Allahabad High Court
Mange @ Mange Ram vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 1 August, 2016
Bench: Tarun Agarwala, Vipin Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Reserved
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.7521 of 2016
Mange @ Mange Ram ........ Petitioners
Vs.
State of U.P. and others ........ Respondents
With
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7553 of 2016
Smt. Khatoon and others ........ Petitioners
Vs.
State of U.P. and others ........ Respondents
With
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7532 of 2016
Smt. Munni and others ........ Petitioners
Vs.
State of U.P. and others ........ Respondents
With
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7639 of 2016
Tejpal and others ........ Petitioners
Vs.
State of U.P. and others ........ Respondents
With
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.8262 of 2016
Kiran Singh ........ Petitioners
Vs.
State of U.P. and others ........ Respondents
With
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9985 of 2016
Ranjeet Singh and others ........ Petitioners
Vs.
State of U.P. and others ........ Respondents
With
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9989 of 2016
Raj Kumar and others ....... Petitioners
Vs.
State of U.P. and others ........ Respondents
With
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10125 of 2016
Nitin Sharma and others ....... Petitioners
Vs.
State of U.P. and others ........ Respondents
With
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7952 of 2016
Jai Bhagwan and others ....... Petitioners
Vs.
State of U.P. and others ........ Respondents
With
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7956 of 2016
Ram Lal and others ....... Petitioners
Vs.
State of U.P. and others ........ Respondents
With
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13626 of 2016
Harpal Singh and others ....... Petitioners
Vs.
State of U.P. and others ........ Respondents
With
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21038 of 2016
Ram Autar Sharma and others ....... Petitioners
Vs.
State of U.P. and others ........ Respondents
With
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21157 of 2016
Gyari Ram and others ........ Petitioners
Vs.
State of U.P. and others ........ Respondents
******************
Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha, J.
(Per: Tarun Agarwala, J.)
(Delivered on 1st August, 2016)
In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allot 10% developed abadi land in terms of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (11) ADJ 1.
For facility, the facts of Writ Petition No.7521 of 2016 is being taken into consideration.
It transpires that a notification dated 4th July, 2003 under Section 4 and notification dated 21st July, 2003 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued for acquisition of various parcels of land for planned industrial development. The urgency clause was invoked and possession was taken, award was made and compensation was paid to the petitioners'. The petitioners' land was situate in Village Chhaparauli Bangar, Pargana Dadari, Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The petitioner did not challenge the acquisition proceedings and received the compensation. However, other land owners challenged the acquisition proceedings. The aforesaid notification as well as other notifications for different tracts of land and for different villages were clubbed together and decided by the Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj's case (supra) vide judgment dated 21st October, 2011. The Full Bench disposed of the writ petitions with 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 lose 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."
The Full Bench held that the land owners, who had challenged the notifications would be entitled for payment of additional compensation to the extent of 64.70% in addition to the compensation already received. The Full Bench further held that the land owners would also be entitled for allotment of development abadi land to the extent of 10%. The Full Bench in paragraph 482(4) held that the authority will take a decision as to whether the benefit of additional compensation and allotment of developed abadi plot to the extent of 10% should be given to those land owners whose writ petition had been dismissed earlier as well as for those land owners, who had not come to the Court challenging the acquisition proceedings.
Based on the aforesaid directions, Noida took a decision in its Board meeting of paying additional compensation to the extent of 64.70% to all the land owners whether those land owners had challenged the notifications or had not challenged the notification. In terms of paragraph 482(4) of the judgment, Noida took a decision 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 on the ground that the authority does not have any developed land to give to such persons for allotment. The petitioners', being aggrieved by the non-allotment of additional abadi plot, has filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allot abadi plot and give the same benefit as given by the Full Bench of this Court to the land owners whose land had been acquired.
