savitri Devi. 9. The issue that arose before the Authority related to demand for additional compensation and allotment of 10% developed land proportionate to the area of landholders acquired, put forward by those, whose writ petitions were not before the Full Bench in Gajraj or whose writ petitions had been dismissed upholding the notifications. This demand came because of the directions appearing in sub-paragraph 4 of para 482 in the judgment in Gajraj. Later on, this part of the direction was modified by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, making it clear that the directions of this Court in Gajraj were issued in the peculiar and specific background of the case and would not serve as precedent for other cases. 10. In between the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj and the modifications of the directions there by the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi, there was again a lot of turmoil arising out of claims made by landholders whose notifications were either not under challenge in Gajraj or their challenge had failed already. All such persons or most of them have from time to time come forward with the demand for additional compensation of 64.70 % besides allotment of 10% developed land by the Authority concerned. About these claims, resolutions were adopted by the Greater Noida and the Noida, but the State Government intervened. All such persons or most of them have from time to time come forward with the demand for additional compensation of 64.70 % besides allotment of 10% developed land by the Authority concerned. About these claims, resolutions were adopted by the Greater Noida and the Noida, but the State Government intervened. A detail about the developments in the Board resolutions of the Greater Noida and the Noida, besides orders of the State Government, find eloquent mention in the decision of this Court in Runwell India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ - C No. 14113 of 2017 decided on May 31, 2022 and need not be recapitulated. 11. It is pellucid from the directions issued by the Full Bench in Gajraj as modified by the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi that the benefit of additional compensation to the tune of 64.70% of the awarded compensation besides allotment of 10% Abadi land to the oustees, is confined to landholders who were before the Court in Gajraj and not those who staked their claim post decision in Gajraj playing the proverbial fence sitter. This issue fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ - C No. 32969 of 2021 decided on March 3, 2022, where it has been held : "5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find that any case is made out for issuing directions, as prayed for by the petitioners. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Savitri Devi v. State of U.P. (2015) 7 SCC 21 , in paragraph 50 has specifically held that the directions issued by this Court in Gajraj's case (supra) will not be a precedent for future as the judgment was delivered in peculiar facts and circumstances of that case. Referring to Savitri Devi's case (supra) the same view has again been expressed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in paragraph 48 of the judgment in Khatoon and others v. State of U.P. and others (2018) 14 SCC 346 . Further, a perusal of the judgments sought to be relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners suggest that those were passed on the concession given by the learned counsel for the State that the issues raised are squarely covered by the Full Bench judgment in Gajraj's case (supra). Further, a perusal of the judgments sought to be relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners suggest that those were passed on the concession given by the learned counsel for the State that the issues raised are squarely covered by the Full Bench judgment in Gajraj's case (supra). This Court has not decided the issues on merits. 6. Once it is not in dispute that the acquisition in question was not the subject matter of consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj's case (supra), no benefits granted therein shall accrue to the petitioners." 12. The writ petitioner here had not challenged the notification dated September 9, 1997 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act relating to the land in dispute or the declaration under Section 6(1) dated October 9, 1998 through a writ petition that was subject matter of consideration before the Full Bench in Gajraj. The petitioner has come with a mammoth delay to claim the benefit of the directions for payment of additional compensation of 64.70%, going by the directions in Gajraj. Interestingly, the petitioner has pleaded his right on the basis of the decision of the Full Bench in Gajraj but has not said, as much as by a whisper, about the modification of the relevant directions for payment of additional compensation by the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi's case (supra). The petitioner asserts that in a writ petition filed much later after the decision in Gajraj, a Division Bench of this Court in Jai Pal and others vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ - C No. 7938 of 2012, decided on 21.05.2014, has extended the benefit of 64.70% of additional compensation to the ousted landholders, following the directions in Gajraj, though the petitioners there had not challenged the acquisition through a writ petition that was before the Full Bench in Gajraj. Referring to Savitri Devi's case (supra) the same view has again been expressed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Paragraph 48 of the judgement in Khatoon and others vs. State of U.P. and others, (2018) 14 SCC 346 . 13. It is also pointed out that the writ petitioners in Jai Pal (supra) had entered into an agreement for payment of compensation under the U.P. Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation & Declaration of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997. 13. It is also pointed out that the writ petitioners in Jai Pal (supra) had entered into an agreement for payment of compensation under the U.P. Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation & Declaration of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997. They had received compensation in terms of the said rules. Yet, going by the directions in the Gajraj's case (supra), they were ordered to be paid additional compensation. 14. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's case stands on a better footing and he is entitled to additional compensation on the same principles. These issues have already been examined by the Division Bench in Runwell India Pvt. Ltd. and the Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar (supra), where the ratio was clear and unmistakable. It is to this effect: any claim for additional compensation based on the directions in the Full Bench directions in Gajraj which have been issued in the special facts of the case and confined to the landholders who were before the Court in Gajraj cannot be entertained. The benefit cannot be extended to the fence-sitters, who now raise claims for additional compensation. This is the clear purport of the directions of the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi modifying the relative directions in Gajraj. 15. It is for this reason that the petitioner's claim for additional compensation, for his lands acquired long ago, canvassed by petitioning the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, was turned down by means of the order dated October 30, 2019 that he has impugned in this petition. 16. For all the reasons indicated hereinabove, we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority. 17. The writ petition fails and is hereby, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.