Allahabad High Court
Shiv Achal Gupta vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 11 November, 2025
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:198525-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 37741 of 2025
Shiv Achal Gupta
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Amit Singh Yadav, Gautam Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Anjali Upadhya, C.S.C.
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mrs. Anjali Upadhaya, learned counsel for the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority.
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred praying inter alia for the following relief:
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the Nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner within stipulated time."
3. At the outset, Mrs. Anjali Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent ? Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, submits that the petitioner has already received compensation under the Agreement Rules, 1997, and therefore, the present writ petition is per se not maintainable in view of the judgment dated 24.11.2021 passed by the Division Bench in Writ-C No. 31108 of 2021 (Brahmwati and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others). It is further submitted that on the ground of delay and laches alone, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The order dated 24.11.2021 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
"1. The land of the petitioners was acquired for planned industrial development in Grater Noida vide Notification dated May 2, 2003 under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquisition attained finality and even the compensation as determined by the Collector was paid.
2. It is not disputed by learned counsel for petitioners that no objection were filed seeking enhancement of the compensation by the petitioners. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to pay additional compensation of 64.70 per cent to the petitioners in terms of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Gajraj and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (2011) 11 ADJ 1. Reference has also been made to the orders passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 5686 of 2016 (Brahm Pal and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on July 31, 2019, Writ-C No. 38101 of 2012 (Azad Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on April 29, 2014 and Writ-C No. 30426 of 2014 (Prahlad and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on January 12, 2016.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Notification dated May 2, 2003 issued under Section 4 of the Act, by which land of the petitioners were acquired, were not the subject matter of consideration before the Full Bench in Gajraj's case (supra). Hence, the benefits which were given in the aforesaid judgment will not accrue to the petitioners.
4. The fact that the notification in question was not subject matter of consideration before the Full Bench in Gajraj's case (supra) is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioners. However, he submitted that subsequent thereto in Brahm Pal's case (supra), Azad Singh's case (supra) and Prahlad's case (supra), this Court had extended the benefits, as were given in Gajraj's case (supra) to the landowners, whose land was acquired by Notification dated May 2, 2003.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find that any case is made out for issuing directions, as prayed for by the petitioners. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khatoon and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (2018) 14 SCC 346, in paragraph 50 has specifically held that the directions issued by 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. Further, a perusal of the judgments sought to be relied by learned counsel for the petitioners suggest that those were passed on the concession given by learned counsel for the State that the issues raised are squarely covered by Full Bench judgment in Gajraj's case (supra). This Court has not decided the issues on merits.
6. Once it is not in dispute that the acquisition in question was not the subject matter of consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj's case (supra), no benefits granted therein shall accrue to the petitioners.
7. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
4. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, we find no reason to take a view different from the one taken by the Coordinate Bench in Brahmwati and Others (supra). Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
November 11, 2025
NLY
