Allahabad High Court
Patram vs State Of U.P. Thru Special Secy. And ... on 10 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19341-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
(Sl. No. 3033)
Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16865 of 2013
Petitioner :- Patram
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Special Secy. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- Akhilesh Kumar Sharma,C.S.C.,Suresh Singh
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the Notifications dated 26.02.2009 and 19.02.2010 issued under Section 4 r/w Section 17 (4) and Section 6 r/w Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of 246.2360 hectare of land of Village-Parsol, Pargana-Dankaur, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Gautam Budh Nagar.
2. The acquisition was for planned development in district Gautam Budh Nagar through Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority. As a large parcel of land was needed for development of the entire area as an integrated township and therefore, 21 different notifications covering 14 villages were issued, the details of which are as follows:
Sl. No.
Village Name
Notification u/s 4(1)17
Date
Notification u/s 6/17
Date
1.
Dungarpur Reelka
3080-77-3-10-38 Arjan/10
Date 02-12-2010
495-77-3-11-38 Arjan/10
Date 24.03.2011
2.
Rustampur
605-77-3-2009-30 Arjan/09
Date 20.02.2009
596-77-3-2010-30 Arjan/09
Date 26.02.2010
3.
Accheja Bujurg
940-77-3-2010-02 YA/10
Date 19.04.2010
2038-77-3-2010-02 YA/10
Date 28.07.2010
4.
Rampur Bangar
928-77-3-10-3/YA Date 19.04.2010
2016-77-3-10-3YA /10
Date 28.07.2010
601-77-3-2009/26 Arjan/09
Date 26.02.2009
202-77-3-2009/26Arjan/09
Date 01.02.2010
5.
Usmanpur
3483-77-3-2009-242 Arjan/09
Date 04.11.2009
782-77-3-2009-242 Arjan/09
Date 18.03.2010
6.
Raunjia
2951-77-10-33YA/10
Date 02.11.2010
3402-77-10-33YA/10
Date 07.01.2011
7.
Kadarpur
3079/77-3-10-37YA-10
Date 02.12.2010
458/77-3-11-37YA-10
Date 22.03.2011
8.
Pachokra
607-77-3-2009/32/Arjan/09
Date 26.02.2009
425-77-3-2009/32/ Arjan/09
Date 19.02.2010
9.
Parsol
604-77-3-2009-29 Arjan/09
Date 26-02-2009
423-77-3-2009/29Arjan/09
Date 19.02.2010
3484-77-03-2009/243 Arjan/09
Date 04.11.2009
781-77-03-2010/243 Arjan/09
Date 26.03.2010
10.
Bhatta
3485-77-03-2009/244 Arjan/09
Date 04.11.2009
779-77-03-2010-244 Arjan/09
Date 26.03.2010
11.
Mirjapur
608/77-3-2009-28 Arjan/09
Date 26.02.2009
428/77-3-2010-28 Arjan/08
Date 19.02.2010
1338-77-03-2010-01YA/10
Date 13.05.2010
2041-77-03-2010/01YA/10
Date 28.07.2010
2763-77-3-2010-28YA
Date 15.10.2010
3305-77-3-2010-28 Arjan 10
Date 27.12.2010
12.
Niloni Shahpur
609/77-3-2009-34 Arjan09
Date 07.10.2009
200/77-3-2009-34Arjan/08
Date 19.02.2010
3144/77-3-2009-234Arjan 09
Date 07.10.2009
3797/77-3-2009-234Arjan 09
Date 07.12.2009
3155/77-3-2010-42 Arjan09
Date 07.10.2009
456/77-3-2010-42 Arjan09
Date 17.03.2011
2037-77-3-2010/08 Arjan/10
Date 28.07.2010
2641/77-3-2010/08 Arjan/10
Date 15.10.2010
13.
Rabupura
602/77-3-2009-27Arjan/09
Date 26.02.2009
203/77-3-2009-27 Arjan/08
Date 19.02.2010
14.
Achcheypur
610/77-3-2009-35 Arjan/09
Date 26.02.2009
427/77-3-2010-35Arjan/08 Date19.02.2010
3. The main ground of attack is that dispensation of inquiry under Section 5A was illegal.
4. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Abhay Pratap Singh, appearing for the respondent-Authority (YEIDA) points out that all the nine set of notifications were subject matter of challenge in different writ petitions before this Court and the challenge was repelled, against which the land holders filed various SLPs before the Supreme Court.
5. He further submits that in some cases challenge was accepted and the writ petitions were allowed. YEIDA filed review applications which were rejected and aggrieved thereby it went up in SLP before the Supreme Court. All these cases have been decided by the Supreme Court by a common judgement dated 26.11.2024 passed in Kali Charan and Others vs. State of U.P. and others; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3472 and the judgement of this Court in various writ petitions repelling the challenge has been upheld whereas the judgment in Shyoraj Singh v. State of U.P (Writ-C No. 30747 of 2010) striking down the acquisition has been held as not laying down correct law.
6. We have gone through the said judgement and we find the submission to be correct. The conclusion recorded by the Supreme Court in paragraph 42 onward is as follows:-
"... 42. This Court, in the cases of Savitri Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh; (2015) 7 SCC 21, Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh; (2017) 11 SCC 339 and Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Ravindra Kumar; (2022) 13 SCC 468, despite holding the invocation of the urgency clause under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act to be illegal, nonetheless upheld the acquisition proceedings and directed enhancement of compensation so as to compensate the land owners. However, in the present case, we have concluded that the action of the State in invocation of the urgency clause is in consonance with the law.
43. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, while delivering its decision in Kamal Sharma has already granted additional compensation of 64.7% to the landowners, to be offered as 'No Litigation Bonus' in consonance with the Government order dated 4th November, 2015, thus there is no scope to direct further enhancement in compensation.
44. In light of the Government order dated 4th November, 2015 and the precedents set in Savitri Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh; (supra) and Yamuna Expressway Industrial Authority v. Shakuntla Education and Welfare Society; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 655, it is directed that 64.7% enhancement in compensation shall apply in rem, ensuring uniform benefits to all affected landowners under the present land acquisition.
45. The question of non-issuance of the final award and its effect on the acquisition is left open ensuring that any affected party would retain the right to challenge or seek appropriate remedy on this specific issue independently, in accordance with law.
46. As a result of the above discussion, the appeals filed by the landowners i.e. Batch No. 1, are dismissed, and the appeals filed by YEIDA i.e. Batch No. 2, are hereby allowed. ..."
7. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the instant case is fully covered by the judgement of the Supreme Court, accordingly, the challenge to the impugned notifications is held to be unsustainable.
8. However, in terms of paragraph 45 of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Kali Charan (Supra), liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to challenge the award in independent proceedings.
9. Accordingly, the petition and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
Order Date :- 10.2.2025
Kirti
(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
