Allahabad High Court
Anand Prakash And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 20 November, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 3042
Bench: Pankaj Mithal, Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 66367 of 2015 Petitioner :- Anand Prakash And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Surat Saroj Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shivam Yadav Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
(Per Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.)
1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Prem Chandra Saroj learned counsel, on behalf of the petitioners, is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Prem Chandra Saroj, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the fourth respondent, and Sri Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
3. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to allot developed abadi plot to the petitioners to the extent of 10% of their acquired land in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Gajraj Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others1.
4. The petitioners claim to be owners of certain land parcels situate in Village Soharkha Jahidabad, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar which were subject matter of acquisition proceedings in terms of notification dated 31.07.2005 issued under Section 4 (1)/17(4), and the notification dated 27.07.2006 issued under Section 6/17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners admit to having received compensation amount and also additional compensation at the rate of 64.70% in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Gajraj Singh and others (supra).
5. 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 along with the case of Gajraj Singh and others.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the State respondents and also the learned counsel for the Noida Authority 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 along with 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. Further more, it has been submitted that in terms of the direction contained in the Full Bench judgment, the Noida Authority 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.
7. The question which thus falls for consideration is as to whether as per the directions in the case of Gajraj Singh and others, the petitioners, who were neither parties in the writ petitions which had been decided along with the case of Gajraj Singh and others 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 allotment of abadi plot to the extent of 10% of their acquired land.
8. In the case of Gajraj Singh and others, 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. 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 affects 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. 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 Vs. 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 vs. 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.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."
9. In terms of the aforementioned directions, particularly the directions issued under paragraph 482(3), it was held that all the petitioners in the bunch of writ petitions would be entitled for payment of additional compensation to the extent of 64.70% in addition to the compensation already received and also would be entitled for allotment of developed abadi land to the extent of 10% of their acquired area.
10. In paragraph 482 (4), the Authority was directed 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 to those land owners whose writ petitions challenging the notifications had been dismissed earlier and also those land holders who had not come to the Court to challenge the notifications which were subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions decided along with the case of Gajraj Singh and others. It may be pertinent to note that there was no direction for grant of payment of additional compensation/allotment of abadi land or for consideration of the said benefits by the Authority in respect of those persons 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 bunch of writ petitions.
11. The judgment in the case of Gajraj Singh and others was challenged before the Supreme Court in the case of Savitri Devi vs. State of U.P. and others2, and the same was affirmed after duly taking notice of the facts of the case where the High Court was faced with a scenario where, on the one hand, invocation of urgency provisions under Section 17 and dispensing with the right to file objections under Section 5-A, was found to be illegal and on the other hand, there was a situation where because of delay in challenging the acquisitions by the landowners, developments had taken place in the villages and in most of the cases, third party rights had been created.
12. It was in the face of this situation that the Court in the case of Gajraj Singh and others came out with a solution which was equitable to both the sides by way of providing them a practical and workable solution by adequately compensating the landowners in the form of compensation as well as allotment of developed abadi land at a higher rate i.e. 10% of the land acquired of each of the landowners against the eligibility under the policy to the extent of 5% and 6% in the case of land parcels under the Noida and Greater Noida respectively.
13. The Supreme Court in the case of Savitri Devi also took note of the fact that directions had been issued by the High Court in the peculiar circumstances of the case and would not form a precedent for future cases. The relevant extracts from the judgment in the case of Savitri Devi are as follows:-
"44. We have also to keep in mind another important feature. Many residents of Patwari village had entered into agreement with the authorities agreeing to accept enhanced compensation @ 64.7%. This additional compensation was, however, agreed to be paid by the authorities only in respect of landowners of Patwari village. The High Court has bound the authorities with the said agreement by applying the same to all the land owners thereby benefiting them with 64.7% additional compensation. There could have been argument that the authorities cannot be fastened with this additional compensation, more particularly, when machinery for determination for just and fair compensation is provided under the Land Acquisition Act and the land owners had, in fact, invoked the said machinery by seeking reference Under Section 18 thereof. Likewise, the scheme for allotment of land to the land owners provides for 5% and 6% developed land in Noida and Greater Noida respectively. As against that, the High Court has enhanced the said entitlement to 10%. Again, we find that it could be an arguable case as to whether High Court could grant additional land contrary to the policy. Notwithstanding the same, the Noida authority have now accepted this part of the High Court judgment after the dismissal of the appeals filed by the Noida authority, and a statement to that effect was made by Mr. Rao.
