Narendra Kumar Singh & 9 Others vs State Of U.P. & 2 Others
2014 Latest Caselaw 4557 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 21
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43242 of 2014
 
Petitioner :- Narendra Kumar Singh & 9 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Uma Nath Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

Heard Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners.

The petitioners are allotees of land by the respondent authority after the same was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The tenure holders, of the land that was acquired under the different notifications, challenged the acquisition proceedings and ultimately all such matters came to be deecided by a Full Bench decision in the case of Gajraj and others Vs. state of U.P. And other reported in [2011 (11) ADJ 1 (FB)].

The claim of the petitioners is that the land which is subject matter of present dispute were not part of the petitions and notification that was under challenge in the said decision, and consequently the respondent authority has erroneously proceeded to raise a demand of an enhanced amount to be realised from the petitioners for no valid reasons. The petitioners, therefore, contend that any escalation of price of land that was not subject matter of challenge cannot be the basis for further realisation of the amount from the petitioners.

It has further been submitted that a similar matter had come up in Writ Petition no. 28404 of 2014 where a Division Bench of this Court had called upon the respondents to file a counter affidavit and allowed the petitioners therein to only deposit 1/4th  of the amount demanded with a further interim order that any further realisation of the amount from the petitioners shall remain stayed. A copy of the said interim order has been annexed as Annexure-15 to the writ petition.

Having considered the aforesaid submissions raised, there is no doubt that a realisation can be made on the basis of escalated price, in the event, the land is affected by any judicial pronouncement. In the instant case, the contention of the parties is that such escalation is being invoked on account of observations made in the Full Bench Decision of Gajraj (supra) in paragraph nos. 481 and 482, the same are extracted hereinunder:-

"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. "

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid ratio nowhere issues a direction to allow realisation of an escalated or enhanced price, which was not subject matter of  acquisition prior to the year 2000. Therefore, Sri Pandey  states that such demand of escalated price is without any foundation.

Sri Nishith Yadav, on the other hand, submits that so far as the such claims are concerned, this Court has already dismissed  Writ Petition No. 2714 of 2014 vide judgement dated 17.01.2014 relying on a judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. A copy of the said judgement has placed before the Court.

Sri Yadav alternatively submits that so far as this apprehension of the petitioners is concerned, the authority is yet to take a decision on such grievance raised by the petitioner, and therefore, the writ petition is premature at this stage.

Having considered the submissions raised, the first issue which has to be determined is as to whether the respondents are entitled in law to realise such escalated price from the petitioners on account of judicial intervention of this Court in the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Gajraj  (supra).

As indicated above, in paragraph no.481, it is clear that the said tenure holders whose writ petitions had been dismissed or who had not filed any writ petitions, the direction is that it is left to the discretion of the authority and the State Government to exercise their powers keeping in view the principles enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India to consider the grant of any enhancement of compensation to the farmers or not.

The contention of Sri Pandey appears to be that without any positive decision having been taken in the present case, the respondent authorities are erroneously proceeding to realise the said amount from the petitioners.

This apprehension is unfounded according to the respondents counsel as no decision has been taken by the respondent no.4 and if taken, the same shall be duly communicated to the petitioners.

We are of the considered opinion that before proceeding  to realise the amount, it would be appropriate for the authority to record firm reasons for realisation of enhanced or escalated amount as per the ratio of the case of Gajraj (supra). We, therefore, direct the respondent no.2 to proceed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law in the light of the observations made hereinabove within six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order and not to enforce any recovery against the petitioners till such decision is taken.

With the said observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 20.8.2014

Ajay