Allahabad High Court
Jai Kumar Sharma And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 5 October, 2020
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10262 of 2020 Petitioner :- Jai Kumar Sharma And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Singhal,Ankita Singhal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhya,Ramendra Pratap Singh connected with Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10362 of 2020 Petitioner :- Jai Kumar Sharma And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Singhal,Ankita Singhal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhya,Ramendra Pratap Singh Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J.
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
These writ petitioners have been filed to challenge the order dated 21.9.2016 passed by the State of Uttar Pradesh to deny additional compensation on the acquisition of land. The compensation on acquisition of land was otherwise determined and paid to land holders. The State Government, accordingly, took a decision not to allow additional compensation in the shape of allotment of plot to the extent of 10% of the acquired land subject to the maximum of 2500 sq.mtrs as otherwise additional compensation to the extent of 64.70% was paid..
The writ petition is also to challenge the decision of the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority dated 22.8.2019 endorsing the view taken by the State Government and accordingly denied allotment of 10% land to the maximum of 2500 sq.mts.
The last prayer in the writ petition is to issue a direction to the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority to allot land in favour of the petitioners in the light of the policy decision taken by the Industrial Development Authority.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a land was acquired by the respondents, Industrial Development Authority who took a policy decision to allot 10% of land subject to the maximum of 2500 sq.mts. over and above the compensation. In the light of the aforesaid policy decision, land was allotted to many others and even a judgment was rendered by this Court. The petitioners were deprived from the same benefit, rather discriminated, therefore, these writ petitions have been filed challenging the Government Order as well as the decision taken by the Industrial Development Authority to deny allotment of 10% of land subject to the maximum of 2500 sq.mts. over and above the compensation and additional compensation paid to the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the respondents have seriously contested the writ petitions. It is submitted that under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), there was no provision for additional compensation in the shape of allotment of land. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Baljeet and others vs. State of U.P. & others reported in 2016 (8) ADJ 79, did not accept the similar claim. The judgment therein was challenged before the Apex Court in the case of Khatoon & others vs. State of U.P. & Others 2018 (14) SCC 346. The SLP therein has been dismissed.
It is further submitted that the Apex Court did not endorse allotment of plot to the extent of 10% of the land as an additional compensation in the light of the judgment in the case of Gajraj Singh & others vs. State of U.P. (2011 (11) ADJ 1 (FB). Accordingly, the prayer is to dismiss the writ petition when compensation on the acquisition of land was given to the land holders with additional compensation at 64.70%, there cannot be further additional compensation. Prayer is to dismiss the writ petition accordingly.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that difference should be made with regard to acquisition of land in Noida and Greater Noida since the matter decided by the Apex Court pertains to Noida and not of Greater Noida.
We have considered the submissions of the parties.
The facts not in dispute are that the Industrial Development Authority and Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority had acquired land not only of the petitioners but of many others. The compensation was paid to the land holders. In the litigation before this Court in the case of Gajraj Singh (supra) certain directions were given for additional compensation to the petitioners therein. A discretion was also given to the respondent to take a decision for others, who were not the petitioners therein or whose writ petitions were earlier dismissed. In the further litigation to claim similar benefits, writ petition was dismissed in the case of Baljeet and others (supra). The Apex Court dismissed the SLP in the case of Khatoon & others (supra). In a recent judgment in the case of Anand Prakash & another vs. State of U.P. and Ors, Writ C No. 66367 of 2015 decided on 20.11.2019 this Court rejected the smilar claim. It is after referring the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Khatoon & others (supra), thus para. 16 to 18 and 36 to 45, 47, 48 and 51 of the judgment in the case of Khatoon & others (supra) are quoted hereunder. These paragraphs answer the issue raised by the petitioners.
"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."
In view of the above judgment of the Apex Court, we find no reason to accept the prayer challenging the Government Order dated 21.9.2016 and the decision of the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority dated 22.8.2019 endorsing the view taken by the State Government in the light of the finding recorded by the Apex Court in Khatoon & others (supra).
The writ petitions are dismissed, in view of the above.
Order Date :- 5.10.2020 samz