Allahabad High Court
Brahma Prakash And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 4 October, 2023
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta, Donadi Ramesh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:191038-DB
Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7206 of 2022
Petitioner :- Brahma Prakash And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nagendra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhya
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
1. The instant petition has been filed praying for direction to respondent no.3 to allot ten percent abadi plot to the petitioners in lieu of the acquisition of their agricultural land.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents had acquired the land belonging to their father Ganga Prasad. After acquisition, their father was allotted developed land equivalent to six percent of the acquired land. However, the petitioners are claiming ten percent of developed land in proportion to the land acquired.
3. It is not disputed before us that the petitioners or their predecessors had not challenged the acquisition proceedings and were not party in Gajraj & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., under which the allotment of ten percent abadi plots was to be made by the Authority.
4. Ms. Anjali Upadhya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Authority submits that the instant matter is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 31.05.2022 passed in Writ C No. 14113 of 2017 (Runwell (India) Pvt. Ltd.Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others).
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that the petitioners have already been allotted six percent developed abadi plot and that they had not challenged the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, for the reasons as stated in paragraphs 35 to 39 of the judgment in Runwell (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we find no case in favour of the petitioners. The aforesaid paragraphs from Runwell (India) Pvt. Ltd (supra), 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 wherethis 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."
(emphasis supplied)
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."
6. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
(Donadi Ramesh, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
Order Date :- 4.10.2023
Noman
