Mool Chand vs State Of U P And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 4584 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


 
Court No. - 9
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2413 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Mool Chand
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Kumar,Manoj Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J.

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

Shri M. Kumar, learned counsel appears for the petitioner.

Smt. Anjali Upadhaya, learned Standing Counsel appears for the State.

Petitioner by way of present present petition seeks following relief:-

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give the compensation to the petitioner over the Khata No. 74, Khasra No. 241 and 242 at the rate of 64.70% situated at village Thapkhera, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Buddha Nagar.

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 District Magistrate, District Gautam Buddha Nagar to decide the application dated 21.08.2021 of the petitioner which is still pending."

Apparent it is from the pleadings that the relief emanates from a leave granted to the petitioner in Writ C No. 48788 of 2011 (Mool Chand and Others Vs State of U.P. and others) whereby the claim of the petitioner for enhanced compensation was declined on the finding that the petitioner owner of Gata No. 241 and 240 of Village Thapkheda received the compensation after entering into an agreement under U.P. (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award) Rules, 1997. Though, leave was granted to the petitioner to raise the dispute before the Authority concern in respect of other claim; however, there is no finding to the effect that the petitioner is held entitle for the compensation as has been sought vide present petition i.e. compensation @ 64.70%.

We are apprised that a similar relief has been declined by a Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj and others Vs State of U.P. and others, ADJ, 2011 (Vol. 11) Page-1 . The said decision by the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj (supra) was subjected to challenge before Hon'ble Supreme Court and has been affirmed by judgement dated 14.5.2015 reported in Savitri Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others and batch of writ petitions; (2015) 7 SCC 21 and the Apex Court was pleased to hold:

"62. This special leave petition is preferred against the judgment dated 20.01.2012 passed by the High Court in CMWP No. 3979/2012 which was preferred by the petitioners herein challenging the acquisition of their land. The Government had issued notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) on 18.12.2001 and declaration under Section 6 was issued on 30.03.2002.

63. The writ petition for quashing of the aforesaid notification was filed on 05.01.2012 i.e. nearly ten years after the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act. The High Court vide impugned judgment has dismissed the writ petition on the aforesaid ground of delay and laches. The High Court has also noted that a Full Bench of the said Court, in a bunch of writ petitions with leading case being Writ Petition No. 37443 of 2001 (Gajraj and others v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 21.10.2011, had dismissed all those petitions which were filed belatedly on the ground of inordinate delay and laches. Incidentally, special leave petitions were filed by some of those whose writ petitions were dismissed on the ground of delay and this Court has dismissed those petitions/appeals affirming the said decision.

64. The judgment in Gajraj and others (supra) came to be challenged by the State as well as the land owners. All these petitions/appeals, including the appeals filed by the land owners, have been dismissed by this Court affirming the view taken by the Full Bench in the said case.

65. Accordingly, the present special leave petition also stands dismissed. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9029 of 2015.

66. This special leave petition is preferred against the judgment dated 29.11.2011 passed by the High Court in CMWP No. 68459/2011, which was preferred by the petitioners herein challenging the acquisition of their land. The Government had issued notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) on 05.10.2002 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 30.10.2002.

67. The High Court has disposed of the writ petition vide its order dated 29.11.2011 taking note of a Full Bench decision in a bunch of writ petitions with leading case being Writ Petition No. 37443 of 2001 (Gajraj and others v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 21.10.2011. Since counsel for both the parties in the High Court had agreed that the writ petition of the petitioners was also covered by the judgment in Gajraj and others (supra), the High Court has disposed of the writ petition of the petitioners in terms of the direction issued by the Full Bench in the aforesaid case."

Subsequently the Supreme Court referring to the decision in the case of Savitri Devi (supra) in the case of Khatoon and others vs. The State of U.P. and others, (2018) 14 SCC 346 held:

"36. Therefore, the only question that now survives for consideration in these appeals is whether the appellants are entitled to get the benefit of second direction issued by the High Court in the case of Gajraj (supra), namely, allotment of developed abadi plot to the appellants.

37. In our considered opinion, the appellants are not entitled to get the benefit of the aforementioned second direction and this we say for the following reasons.

38. First, the High Court in the case of Gajraj (supra) had, in express terms, granted the relief of allotment of developed abadi plot confining it only to the landowners, who had filed the writ petitions. In other words, the High Court while issuing the aforesaid direction made it clear that the grant of this relief is confined only to the writ petitioners [see condition No. 3(a) and (b)].

39. Second, so far as the cases relating to second category of landowners, who had not challenged the acquisition proceedings (like the appellants herein) were concerned, the High Court dealt with their cases separately and accordingly issued directions which are contained in condition No. 4(a) and (b) of the order.

40. In condition No. 4(a) and (b), the High Court, in express terms, directed the Authority to take a decision on the question as to whether the Authority is willing to extend the benefit of the directions contained in condition No. 3(a) and (b) also to second category of landowners or not.

41. In other words, the High Court, in express terms, declined to extend the grant of any relief to the landowners, who had not filed the writ petitions and instead directed the Authority to decide at their end as to whether they are willing to extend the same benefit to other similarly situated landowners or not.

42. It is, therefore, clear that it was left to the discretion of the Authority to decide the question as to whether they are willing to extend the aforesaid benefits to second category of landowners or not.

43. Third, as mentioned supra, the Authority, in compliance with the directions, decided to extend the benefit in relation to payment of an additional compensation at the rate of 64.70% and accordingly it was paid also. On the other hand, the Authority declined to extend the benefit in relation to allotment of developed abadi plot to such landowners.

44. Fourth, it is not in dispute, being a matter of record, that when the Authority failed to extend the benefit regarding allotment of additional abadi plot to even those landowners in whose favour the directions were issued by the High Court in the case of Gajraj (supra) and by this Court in Savitri Devi (supra), the landowners filed the contempt petition against the Authority complaining of non-compliance of the directions of this Court but this Court dismissed the contempt petition holding therein that no case of non-compliance was made out.

45. In our view, the appellants have neither any legal right and nor any factual foundation to claim the relief of allotment of additional developed abadi plot. In order to claim any mandamus against the State for claiming such relief, it is necessary for the writ petitioners to plead and prove their legal right, which should be founded on undisputed facts against the State. It is only then the mandamus can be issued against the State for the benefit of writ petitioners. Such is not the case here.

46. Indeed, when the landowners, in whose favour the order was passed by the High Court for allotment of such plot, could not get the plot then, in such event, there arise no occasion for the appellants herein to claim such relief for want of any factual and legal basis in their favour.

47. One cannot dispute that the Act does not provide for grant of such reliefs to the landowners under the Act. Similarly, there is no dispute that the State paid all statutory compensation, which is payable under the Act, to every landowner. Not only that every landowner also got additional compensation at the rate of 64.70% over and above what was payable to them under the Act.

48. The reliefs in the case of Gajraj (supra) were granted by the High Court by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances arising in the case at hand. They were confined only to the landowners, who had filed the writ petitions. Even this Court in Savitri Devi's case (supra) held that the directions given be not treated as precedent for being adopted to other cases in future and they be treated as confined to that case only."

Besides above, we are apprised of a decision in Writ C No. 14284 of 2020 (Vinod and others Vs State of U.P. and others) wherein a similar relief has been negatived. It is held by the Lordships:

"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."

In view whereof, we do not perceive any merit in the claim put forth by the petitioner.

Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed.

All interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

 
Order Date :- 25.3.2021
 
Kirti
 

 
			(Prakash Padia, J)             (Sanjay Yadav, J)