45. We may point out that while dismissing the appeals of Noida authority, following remarks were made:
9. Insofar as allotment of 10 per cent of the plots is concerned, the High Court, in exercise of its discretionary power, has thought it fit, while sustaining the notification issued by the authority for protecting them for allotting 10 per cent of the developed plots; and, there again they have put a cap of 2,500 sq.mtrs. In fact, in the course of the order, the High Court has taken into consideration the agreement that was entered into by the authority with the villagers of Patwari and, in some cases, the authority itself has agreed to raise 6 to 8 per cent of the developed plots to the agriculturists. The High Court has also taken into consideration the observations made by this Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy v. Bangalore Development Authority 2010 (7) SCC 129, where this Court has gone to the extent of directing the authorities to allot 15 per cent of the developed plots. In our view and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, since the relief that is given to the Respondents/agriculturists is purely discretionary relief by the Court in order to sustain the notification issued by the authorities, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court, at the instance of the Petitioners/Appellants/ authorities, namely, NOIDA and Greater NOIDA.
10. This order shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case.
46. Thus, we have a scenario where, on the one hand, invocation of urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Act and dispensing with the right to file objection under Section 5A of the Act, is found to be illegal. On the other hand, we have a situation where because of delay in challenging these acquisitions by the landowners, developments have taken place in these villages and in most of the cases, third party rights have been created. Faced with this situation, the High Court going by the spirit behind the judgment of this Court in Bondu Ramaswamy came out with the solution which is equitable to both sides. We are, thus, of the view that the High Court considered the ground realities of the matter and arrived at a more practical and workable solution by adequately compensating the land owners in the form of compensation as well as allotment of developed Abadi land at a higher rate i.e. 10% of the land acquired of each of the landowners against the eligibility and to (sic under) the policy to the extent of 5% and 6% of Noida and Greater Noida land respectively.
47. Insofar as allegation of some of the Appellants that their abadi land was acquired, we find that this allegation is specifically denied disputing its correctness. There is specific averment made by the NOIDA Authority at so many places that village abadi land was not acquired. It is mentioned that abadi area is what was found in the survey conducted prior to Section 4 Notification and not what is alleged or that which is far away from the dense village abadi. It is also mentioned that as a consequence of the acquisition, the Authority spends crores and crores of rupees in developing the infrastructure such as road, drainage, sewer, electric and water lines etc. in the unacquired portion of the village abadi. During the course of hearing, Chart No. 2 in respect of each village of Greater Noida was handed over for the consideration of this Court, wherein the amount spent by the Authority on the development, including village development (which is the unacquired village abadi), has been given in Column No. 4 thereof. It has been the consistent stand of the NOIDA Authority that prior to the issuance of Section 4 Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, survey was conducted and the abadi found in that survey was not acquired. In fact, affidavits in this respect have also been filed not only in this Court but also in the High Court. We have mentioned that there has been a long gap between acquisition of the land and filing of the writ petitions in the High Court by these Appellants challenging the acquisition. If they have undertaken some construction during this period they cannot be allowed to take advantage thereof. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the argument of the Appellants based on parity with three villages in respect of which the High Court has given relief by quashing the acquisition.
48. To sum up, 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 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.
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. We may record that some of the Appellants had tried to point out certain clerical mistakes pertaining to their specific cases. For example, it was argued by one Appellant that his land falls in a village in Noida but wrongly included in Greater Noida. These Appellants, for getting such clerical mistakes rectified, can always approach the High Court.
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."
14. Pursuant to the directions issued under paragraph 482 (4) of the judgment in the case of Gajraj Singh and others the respondent authority took a decision in its Board meeting for paying additional compensation to the extent of 64.70% to all land owners whether they had challenged the notifications or not. A decision was also taken not to allot abadi plot to the extent of 10% to those land owners who had not approached the writ court and had not questioned the acquisition proceedings. This decision of the authority was based on the fact that such huge area of developed abadi land was not available so as to allot it to all such persons who did not approach the Court.
15. The contention of the petitioners that irrespective of the fact whether the notifications issued in respect of land acquisition proceedings were under challenge along with the bunch of cases decided by the Full Bench they should be granted the same benefit regarding developed abadi plot as was granted by the Full Bench is liable to be rejected, for the reason that in the case of Gajraj Singh and others the Full Bench granted relief to the petitioners and to such persons whose earlier writ petitions challenging the notifications had been dismissed or who had not come to the Court challenging the notifications which were subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions, in view of the peculiar facts of the case having regard to the extensive development which had taken place subsequent to the acquisition proceedings, and also that the Supreme Court in the case of Savitri Devi had made it clear that the directions issued by the Full Bench shall not be treated as a precedent in future cases.
