Allahabad High Court
Ved Prakash Sharma And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 28 August, 2023
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta, Donadi Ramesh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:172617-DB
Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26514 of 2023
Petitioner :- Ved Prakash Sharma And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Upadhyay,Sita Devi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhya
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
1. Heard Sri G.L. Yadav, Advocate, holding brief of Ms. Sita Devi, counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Ms. Ishita Sand, holding brief of Ms. Anjali Upadhya, for respondent no. 3.
2. The prayer made in the instant petition is for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners equivalent to value of 4% developed land at the market rate as per provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
3. The case of the petitioners is that their land was acquired by the respondents by Notification dated 29.11.2003, issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners have been paid compensation, additional compensation of 64.70% and allotted 6% developed land. However, 4% extra developed land in terms of the judgment in Gajraj & Others vs. State of U.P. & Others, 2011 (11) ADJ 1 (FB) has not been given to them, nor any compensation in lieu thereof.
4. It is not disputed that the petitioners were not party in Gajraj & Others (supra). The Supreme Court in Khatoon and Others vs. State of U.P. and others : (2018) 14 SCC 346 clarified that the benefit of additional land will only be available to persons who were party in Gajraj (supra). The said aspect was considered by this Court in Writ - C No. 14113 of 2017 (Runwell India Private Limited vs. State of U.P. and Others). Paragraph nos. 35 to 39 of the said judgment which are relevant are quoted below: -
"35. The grounds urged on behalf of petitioners for claiming 10% developed land subject to ceiling limit of 2,500 square meters, though appears to be attractive at the first flush, but are devoid of substance. The submission is that subsequent to the Full Bench judgement of this Court in Gajraj's case (supra), some of the land owners/tenure holders challenged the same before the Supreme Court. All the Civil Appeals/Special Leave Petitions were clubbed together and decided by a common judgement dated 14.02.2015, as Savitri Devi's case (supra), wherein, in paragraph no. 50, it has been held that in view of the peculiar circumstances, the order passed by the High Court would not form precedent for future cases. The observation made in paragraph no. 50 in Savitri Devi's case (supra) reads as under:-
50. Conclusion: Keeping in view all these peculiar circumstances, we are of the opinion that these are not the cases where this Court should interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution. However, we make it clear that directions of the High Court are given in the aforesaid unique and peculiar/specific background and, therefore, it would not form precedent for future cases."
36. Subsequent to the judgement in Savitri Devi's case (supra), the Supreme Court in Khatoon's case (supra), while considering the question as to whether the appellants therein are entitled to claim additional abadi land in lieu of their acquired land in terms of the judgement in Gajraj's case (supra) and upheld in Savitri Devi's case (supra), has held as under:-
"49. That apart, there is no basis for the appellants to press in service the principle underlined in Article 14 in such cases for the simple reason that firstly, Article 14 does not apply to such cases; and secondly, there is no similarity between the case of those landowners, who filed the writ petitions and the present appellants, who did not file the writ petitions. Though the High Court, in Gajraj's case (supra) decided the rights of both categories of landowners but the cases of both stood on a different footing. It is for these reasons, the appellants were not held entitled to take benefit of condition No. 3 (a) and (b) of the case of Gajraj (supra) which was meant for the writ petitioners therein but not for the appellants. However, the appellants were held entitled to take the benefit of only condition No. 4 (a) and (b) of the said judgment and which they did take by accepting the additional compensation payable at the rate of 64.70%.
50. In our view, therefore substantial justice was done to all the landowners including the appellants, as observed in para 49 of Savitri Devi's case (supra).
37. In view of subsequent judgements of this Court as well as the Apex Court as noted herein-above, claim of the land owners/tenure holders for allotment of 10% of Abadi land subject to the ceiling limit of 2,500 square meters has been negated, the benefit, as claimed by the petitioners, cannot be granted.
38. The land owners/tenure holders, whose lands have been acquired under the 1894 Act, are not entitled as a matter of right for allotment of 10% of developed land, subject to the ceiling limit of 2,500 square meters.
39. In view of the aforesaid, as held by the Apex Court in Savitri Devi's and Khatoon's cases (supra), the landowners/tenure holders cannot get benefit of the same as the judgement rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj's case (supra) was in view of the peculiar facts & circumstances of the case, which would not form precedent for the future cases and therefore, the benefit cannot be accorded to the petitioners, who were not before the Court in earlier round of litigation."
5. In view of above, the petitioners, who were not party in Gajraj (supra) are not entitled to benefit of any additional developed abadi land.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that their uncles were given 4% developed land in terms of the orders of this Court in Gajraj. However, he admits that they were party to the said litigation while the petitioners herein had not challenged the acquisition proceedings, nor were party in Gajraj or any of the connected cases.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that classification made by the Authority bifurcating the benefit of additional land into 6% and 4%, is arbitrary.
8. However, we find no merit in the contention.
9. The 6% additional land was being given by the Authority to persons who were original tenure holders. The petitioners being the original tenure holders, were given the said benefit. The discrimination, if any, was qua the persons who were denied benefit of 6% developed land on the ground that they were not original tenure holders. This was found to be arbitrary and was struck down in Ramesh Chandra Sharma and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2023, AIR 2023 SC 1117.
10. However, grant of 4% additional developed land was available only to those who were party to the litigation. The judgment in Runwell India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) duly takes into account the said aspect.
11. We thus find no merit in the writ petition.
12. The petition is dismissed accordingly.
(Donadi Ramesh, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
Order Date :- 28.8.2023
Jaideep/-
