Allahabad High Court
Harish Chand And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 23 November, 2022
Bench: Sunita Agarwal, Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34571 of 2022
Petitioner :- Harish Chand And 5 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Harendra Singh,Navin Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent Development Authority.
The contention is that Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj and others v. State of U.P. and others, (2011)11 ADJ 1, had directed for payment of 64.70% additional compensation for the land acquired. In addition, the petitioners therein were held entitled to allotment of developed residential plots to the extent of 10% of their acquired land subject to maximum of 2500 square meters.
The contention is that in case the Authority was not able to allot the plot of the area to which the land owners were entitled to, they were to be paid amount equivalent to the balance area as per average rate of allotment for developed residential plots.
It is not in dispute in the present writ petition that the land owners have been paid amount at the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per square meter to the extent of the area, which was not allotted to them as per their entitlement. The grievance raised is that the land owners are entitled to the amount equivalent to Rs. 44,000/- per square meter as against Rs. 22,000/- paid to them.
Learned counsel for the Authority submitted that on receipt of amount at the rate of Rs. 22,000/-, the land owners had submitted affidavits to the Authority stating therein that whatever amount was paid, they were satisfied with that.
Filing of the aforesaid affidavit by the land owners has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In fact, while admitting in the writ petition that the amount calculated at the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per square meter has been paid to the petitioners, nothing was mentioned regarding filing of the affidavit and contents thereof regarding satisfaction of the petitioners to the amount paid to them for the area to the extent of their entitlement, which was not allotted. To that extent there is concealment of facts in the writ petition.
Considering the aforesaid factual matrix, where in lieu of the allotment of developed residential plot, the land owners have been paid the amount to their satisfaction for which even they had filed their affidavits, we do not find any case is made out for interference in the present writ petition.
Another issue raised by the learned counsel for the Authority was that in a large number of writ petitioners were party before the Full Bench in Gajraj's case (supra) and some of the notifications were not even subject matter of consideration before the Full Bench.
The Apex Court in the case of Savitri Devi v. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 21, in paragraph '50', has specifically held that the directions issued by the Full Bench of 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 the Supreme Court in paragraph '48' of the judgment in Khatoon and others v. State of U.P. and others, (2018)14 SCC 346.
In view of the same, the petitioners, who were not party before the Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj's case (supra), are not entitled to either allotment of any plot or payment of any amount in lieu thereof. The relief claimed contrary to the orders of this Court and the Apex Court, is misconceived.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.11.2022
Brijesh
