Allahabad High Court
Brijesh Kumar And 8 Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others on 4 July, 2025
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:104271-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18663 of 2025 Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Priyansh,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.
1. Heard Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Priyansh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Ridham Gupta holding brief of Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA).
2. The instant writ petition has been filed praying inter-alia for the following relief:
"A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned the order dated 3.10.2023 passed by the NOIDA Authority and the report dated 7.4.2025 filed by Noida Authority. (Annexure no. 1 and 14 to this writ petition).
B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 NOIDA Authority to pay compensation to the petitioners at the market rate for 1/2 share, Area 0-13-10 belonging to the petitioners of the plot no. 279 Area 0-19-10 and Plot No. 280 Area 0-7-10 total Area 1-7-0 situated in village: Chhalera Bangar, Pargana and Tehsil: Dadri, District: Gautam Budh Nagar in accordance with the judgment and order dated 20.01.2021 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 6597 of 2017 Nayan Tara Vs. State of U.P. and others or in the alternative hand over vacant possession of the aforesaid plot in the petitioners."
3. Brief matrix of the case is as follows:
(i) The dispute pertains to the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, through notifications issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act, 1894') dated 05.01.1991 and under Section 6 of the said Act dated 07.01.1992. The petitioners, who are Bhumidhars of the said land, claim that only a part of their land was acquired and that they have continued to remain in possession of the unacquired portion.
(ii) The acquisition proceedings, including the above notifications, were primitively challenged by the petitioners in writ petitions before this Court, and eventually by way of Civil Appeal No. 3263 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said appeal was decided by the Apex Court by a common judgment dated 15.07.1998 in Om Prakash and another vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (1998) 6 SCC 1, wherein it was held that actual physical possession of the land in question was never taken by the NOIDA Authority and that paper possession, even if attempted, could not be said to be valid in law.
(iii) Pursuant to the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to invoke Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the petitioners submitted a representation, which was rejected by the State Government vide order dated 03.12.1999. The challenge to the said order before this Court and further in Civil Appeal No. 999 of 2001 was unsuccessful.
(iv) In the meantime, an award was passed on 17.08.1996, followed by a supplementary award on 06.01.1997, but it is the petitioners' case that no compensation was awarded for Plot Nos. 279 and 280. Subsequently, a Writ Petition No. 55426 of 2004 (Harikishan and others vs. State of U.P.) was filed before this Court, challenging the award for violation of Section 11A of the Act, 1894. This Court allowed the petition vide judgment dated 30.06.2009. However, the same was challenged by means of a in Civil Appeal No. 5170 of 2010, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment on the ground of non-compliance with Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC. During pendency of the said appeal, the petitioners had moved an application under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short 'the Act, 2013'). Though the application was not decided on merits by the Apex Court, the petitioners were permitted to withdraw the same to seek recourse before the appropriate forum. Accordingly, the petitioners filed Writ (C) No. 25483 of 2017 (Brijesh Kumar and 7 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), which was disposed of by this Court on 31.05.2017 with liberty to the petitioners to make a representation before the competent authority. The representation was rejected by the State Government on 20.07.2020. The petitioners then again filed a Writ (C) No. 13728 of 2023 (Brijesh Kumar and 8 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others), which was disposed of on 21.07.2023 with further liberty to make representation before NOIDA Authority. Upon non-compliance of this order, the petitioners filed Contempt Application (Civil) No. 7572 of 2023, which was disposed of by this Court on 13.10.2023 by granting one more opportunity to NOIDA to comply with the same.
(v) The petitioners have consistently maintained that they are in actual physical possession of 0-13-10 area of the land which was never acquired and that no compensation has been paid till date. Various revenue records such as Khataunis for the relevant Fasli years and site inspections support their claim. Despite this, the NOIDA Authority, by the impugned order dated 03.10.2023, has rejected their claim on the ground that the petitioners are not in possession and treated them as encroachers.
4. Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, has strongly contended that the impugned order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the NOIDA Authority is arbitrary and illegal, being contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash and another, where it was held that possession of the land was never taken by NOIDA and the landowners remained in physical possession. He submits that in light of this finding, the State Government was well within its powers under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to withdraw from acquisition proceedings, especially when the land falls under abadi category, which the State policy exempts from acquisition. He further argued that though awards were made in 1996 and 1997, the petitioners' land was excluded and no compensation was ever paid, hence acquisition never attained finality. Reliance is also placed on Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which mandates that if possession is not taken and compensation is not paid for five years preceding the Act's commencement, the acquisition shall lapse. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners further contended that the Government Order dated 30.01.2015 also mandates that in cases where the award is more than five years old and possession or compensation is lacking, the landowners should be granted relief under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. It is argued that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered under this policy as well. In support of his submissions, he has also placed reliance upon the order dated 14.09.2016 passed by coordinate bench of this court in Writ (C) No. 39983 of 2013 (Ms. Nayan Tara vs. State of U.P. & others), and the judgments of Apex Court in Praga Tools Corporation Ltd. vs. Mahboobunnissa Begum (Smt.) and others, (2001) 6 SCC 238 and Gayabai Digambar Puri (Died) through LR vs. The Executive Engineer & others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 15.
5. Per contra, Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents, and Shri Ridham Gupta, holding brief for Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 - NOIDA Authority, have vehemently opposed the writ petition. They submit that the land in question was duly acquired in accordance with law pursuant to notifications issued in the early 1990s under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and that possession was also taken and compensation was awarded thereafter. It is further contended that the petitioners were well aware of the acquisition process and the consequential awards passed in 1996 and 1997, and yet did not raise any timely challenge before the appropriate legal forum. They further point out that in the Writ (C) No. 25483 of 2017, filed by the petitioners decades later, a limited liberty was granted them to make a representation before the competent authority, without disturbing the acquisition. By that time, the land had already vested in the State, free from all encumbrances. In view of the aforesaid order, a representation was filed which was duly decided and rejected by the State Government on 20.07.2020. Notably, the said rejection order was never assailed in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioners again filed Writ (C) No. 13728 of 2023, wherein they reiterated their claim either for compensation or return of land. That petition too was disposed of with a direction to approach the NOIDA Authority by way of representation. The same was acted upon by the petitioners, however, when compliance was allegedly delayed, the petitioners filed Contempt Application (Civil) No. 7572 of 2023, which was disposed of by this Court on 13.10.2023. It is submitted that at no stage the petitioners have availed the proper statutory remedies under Section 48 of the Act 1894, and the relief now sought is legally untenable and barred by delay.
6. Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
7. Upon a comprehensive consideration of the facts and legal submissions, this Court is of the view that the reliefs sought by the petitioners are totally misconceived and cannot be granted in the present writ jurisdiction. The acquisition proceedings were initiated as far back as 1991 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and culminated in awards passed in 1996 and 1997. Even if certain parts of the land were allegedly not compensated for, the remedy, as rightly argued by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, lay under Section 48(1) of the Act, 1894. That remedy was indeed availed earlier but stood rejected by the State Government in 1999, and subsequent challenges also failed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The attempt to revive the matter decades later through writ petitions is clearly barred by delay and latches, particularly in light of the settled legal position that land, once acquired and vested in the State, cannot be restored on mere assertions of possession or non-payment of compensation. The reliance placed by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners on Nayan Tara vs. State of U.P. (supra) is wholly misplaced. In that case, there was no clear record of acquisition, and the dispute primarily involved alleged illegal occupation. The Court had only granted liberty to the petitioner to seek demarcation under the Revenue Code. In contrast, the present case involves undisputed acquisition notifications and formal awards under the Act, 1894. Similarly, the judgment in Praga Tools Corporation Ltd. (supra) dealt with a boundary and title dispute and was adjudicated on facts related to overlapping village jurisdictions and unacquired land. Here, the acquisition process is complete and never annulled. The judgment in Gayabai Digambar Puri pertained to the date from which interest on compensation becomes payable, not the validity of acquisition or possession. Hence, it is inapplicable in the present context where the main claim is for compensation or return of land. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.10.2023, passed by NOIDA Authority, suffers from no illegality and rightly holds the petitioners' claim as untenable.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 04.07.2025 NLY