Geeta Tyagi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 4359 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 9
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2546 of 2020
 

 
Petitioner :- Geeta Tyagi
 
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
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J.

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

Shri Krishna Mishra, learned appears on behalf of petitioner.

Learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 and Sri Ravi Prakash Pandey, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent no.3.

The issue raised in this petition is as to entitlement of the land owner whose land has been acquired on the basis of Agreement executed between the land owner 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 the writ petition is no more res integra and has been decided in 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 petitioner does not dispute this fact that the issue as to entitlement of the petitioner for enhanced compensation under Clause 4 read with Section 11 and Section 28A of the Act of 1894 has been answered against the petitioner.

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 petitioner 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 petition, the relief as sought by the petitioner cannot be granted.

Though, an attempt is made on behalf of the petitioner 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 petition 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 petitioner whose land was acquired on the basis of an Agreement executed under the Rules of 1997. In other words, the petitioner in this petition is not benefited by the judgment referred to by the petitioner.

As regards the claim for allotment of 6% development land in terms of Clause 6 of the Agreement, the petitioner is 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 petition is disposed of finally in above terms.

 
Order Date :- 23.3.2021
 
Tamang
 

 
(Rajiv Joshi,J.)         (Sanjay Yadav,J.)