Yatendra Kumar And Anothers vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3421 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 9
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4741 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Yatendra Kumar And Anothers
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Dubey,Rishu Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhya,Ramendra Pratap Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J.

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

Petitioners seek quashing of Award dated 10.7.2015 passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and for direction to respondent to re-determine the quantum of compensation in terms of Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Evidently, the land of the petitioners alongwith large tract of land was acquired for Planned Industrial Development in District Gautam Budh Nagar through the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority in pursuance to notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act of 1894 dated 12.3.2008.

Pertinently, the petitioners challenged the action of respondents vide Writ-C No. 40266 of 2014 whereby the relief sought by the petitioners (i) to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to return back the land comprising of Khasra No. 429 Area 0.4215 Hect. of revenue Village Patwari, Pargana Dadri, Tehsil Dadri, District - Gautam Budh Nagar, to the petitioners. (ii) to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to take any action and not to make any construction upon the land of the petitioners comprising of Khasra No. 429, 0.4215 Hect. of revenue Village Patwari, Pargana Dadri, Tehsil Dadri, District - Gautam Budh Nagar; was declined vide order dated 5.8.2014 wherey the Co-ordinate Bench held:

"The petitioners claim benefit of getting back the land on the ground that since in the case of Harkaran Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (6) ADJ 755, the entire Notification has been quashed, therefore, the land deserves to be returned to the petitioners.

We are unable to agree with this proposition for the simple reason that this issue about the impact of the said decision which was under reference was squarely dealt with by the Full Bench decision in the case of Gajraj and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (11) ADJ Page 1, alongwith the issue relating to those farmers who had filed writ petitions that were dismissed and where those who had not filed their writ petitions where the court in Paragraph Nos. 480 and 481 recorded findings which are extracted herein below:-

"480. There is one more aspect of the matter which needs to be considered. The apex Court in (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 17 Om Prakash Vs. Union of India has held that when a declaration is quashed by any Court, it will only for the benefit of those who have approached the Court. Following was laid down in paragraph 74:

"The facts of the aforesaid cases would show that in the case in hand as many as four declarations under Section 6 of the Act were issued from time to time. Finally when declaration is quashed by any Court, it would only enure to the benefit of those who had approached the Court. It would certainly not extend the benefit to those who had not approached the Court or who might have gone into slumber."

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."

Apart from this, Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh for the respondent has invited the attention of the Court to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Km. Pushpa Yadav and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No.67209 of 2013 dated 13.5.2014, the operative part whereof is extracted herein below:

"The petitioners, not being a party in any of the writ petitions filed earlier challenging the notifications, have already accepted the initial amount of compensation under an agreement entered into in terms of the 1997 Rules and thereafter have also been given the benefit of payment of additional compensation of 64.70%, which has been accepted by them even after the decision in the case of Har Karan Singh (supra), would now not be entitled to any such benefit of being given back the land, which was acquired under the said notifications.

As such the prayer made in this writ petition does not deserve to be granted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed."

Following the ratio of the Full Bench as well as the ratio of the Division Bench decision, the reliefs prayed for cannot be granted.

The writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed."

The petitioners allowed the order to attain finality. After a lapse of 5 years, the petitioners have filed this petition for enhancement of compensation.

Learned counsel for the respondents relying on the decision by Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011 (11) Allahabad Daily Judgement 1) and the decision by the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others; (2015) 7 SCC 21 at the outset submit that the petition is liable to be dismissed on delay and laches.

In Gajraj (supra) while dwelling on the issue as to whether the delay and laches in the facts of present case can bar invocation of Constitutional remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? as issue no. 3 held:

"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."

The said judgement in Gajraj (supra) was subjected to challenge in Savitri Devi (supra) and connected appeals wherein their Lordships were pleased to hold:

"24. The High Court discussed the issue of laches and delays under Issue No. 3, as mentioned above, after referring to various judgments of this Court and culling out the principles contained therein on that basis. The High Court accepted the plea of inordinate delay insofar as acquisition of land in respect of village Nithari, Village Chauyra Sadedpur, Village Khoda, Village Sultanpur are concerned. These writ petitions are dismissed on the ground of delay. In respect of other villages, the Court repelled the contention of delay raised by the department, accepting the explanation given by land owners of those villages that they did not oppose the acquisition earlier at the time of issuance of notification as the land was taken for industrial development. However, it is only when these land owners had come to know that instead of developing the land for the purpose for which it was acquired, the acquiring authority had transferred the land to the private persons and builders, that these land owners felt aggrieved and cheated and, therefore, there was sufficient explanation for coming to the Court at a time when these land owners discovered that the acquired land had been transferred to private persons. The Court, therefore, held that such writ petitions were to be entertained on merits, ignoring the delay.

25. Some of the appeals are filed by the land owners in respect of aforesaid villages where their petitions are dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. We are of the opinion that their writ petitions were rightly rejected by the High Court applying the principle of delays and laches. We are, thus, dismissing these appeals, upholding the order of the High Court."

In view whereof, we perceive no good reasons to cause indulgence in respect of a cause which allegedly arose in the year 2015.

Since no relief can be granted, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.

 
Order Date :- 15.3.2021
 
A. V. Singh
 
(Jayant Banerji, J.)     (Sanjay Yadav, J.)