16. We may also refer to the case of Mange @ Mange Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others3, where in a similar set of facts, certain petitioners, whose lands had been acquired under notifications, which were challenged not by the petitioners but by other similarly situate landowners, filed writ petitions in the year 2016 praying that they being similarly situate with those landowners, who had filed writ petitions and challenged the acquisition proceedings, were also entitled to claim the same relief, which had been granted to the writ petitioners in terms of the judgment in the case of Gajraj Singh and others and upheld in the case of Savitri Devi. The claim raised by the petitioners therein was turned down by this Court after recording a conclusion that the benefit granted by the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj Singh and others cannot be extended to the petitioners even though they may be similarly situate and the action of the respondents in not giving additional developed abadi land was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. The observations made in the judgment are as follows :-
"11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the direction given by the Full Bench in Gajraj's case (supra) as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi (supra), we find that the judgment of the Full Bench was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi (supra). While affirming the decision, the direction of the Full Bench in paragraph 484(4) to the authority to consider the case for payment of additional compensation and allotment of developed abadi plot to those land owners, who had not challenged the acquisition proceedings or whose writ petitions were dismissed earlier was also affirmed by the Supreme Court. Based on such direction, the authority took a decision to pay additional compensation to all the land owners irrespective of the fact as to whether they had challenged the acquisition proceedings or not. But with regard to allotment of developed abadi land, the authority took a decision not to allot to those land owners, who had not approached the writ Court on the ground that they have no developed land to allot to these land owners. The fact that the authority does not have any developed land for allotment has not been disputed as no rejoinder affidavit has been filed nor any evidence has been brought on record. We also find that such decision taken by the Board is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.
12. The Full Bench in order to save the acquisition proceedings had issued the direction for payment of additional compensation and for allotment of developed abadi plots in the extenuating facts and circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court acceded to the said consideration holding that the Full Bench was justified in issuing such directions in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in order to save the acquisition proceedings from the vice of arbitrariness. The Supreme Court while affirming the decision of the Full Bench categorically held that the said decision would not be treated to form a precedent for future cases. The Supreme Court held:
"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."
13. Thus, we are of the opinion that the ratio decendi of the Full Bench cannot be applied to similarly situated persons. The said benefit given by the Full Bench cannot be extended to the petitioners, even though they may be similarly situated and their land had been acquired under the same notification.
14. We are of the view that the action of the respondents in not giving additional developed abadi land to the petitioners is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, especially when there is no evidence to dispute the fact that the respondents have no developed land with them for allotment."
17. The aforementioned judgment in the case of Mange @ Mange Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others decided along with other connected matters was subjected to challenge before the Supreme Court and came to be decided in terms of the judgment in Khatoon and others Vs. State of U.P. and others4.
18. The question as to whether the landowners were entitled to claim benefit of the judgment passed by the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj Singh and others, which had been upheld in the case of Savitri Devi, insofar as it related to allotment of additional abadi plot was considered by the Supreme Court in aforementioned case of Khatoon and others and the contention sought to be raised on the basis of the principles underlying Article 14 of the Constitution was repelled after taking notice of the fact that insofar as allotment of abadi plot is concerned the High Court in the case of Gajraj Singh and others had confined the relief only to the petitioners therein and for other landowners the matter was left to discretion of the authority concerned which had declined to extend the said relief. It was held that the appellants had neither any legal right nor any factual foundation to claim the relief of allotment of additional developed abadi plot. Furthermore, it was taken note of that the relief in the case of Gajraj Singh was granted by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and was confined to the petitioners therein, and even the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi case held that said directions were not to be treated as precedent and were limited only to the facts obtaining in that case. The relevant observations made in the judgment in the case of Khatoon and others are being extracted below :-
"16. In other words, the case of the appellant writ petitioners before the High Court was that the reliefs, which were granted to the landowners by the Full Bench in Gajraj case and affirmed by this Court in Savitri Devi case be also granted to the appellants because their lands were also acquired in the same acquisition proceedings in which the lands of the writ petitioners of Gujraj case was acquired. In effect, the relief was prayed on the principles of parity between the two landowners qua State.
