Allahabad High Court
Shahabuddin And Another vs State Of U P And 2 Others on 25 January, 2021
Bench: Sanjay Yadav, Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1753 of 2021
Petitioner :- Shahabuddin And Another
Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gautam Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhya,Ramendra Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Sri Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appears for the petitioners.
Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appears for the respondent no.3 and learned Standing counsel appears for the State-respondents.
The petitioner by way of present petition seeks following relief:-
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authority to modify the cut-off date fixed by the Greater Noida Authority 01.04.2007 for giving the additional compensation i.e. 64.7% in the board meeting, as decided by this Hon'ble Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court considered and fixed the cut-off 22.04.2000 in the case of Gajraj and others Vs. State of UP and others ADJ, 2011 (Vol. 11) Page-1.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the Nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to pay 64.70% additional compensation to the petitioners in terms of judgment and order dated 21.10.2011 passed by Full bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Gajraj and others vs State of U.P. and others ADJ, 2011(vol.11) Page 1."
The relief has been sought on the basis of decision by the Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, ADJ 2011(vol.11) 1, paragraph 481 of which is mentioned in paragraph 18 of the present petition, which is in the following terms:-
"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."
Evident it is that a discretion was given to the authority concerned to pay the compensation in lieu of the policy. In view whereof, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to approach the authorities of Greater NOIDA instead of filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus to the respondents to pay additional compensation i.e. 64.7%.
Since the petitioner has a remedy to file representation for the compensation as sought in the present petition on the basis of the decision of the Full Court in Gajraj and others (supra) instead whereof the petitioner has approached this court; therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the petition.
Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed.
However, the petitioner would be at liberty to move an application to the authority concerned. In case such an application is filed, it is expected of the Authority concerned to dwell upon the same in the light of the decision by the Full court in Gajraj (supra).
No costs.
Order Date :- 25.1.2021
Kirti
(Jayant Banerji, J) (Sanjay Yadav, J)
