Allahabad High Court
Manish And 10 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 24 March, 2021
Bench: Sanjay Yadav, Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8946 of 2020
Petitioner :- Mansih and 10 others
Respondent :- State of U.P. and 3 others
Counsel for Petitioner :- M J Akhtar,Viquar Mehdi Zaidi (Senior Advocate)
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh
Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
(Per: Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.)
1. Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri M.J. Akhtar, Advocate for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, Advocate for respondents.
2. This petition for writ is filed by eleven petitioners, namely, Mansih, Ansul, Vinod, Harpal, Subhash, Ompal, Jagpal, Prem Singh, Devendra, Narendar and Yogendar, seeking following reliefs:
(i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of additional amount of compensation at the ratio i.e. 64.70 % and 10% developed abadi plot to the petitioners in lieu of the acquisition of their land of khasra nos. 464, 479 situated in village Sadarpur, now in Section-145 NOIDA.
(ii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to comply with the orders dated 24.11.2011 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 67373 of 2011 Raj Pal and others vs. State of U.P. and others as well as the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 3.12.2015 passed in S.L.P. No. (C) 22189 of 2015 by direction to return the amount of Rs. 8,73,648/- already deposited by the petitioners in the account of respondent no. 3 in lieu of making allotment of the developed abadi plot in favour of the petitioners.
(iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award the cost of writ petition."
3. Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri M.J. Akhtar, Advocate for petitioners has submitted that petitioners have earlier approached this Court by way of filing Writ-C No. 67373 of 2011 (Rajpal and others vs. State of U.P. through Secretary and others) seeking relief as granted by a Full Bench of this Court while deciding a bunch of writ petitions to writ-petitioners therein, the leading being, Gajraj and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (11) ADJ 1. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 24.11.2011 in terms of direction issued in Gajraj (supra). Relying upon said judgment learned Senior Advocate submitted that petitioners are entitled for the additional amount of compensation at the rate of 64.70 % and 10% developed abadi plot in lieu of acquisition of their land situated at Khasra No. 464 and 479, Village Sadarpur (now in Section-145) NOIDA.
4. Learned Senior Advocate has relied on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Savitri Devi vs. State of U.P. and Ors., (2015) 7 SCC 21 wherein the judgment passed in Gajraj (supra) was challenged and affirmed to submit that respondents are under an obligation to extend the similar benefit as was allowed by this Court in Gajraj (supra) and as such petitioners are entitled for allotment of 10% developed abadi land in proportion to the land acquired. He also submitted that 5% developed abadi land has already been allotted in favour of Petitioners-3 and 6, however, respondents have failed to allot remaining 5% of developed abadi land. It is also pointed out that Petitioners-1 and 2 have deposited amount of Rs. 4,84,100/- each with respondents for allotment of additional land, however, till date no land has been allotted even in favour of Petitioners-1 and 2.
5. It is further submitted that according to judgment passed in Savitri Devi (supra) case of petitioners fall under first category of the writ-petitioners in Gajraj (supra) as the writ petition filed by petitioners was disposed of in terms of judgment passed in Gajraj (supra) and for that purpose learned Senior Advocate has tired to distinguish the case of petitioners from the judgment passed in a subsequent case on the issue by Apex Court in Khatoon and Ors vs. The State of U.P. and others, (2018)14 SCC 346 whereby the Court has held that High Court in Gajraj (supra) has granted relief of allotment of developed abadi plot confining the same only to the land-owners who had filed writ petitions. However, no such relief was extended to land-owners who either opted not to approach High Court or approached subsequent to the judgment of Gajraj (supra).
6. Opposing the arguments raised on behalf of writ-petitioners, Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, Advocate appearing for Respondents has relied on a judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Vinod and others vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ C No. 14284 of 2020), decided on 14.10.2020 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has considered the judgment passed by Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj (supra) and the judgments passed by Supreme Court in Savitri Devi (supra) and Khatoon (supra) to submit that petitioners are not entitled for relief as prayed in writ petition.
7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
8. It is apparent from record that judgment of Full Bench in Gajraj (supra) was passed on 21.10.2011 whereas petitioners have filed their earlier writ petition, i.e., Writ-C No. 67373 of 2011 on 22.11.2011, which was disposed of in terms of judgment in Gajraj (supra) vide order dated 24.11.2011. Therefore, it is evident that petitioners were not part of bunch of writ petitions decided by Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj (supra) and petitioners herein are not entitled for the benefit of allotment of 10% developed abadi plot which was confined only to the writ-petitioners in Gajraj (supra). Even the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi (supra) has made clear that directions of High Court are given in peculiar/ specific background and, therefore, it would not be a precedent for future cases. The petitioners, therefore, are not entitled for any relief, as prayed and we are of the firm view that present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Vinod (supra), wherein the Court held as under:
"In para-38 onward, elaborate discussion of the judgment of this Court in the case of Gajraj Singh (supra) and the Apex Court in the case of Savitri Devi (supra) has been made. The judgments were not made applicable on the land holders in the subsequent litigation even if acquisition was arising out of the same notification and present case is of Okla and not of Noida. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Khatoon and others (surpa), this Court has dismissed number of similar writ petition subsequently. One of which was in the case of M/S Narendra Singh vs. Union of India in Civil Writ Petition No. 35369 of 2019 dated 05.11.2019 and other is in the case of Atar Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2018 (10) ADJ 291 (DB).
Elaborate discussion on the issue has been made in both the judgments to deny benefit to the petitioners therein after referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Khatoon and others (supra).Therein even the argument regarding discrimination was not accepted as the judgment of Full Bench in the case of Gajraj Singh (supra) was restricted to the petitioners therein only. It was however with the observation that if the respondents so desire then take a decision to extend similar benefits to others which includes those who did not approach this Court earlier and even those whose writ was earlier dismissed.
In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Khatoon (supra) where similar prayer was not accepted, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Gopal Das Bhagwan Das and others (supra) would not apply.
A case of discrimination is not made out as the judgment in the case of Gajraj was not in rem but in persona, thus we are unable to accept any of the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. We find that the judgment in the case of Khatoon and others (supra) applies to the present case. Accordingly the writ petitions fail to seek allotment of 10% land as an additional compensation."
9. In view of above, since petitioners approached this Court subsequent to the judgment of Full Bench in Gajraj (supra), they are not entitled to the benefit granted to writ-petitioners therein.
10. It is pointed out that 5% developed abadi land has already been allotted to Petitioners-3 and 6, however, no such land has been allotted to Petitioners-1 and 2, who have deposited a sum of Rs. 4,84,100/- each. If it is so, then Petitioners-1 and 2 are entitled for refund of said amount and for that purpose a direction is issued to respondents to return the amount so deposited, in case the said petitioners approached them by way of filing an application. If any such exercise is undertaken, the respondents are directed to decide application expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of application in accordance with law.
11. With aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.03.2021
AK
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) (Sanjay Yadav, J.)
