Allahabad High Court
Brahmanand Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 14 October, 2025
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:183395-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 35255 of 2025
Brahmanand Sharma
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Pankaj Dubey, Rishu Mishra
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 Shri Akash Ojha, Advocate holding brief of Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos.1 and 2 and Ms. Anjali Upadhya, learned counsel for the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar (respondent no.3).
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.
3. The instant writ petition is preferred with request to issue direction to the respondents for payment of 64.70% additional compensation to the petitioner for his part of land comprising of Khasra No.1258 area 0-3-0 and 1262 area 1-8-0 situated at revenue Village Chhapraula, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.
4. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner was co-owner with transferable rights of the aforesaid land. A notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1894") was issued by the State Government on 18.09.2000. The said notification was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act, 1894, issued on 31.10.2000. The land of the petitioner was acquired by the aforesaid notifications and after the acquisition the petitioner accepted the compensation in respect of aforesaid land.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter pertaining to the payment of compensation came up before this Court and ultimately Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gajraj Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (11) ADJ 1, decided the controversy vide judgment dated 21.10.2011. It is further argued that apart from the same, the Supreme Court disposed of the case of Savitri Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others (2015) 7 SCC 21 with the following observations:-
"42. To sum up, following benefits are accorded to the land owners:
(a) Increasing the compensation by 64.7%;
(b) Directing allotment of developed abadi land to the extent of 10% of the land acquired of each of the landowners;
(c) Compensation which is increased @ 64.7% is payable immediately without taking away the rights of the landowners to claim higher compensation under the machinery provided in the Land Acquisition Act wherein the matter would be examined on the basis of the evidence produced to arrive at just and fair market value.
This accordingly to us, provides substantial justice to the appellants."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that pursuant to the directions given by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gajraj (supra), a Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Mr. Jayveer Singh. The aforesaid Committee examined the entire issue in great detail and submitted its report on 2.11.2011. In the said report, it was held by the Committee that all the tenure holders whose lands were acquired irrespective of challenging acquisition became entitled to the benefits granted in the judgement dated 21.10.2011. It is further argued that in view of the Board Meeting held on 25.11.2011, the respondent No.3 has passed an Office Order on 15.6.2015 for payment of 64.70% additional compensation to the land holders in Greater NOIDA also. He has also relied upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court passed in Writ C No.5686 of 2016 (Brahm Pal and 68 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) on 31.7.2019. The operative portion of the aforesaid judgement is reproduced below:-
"In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, as the learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the ratio laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj (Supra) would squarely cover this case also, we are of the view that the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of direction issued by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gajraj (Supra) in paragraph of 482-3(a) is as under :-
3(a) The petitioners shall be entitled for payment of additional compensation to the extent of same ratio (i.e. 64.70%) as paid for village Patwari in addition to the compensation received by them under 1997 Rules/award which payment shall be ensured by the Authority at an early date. It may be open for Authority to take a decision as to what proportion of additional compensation be asked to be paid by allottees. Those petitioners who have not yet been paid compensation may be paid the compensation as well as additional compensation as ordered above. The payment of additional compensation shall be without any prejudice to rights of land owners under section 18 of the Act, if any.
This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Parties shall bear their own costs."
7. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the land of the petitioner was acquired by the respondents as per the provisions of the Act, 1894 in the year 2000. Thereafter a bunch of writ petitions were filed before this Court challenging the aforesaid notifications and ultimately a decision has been taken by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gajraj Singh (Supra). The aforesaid controversy also came up before the Apex Court in the case of Savitri Devi (supra) in which certain observations were made which are quoted above. It is further clear from perusal of the record that a decision was also taken by the respondent No.3 to provide the benefits of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Gajraj Singh (supra).
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, as the learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 of Village Chhapraula had also been considered by the Full Bench in case of Gajraj (Supra) in para 482-3 (a), therefore, we find that the claim of the petitioner is to be considered by the authority in accordance with law.
9. With the consent of parties, the writ petition stands disposed of with observation that in case the claim of the petitioner is sustainable in view of the Full Bench judgement in the case of Gajraj (supra), the same would be considered by the respondent no.3 in three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
October 14, 2025
RKP
