Allahabad High Court
Balwan Singh And 106 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 23 February, 2021
Bench: Sanjay Yadav, Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27499 of 2019
Petitioner :- Balwan Singh And 106 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Tarun Agrawal,Ruby Choudhary
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kartikeya Saran
Connected with
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27504 of 2019
Petitioner :- Kuldeep Singh And 137 Others
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Tarun Agrawal,Ruby Choudhary
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kartikeya Saran
With
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27510 of 2019
Petitioner :- Omvir And 111 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Tarun Agrawal,Ruby Choudhary
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kartikeya Saran
With
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28451 of 2019
Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar And 86 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Tarun Agrawal,Ruby Choudhary,Tarun Agrawal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kartikeya Saran
With
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28456 of 2019
Petitioner :- Ramvir @ Rambeer Singh And 5 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Tarun Agrawal,Ruby Choudhary,Tarun Agrawal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kartikeya Saran
With
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29147 of 2019
Petitioner :- Udham Singh And 15 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Krishna Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kartikeya Saran
With
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30927 of 2019
Petitioner :- Harpal And 147 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Krishna Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kartikeya Saran
With
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30975 of 2019
Petitioner :- Udham Singh And 17 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Krishna Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kartikeya Saran
With
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32319 of 2019
Petitioner :- Udaivir Singh And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kartikeya Saran
With
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32534 of 2019
Petitioner :- Dharampal And 5 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Devi Prasad Mishra,Kartikeya Saran,Rajnish Kumar Rai
With
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34753 of 2019
Petitioner :- Kehar Singh And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Suneel Kumar Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajai Kumar Mishra,Jagannath Maurya
With
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40961 of 2019
Petitioner :- Devendra Kumar And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Kumar Tyagi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh,Ravi Prakash Pandey
With
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42408 of 2019
Petitioner :- Chhedda Singh And 12 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Krishna Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ravi Prakash Pandey,Rohan Gupta
With
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26011 of 2020
Petitioner :- Indrapal Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kripa Shanker Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
With
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 495 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar @ Chandrabos
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ruby Choudhary
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh,Ravi Prakash Pandey
With
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 636 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar @ Chandrabos
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ruby Choudhary
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ravi Prakash Pandey
Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Shri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Tarun Agarwal appear on behalf of petitioners.
Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Kartikeya Saran, Shri J.N. Maurya, Shri M.N. Singh and Shri Ravi Prakash Pandey, learned counsel appear on behalf of Ghaziabad Development Authority.
Shri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent no. 3 in Writ C No. 495 of 2021 and Writ C No. 4240 of 2019.
This order shall govern disposal of Writ C No 27499 of 2019, Writ C No. 27504 of 2019, Writ C No. 27510 of 2019, Writ C No. 28451 of 2019, Writ C No. 28456 of 2019, Writ C No. 29147 of 2019, Writ C No. 30927 of 2019, Writ C No. 30975 of 2019, Writ C No. 32319 of 2019, Writ C No. 32534 of 2019, Writ C No. 34753 of 2019, Writ C No. 40961 of 2019, Writ C No. 42408 of 2019, Writ C No. 26011 of 2020, Writ C No. 495 of 2021 and Writ C No. 636 of 2021.
The issue raised in this batch of petitions is as to entitlement of the land owners whose land has been acquired on the basis of Agreement executed between the land owners and the Authority under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997, for enhanced compensation on the basis of subsequent Award passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
At the outset, it is stated on behalf of the respondents that the issue in these batch of writ petitions are no more res integra and has been decided in another batch of writ petitions, Writ C No. 10276 of 2020 (Radheshyam and 3 Others Vs State of UP and 4 others) along with Writ C No. 10278 of 2020, Writ C No. 10563 of 2020, Writ C No. 28786 of 2019, Writ C No. 28951 of 2019, Writ C No. 34359 of 2019 and Writ C No. 35000 of 2019 by a coordinate Bench of this Court, decided on 3.11.2020.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners does not dispute this fact that the issue as to entitlement of the petitioners for enhanced compensation under Clause 4 read with Section 11 and Section 28A of the Act of 1894 has been answered against the petitioners.
