Brahm Prakash And 3 Others vs State Of U P And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1896 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Chief Justice's Court Serial No. 39         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ***    WRIT - C No. - 3335 of 2022               Brahm Prakash and others   .....Petitioners                    v/s      State of U. P. And others   .....Respondents       Through :-   Ms. Meenakshi Singh, Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2, Ms. Anjali Upadhyay, Advocate for respondent no. 3.          CORAM :  HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE     HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, JUDGE        ORDER      1.           None for the petitioners.  2.           The land of the petitioners was acquired for planned industrial development in Greater Noida vide Notification dated September 07, 2006 issued under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The acquisition attained finality and even the compensation as determined by the Collector was paid. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to allot the abadi plot to the extent of 10% and developed land to the extent of 4% to the petitioners in terms of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Gajraj and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (2011) 11 ADJ 1.  3.           Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present petitioners were not the party before the Court in Gajraj's case (supra), and hence, the benefits, which were given in the aforesaid judgment, will not accrue to the petitioners.  4.           The fact that the petitioners were not the party before the Full Bench in Gajraj's case (supra) could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, as he was not present in Court, though the case was taken up twice.  5.           Once it is not disputed that the petitioners were not the party before the Full Bench in Gajraj's case (supra), no benefits granted therein shall accrue to the petitioners, as that case was decided in peculiar facts and circumstances.  6.           Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Savitri Devi Vs. State of U.P. (2015) 7 SCC 21, in paragraph 50 has specifically held that the directions issued by this Court in Gajraj's case (supra) will not be a precedent for future as the judgment was delivered in peculiar facts and circumstances of that case. Referring to Savitri Devi's case (supra) the same view has again been expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 48 of the judgment in Khatoon and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (2018) 14 SCC 346.  7.           For the foregoing reasons, in our considered opinion, prima facie, the petitioners do not deserve the relief, as prayed for.   8.           However, as the counsel for the petitioners is not present, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.      (Piyush Agrawal, J.)       (Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)     Allahabad 04.05.2022 Amit Mishra/Rahul Dwivedi     Whether the order is speaking : Yes