The connected writ petitions seek the same relief though the acquisition was for different villages by different notificatons. In Writ Petition No.7553 of 2016 the acquisition was for Village Malakpur, Pargana Dadri, vide notification under Section 4 dated 2nd May, 2003 and notification under Section 6 dated 22nd July, 2003. In Writ Petition No.7553 of 2016 the acquisition was for Village Malakpur, Pargana Dadri, Tehsil Dadri vide notification under Section 4 dated 2nd May, 2003 and notification under Section 6 dated 22nd July, 2003. In Writ Petition No.7532 of 20116, the acquisition was for Village Chhaparauli Bangar, Pargana Dadari, Tehsil Sadar vide notification under Section 4 dated 4th July, 2003 and notification under Section 6 dated 21st July, 2003. In Writ Petition No.7639 of 2016, the acquisition was for Village Basi Brahuddin Nagar, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri vide notification under Section 4 dated 12th April, 2005 and notification under Section 6 dated 6th October, 2005. In Writ Petition No.8262 of 2016, the acquisition was for Village Asgarpur Jagi, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri vide notification under Section 4 dated 24th August, 2007 and under Section 6 dated 12th August, 2008. In Writ Petition No.9985 of 2016, the acquisition was for Village Kondali Banger, Pargana & Tehsil Sadar through sale deed. In Writ Petition No.9989 of 2016, the acquisition was for Village Sadarpur, Pargana & Tehsil Dadari vide notification under Section 4 dated 30th March, 2002 and notification under Section 6 dated 28th June, 2003. In Writ Petition No.10125 of 2016, the acquisition was for Village Suthiyana, Pargana & Tehsil Dadari vide notification under Section 4 dated 30th October, 2006 and notification under Section 6 dated 21st November, 2006. In Writ Petition No.7952 of 2016, the acquisition was for Village Basi Brahuddin Nagar, Pargana & Tehsil Dadari vide notification under Section 4 dated 12th April, 2005 and notification under Section 6 dated 6th October, 2005. In Writ Petition No.7956 of 2016, the acquisition was for Village Soharkha Jahidabad, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri vide notification under Section 4 dated 12th April, 2005 and notification under Section 6 dated 27th July, 2006. In Writ Petition No.13626 of 2016, the acquisition was for Village Suthiyana, Pargana & Tehsil Dadari vide notification under Section 4 dated 30th October, 2006 and notification under Section 6 dated 21st November, 2006. In Writ Petition No.21038 of 2016, the acquisition was for Village Nithari, Chura Satadpur and Morna vide notification under Section 4 dated 1st June, 1976 and notification under Section 6 dated 16th September, 1976. In Writ Petition No.21157 of 2016, the acquisition was for Village Soharkha Jahidabad, Pargana & Tehsil Dadari vide notification under Section 4 dated 12th April, 2005 and notification under Section 6 dated 27th July, 2006.
We have heard Sri Pankaj Dubey, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Shivam Yadav, the learned counsel for Noida.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that admittedly the land of the petitioner was acquired under a notification, which was challenged not by the petitioners' but by other similarly situated land owners before the High Court, which was disposed of by the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj Singh (supra) with certain directions. The Full Bench directed the land owners, who had challenged the notification to be given an additional abadi land to the extent of 10% of their holdings. The learned counsel contended that parity should be maintained and since the petitioners' land was also acquired under the same notification, they should also be given the same benefit, even though the petitioners had not challenged the acquisition proceedings. The learned counsel contended that the respondents being an instrumentality of the State should act fairly and their action should not be discriminatory. The learned counsel contended that if the land owners under the same acquisition can be given additional abadi land, the same benefit should also be given to those land owners, who were similarly placed but had not questioned the acquisition proceedings. The learned counsel submitted that the action of the respondents in not allotting additional abadi land was wholly arbitrary and discriminatory and, consequently, a writ of mandamus should be issued commanding them to allot additional land. It was contended that some of the land owners as well as the State had filed special leave petition before the Supreme Court against the decision of the Full Bench in Gajraj (supra), which was disposed of in the case of Savitri Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2015 (7) SCC 21 wherein the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 14th May, 2015 accorded the following benefits to the land owners, namely:-
"To sum up, following benefits are accorded to the land owners:
(a) increasing the compensation by 64.7%;
(b) directing allotment of developed abadi land to the extent of 10% of the land acquired of each of the land owners;
(c) compensation which is increased at the rate of 64.7% is payable immediately without taking away the rights of the land owners 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;
This, according to us, provides substantial justice to the appellants."
The learned counsel submitted that a specific direction was given by the Supreme Court that 10% of the developed abadi land should be given to each of the land owners meaning thereby that additional land should be given to those land owners, who had not challenged the acquisition proceedings.
On the other hand, Sri Shivam Yadav, the learned counsel for Noida submitted that pursuant to the direction of the Full Bench, Noida Board took a decision to pay additional compensation to the extent of 64.70% to all the land owners whose land was acquired irrespective of the fact as to whether the land owners had challenged the acquisition proceedings before the High Court or not. The learned counsel submitted that the Board took a conscious decision not to allot any developed abadi land to those land owners, who had not approached the writ Court on the ground that they do not have any developed land to offer to the land owners. The learned counsel contended that the decision taken by the Board was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory and that the decision taken was fair and just and in accordance with the direction issued by the Full Bench. The learned counsel further submitted that the direction of the Supreme Court to allot developed abadi land to each of the land owners was in relation to those land owners who had filed the special leave petition and was not applicable to those land owners who had not challenged the acquisition proceedings.
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.
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."
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.
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.
In the light of the aforesaid, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. All the writ petition fails and are dismissed.
Date:1.8.2016
Bhaskar
(Vipin Sinha, J.) (Tarun Agarwala, J.)