In Radheshyam and 3 others (supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court while dwelling upon a similar issue and after relying on the decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Ranveer Singh Vs. State of UP, AIR 2016 SC 3753 declined the enhanced compensation on the finding:-
3. It is a case where a land belonging to the petitioners was taken by the side opposite after entering into the agreement on 8.10.2007. The petitioners received the compensation pursuant to the agreement and possession of the land was taken by respondents. Subsequent to the aforesaid, acquisition proceeding was held for the other land and was completed by an award dated 2.4.2019. The claim for enhancement of the amount of compensation has been made in reference to subsequent award. For ready reference, clause -4 of the agreement is quoted hereunder :-
"4. उपरोक्त संदर्भित ग्रामों की इसी अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत अधिग्रहित भूमि का भविष्य मे सहमति के आधार पर यदि उपरोक्त निर्धारित प्रतिकर से अधिक प्रतिकर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा निर्धारित होता है तो उक्त अतिरिक्त बढ़े हुये प्रतिकर का लाभ इस करार में सम्मिलित भू स्वामी को भी देय होगा।"
Perusal of clause-4 shows enhancement of the compensation if an agreement is entered with others for compensation on higher rate. Clause -4 does not show enhancement of compensation in reference to the award but higher compensation pursuant to an agreement with other land holder. The enhancement has been claimed by the petitioner in reference to the award and not based agreement thus clause -4 is not attracted in the present case.
4...
5...
6...
7. We have considered the aforesaid arguments also and find no substance therein for the reason that ratio propounded by the Supreme Court in reference to Section 11 (2) does not permit enhancement of compensation contrary to the terms of agreement. If the parties have consented for compensation on agreed rate then it is inclusive of all the claims. It does not permit further claim which may be for interest or enhancement of the compensation. The claim cannot be accepted going contrary to the agreement between the parties. Thus in the light of ratio propounded by the Apex Court in the case of Ranveer Singh (supra), we cannot accept the plea taken by learned counsel for the petitioners for enhancement of compensation in reference to subsequent award after an agreement between the parties. The remedy to seek enhancement under the Act is lost.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made a reference of Section 28 A of the Act of 1894, which is to claim benefit of higher compensation in reference to subsequent award. Section 28 A permit enhancement of compensation in reference to the subsequent award by the court. The word "Court" has been defined under the Act of 1894 which does not include an authority. There is nothing on record to show enhancement of compensation by the Court and otherwise it would not apply to the petitioners for the reasons that they entered into the agreement to receive agreed amount of compensation. In view of the aforesaid, we are unable to accept the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners even in reference to Section 28 A of the Act of 1894.
In the case at hand also we perceive that a similar stand, as was taken by the petitioners in Radheshyam and the batch of petitions decided therewith (supra), is taken in present case, having been negatived, we are not pursuaded to take a different view. Therefore, in our considered opinion, in present batch of petition, the relief as sought by the petitioners cannot be granted.
Though, an attempt is made on behalf of the petitioners to distinguish the judgment on the basis of contention that certain expropriated owners filed a writ petition challenging the Notification under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was dismissed on 14.5.2010 whereagainst in SLP preferred by them, the Supreme Court vide its judgement and order dated 3.11.2016 allowed the appeals preferred by land owners and while setting aside the judgment of this Court directed the respondents therein to pay enhanced compensation to all the appellants in accordance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The contentions are taken note of and are rejected at the outset as there is no whisper in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners that the said expropriated owners who preferred the writ petitions had settled the land under Uttar Pradesh Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997. In view whereof, the land owners who were subjected to acquisition by virtue of Notification under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of Act of 1894 stood at a different footing than the present petitioners whose land was acquired on the basis of an Agreement executed under the Rules of 1997. In other words, the petitioners in these batch of petitions are not benefited by the judgment referred to by the petitioners.
As regards the claim for allotment of 5% development land in terms of Clause 6 of the Agreement, the petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate application before the Authority and if such application is preferred within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of this order, the Authority concerned shall consider the same in terms of Clause 6 of the Agreement and shall pass a speaking order thereon and communicate the same to respective parties within a period of three months from the date of receiving such application.
The petitions are disposed of finally in above terms.
Order Date :- 23.2.2021
Kirti
(Jayant Banerji, J) (Sanjay Yadav, J)