17. It is, however, pertinent to mention that so far as the direction of the High Court to award additional compensation payable @ 64.70% was concerned, the same was already implemented by the State by paying the compensation to all the landowners including the appellants without any contest.
18. In this view of the matter, the only question before the High Court in the appellants' writ petitions that remained for decision was as to whether the appellants are also entitled to claim the relief of allotment of developed abadi plot to the extent of 10% of their acquired land subject to maximum of 2500 Sq.M.in terms of the judgment in Gajraj case and Savitri Devi case.
xxxx
36. Therefore, the only question that now survives for consideration in these appeals is whether the appellants are entitled to get the benefit of second direction issued by the High Court in Gajraj, namely, allotment of developed abadi plot to the appellants.
37. In our considered opinion, the appellants are not entitled to get the benefit of the aforementioned second direction and this we say for the following reasons.
38. First, the High Court in Gajraj had, in express terms, granted the relief of allotment of developed abadi plot confining it only to the landowners, who had filed the writ petitions. In other words, the High Court while issuing the aforesaid direction made it clear that the grant of this relief is confined only to the writ petitioners [see conditions 3(a) and (b)].
39. Second, so far as the cases relating to second category of landowners, who had not challenged the acquisition proceedings (like the appellants herein) were concerned, the High Court dealt with their cases separately and accordingly issued directions which are contained in conditions 4(a) and (b) of the order.
40. In conditions 4(a) and (b), the High Court, in express terms, directed the Authority to take a decision on the question as to whether the Authority is willing to extend the benefit of the directions contained in conditions 3(a) and (b) also to second category of landowners or not.
41. In other words, the High Court, in express terms, declined to extend the grant of any relief to the landowners, who had not filed the writ petitions and instead directed the Authority to decide at their end as to whether they are willing to extend the same benefit to other similarly situated landowners or not.
42. It is, therefore, clear that it was left to the discretion of the Authority to decide the question as to whether they are willing to extend the aforesaid benefits to second category of landowners or not.
43. Third, as mentioned supra, the Authority, in compliance with the directions, decided to extend the benefit in relation to payment of an additional compensation @ 64.70% and accordingly it was paid also. On the other hand, the Authority declined to extend the benefit in relation to allotment of developed abadi plot to such landowners.
44. Fourth, it is not in dispute, being a matter of record, that when the Authority failed to extend the benefit regarding allotment of additional abadi plot to even those landowners in whose favour the directions were issued by the High Court in Gajraj and by this Court in Savitri Devi, the landowners filed the contempt petition against the Authority complaining of non-compliance with the directions of this Court but this Court dismissed the contempt petition holding therein that no case of non-compliance was made out.
45. In our view, the appellants have neither any legal right and nor any factual foundation to claim the relief of allotment of additional developed abadi plot. In order to claim any mandamus against the State for claiming such relief, it is necessary for the writ petitioners to plead and prove their legal right, which should be founded on undisputed facts against the State. It is only then the mandamus can be issued against the State for the benefit of writ petitioners. Such is not the case here.
xxxx
47. One cannot dispute that the Act does not provide for grant of such reliefs to the landowners under the Act. Similarly, there is no dispute that the State paid all statutory compensation, which is payable under the Act, to every landowner. Not only that every landowner also got additional compensation @ 64.70% over and above what was payable to them under the Act.
48. The reliefs in Gajraj were granted by the High Court by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances arising in the case at hand. They were confined only to the landowners, who had filed the writ petitions. Even this Court in Savitri Devi case held that the directions given be not treated as precedent for being adopted to other cases in future and they be treated as confined to that case only.
xxxx
51. In our opinion, therefore, there is no case made out by the appellants for grant of any relief much less the relief of allotment of additional developed abadi plot. If we entertain the appellants' plea for granting them the relief then it would amount to passing an order contrary to this Court's directions contained in para 50 of the order passed in Savitri Devi case."
19. The question as to whether the benefit of the directions issued by the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj Singh and others 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, has also been considered by a coordinate Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Rameshwari and 3 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others5 and in terms of judgment dated 3.5.2017, it has been held as follows :-
"A perusal of the Full Bench judgement 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 5A 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.
In the case in hand, the petitioners' land was acquired by means of notification dated 09.09.1997. 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 dicendi 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."
20. A similar view has been taken in a recent judgment of this Court in Ramesh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others6, 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 along with 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."
