Allahabad High Court
Smt. Rajwati vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 4 August, 2023
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta, Donadi Ramesh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:156372-DB
Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19595 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt. Rajwati
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Kant Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhya
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
1. Heard Sri Gautam Kumar Upadhyay, holding brief of Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Avanish Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4.
2. It is not in dispute that the land of the petitioner was acquired, but, compensation/ ex-gratia amount has not been paid to her in terms of the decision rendered in Ramesh Chandra Sharma & others vs. State of U.P. and others, Civil Appeal No. 8819 of 2022, decided on 20 February 2023. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:
"63. Once the classification is removed, and the executive actions are read in consonance with the parent act, we would see that since the Act, and now even the executive actions do not discriminate in terms of compensation, the ex-gratia payment and the increased base amount, as enunciated by the executive actions, must be given to all landowners in the subject area.
64. At this stage, we would like to state that while the objective of the said classification might have been noble, however, such classification only on the basis of conjectures and surmises cannot be sustained. If a claim is being made to differentiate between class of persons, such claim must be backed by empirical data. While this Court is not a fact-finding Court and is a Court of law, however, the law must also not be understood in isolation, but in the context in which it exists, as the law does not exist like an object within the statutes, but lives and evolves with the people it governs.
67. In view of the above discussions, the impugned judgment passed by the Full Bench of the High Court is not liable to be sustained and stands set aside.
As a consequence, the Writ Petition filed by the appellants before the High Court stands allowed and the appellants are held entitled to the reliefs claimed in the said Writ Petition."
3. In this backdrop, the petitioner seeks the following relief:
i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus direct the respondent authority to pay the ex gratia amount to the petitioner @ Rs.310/- per square meter as well as 15% rehabilitation bonus in respect of Khasra No. 544 min. area 0.6850 hectare of revenue village Saini, Pargana - Dadari, Tehsil - Dadari, District Gautam Budh Nagar in light of the judgment and order dated 20.02.2023 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sharma and others versus State of U.P. and others."
4. Learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submits that the relief granted by the Supreme Court would only be admissible to the petitioners of the earlier writ petition and would not be admissible to the present petitioner as she was not party to the writ petition.
5. In our opinion, submission of learned counsel for the fourth respondent lacks merit and is unsustainable. The classification for grant of ex-gratia amount to the persons/farmers whose land was acquired being 'Pushtaini and Gair-pushtaini' being arbitrary and unreasonable was set aside and quashed as there could be no separate rates for ex-gratia amount of acquired land. In the circumstances, the petitioner would be entitled to uniform ex-gratia amount, irrespective of the fact that she was not party to the earlier round of litigation.
6. In view thereof, the writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent, Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, to consider and decide the claim/representation of the petitioner by reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of certified copy of this order alongwith photocopy of the writ petition.
7. It is clarified that the Court has not considered the claim of the petitioner on merits.
(Donadi Ramesh, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
Order Date :- 4.8.2023
Jaideep/-