21. The question as to whether claim for any additional benefit can be raised as a matter of right in lieu of acquisition of land was subject matter of consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in Ravindra Kumar Vs. District Magistrate, Agra and others7, wherein the claim sought to be raised for appointment in service in lieu of acquisition of land was repelled and it was held that the Land Acquisition Act is a self-contained Code providing the procedure to be followed for acquisition as well as for assessment of the valuation and payment of fair and just compensation to the persons whose land were acquired and in the absence of any statutory provision no other claim can be raised as a matter of right. The observations made in the judgment in this regard are as follows:-
"21. The Land Acquisition Act is a self-contained Code and provides the procedure to be followed for acquisition as well as for assessment of the valuation and payment of fair and just compensation as per market value of the person whose land is acquired. In addition to that market value of the land interest @ 12% is also given from the date of publication of the Notification vide Section 23 (1-A). Besides that, a sum of 30% on such market value is also paid as solatium for distress and for inconvenience or difficulties caused to the person on account of compulsory acquisition of the land vide Section 23 (2) of the Act. Therefore, a person whose land is acquired not only gets adequate compensation as per market value of the land but also gets interest on the amount of compensation (@) 12% from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act as well as an amount of solatium, which is 30% of the amount of compensation. Neither the Land Acquisition Act nor the regulations provides that in the event of acquisition of the land one of the family members of the landholder shall be given employment in addition to the amount of compensation. Therefore, in the absence of any statutory provision or any promise, the petitioner respondent cannot claim appointment as a matter of right nor can the respondent make such appointment."
22. In view of the foregoing discussion it follows that the directions issued by the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj Singh and others for payment of additional compensation and developed abadi plot were in respect of the petitioners in the bunch of writ petitions which were decided by the Full Bench. The question of extending the benefit of additional compensation and allotment of developed abadi plot to such landholders whose writ petitions challenging the notifications had been dismissed earlier and also those landholders who had not approached the Court challenging the notifications which were subject matter of challenge before the Full Bench, was left open to be decided by the authority.
23. It was in pursuance of the aforesaid directions that the authority took a decision at its board meeting for payment of additional compensation to the extent of 64.70% to all landholders whether they had chosen to challenge the land acquisition notifications or not; however, insofar as allotment of developed abadi plot to the extent of 10% of the acquired land is concerned the authority took a decision not to extend the said benefit to such landholders who had not approached the writ court and had not raised any challenge to the acquisition proceedings.
24. In the present case, the land of the petitioners was acquired in terms of proceedings initiated by means of the notification dated 31.07.2005 issued under Section 4(1)/17(4), and the notification dated 27.07.2006 issued under Section 6/17 (1) of the Act 1894. Admittedly the petitioners did not choose to challenge the land acquisition proceedings and it is also not the case of the petitioners that the notifications in terms of which the land of the petitioners was acquired were subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions which were decided by the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj Singh and others.
25. This Court may also take note of the fact that there was no direction in the judgment of the Full Bench for grant of payment of additional compensation or allotment of abadi land or for consideration of the said benefits by the authority in respect of those persons whose land had been acquired in terms of the notifications which were not subject matter of challenge in the case of Gajraj Singh and Others and connected bunch of writ petitions.
26. The directions issued by the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj Singh and others under paragraph 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 along with the case of Gajraj Singh and others. These directions had been made in view of the peculiar facts of the case having regard to the extensive development which had taken place subsequent to the acquisition proceedings and thereafter the Supreme Court in the case of Savitri Devi had made it clear that the directions issued by the Full Bench shall not be treated as a precedent in future cases.
27. The directions under paragraph 482 (4) of the judgment aforesaid 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. The decision taken by the respondent authority in not giving additional developed abadi land to the persons such as the petitioners thus cannot be held to be either arbitrary or discriminatory, moreso, when the said decision was based on the reasoning that the authority had no developed land to allot to these landowners.
28. It is admitted to the petitioners that the entire compensation amount as payable in terms of the provisions contained under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been paid to them and over and above that they have also been paid additional compensation at the rate of 64.70%. The additional benefit by way of allotment of 10% developed abadi plot which is sought by the petitioners not being founded on any legally enforceable right no mandamus can be claimed for grant of such benefit.
29. For the aforestated reasons the petitioners are not entitled for the reliefs prayed for.
30. The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.11.2019 Pratima (Dr. Y.K.Srivastava,J.) (Pankaj Mithal,J.)