Allahabad High Court
Mahesh Chand And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others on 28 October, 2025
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:188964-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 5609 of 2012
Mahesh Chand And Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Suneel Rai
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Anuj Srivastava, Ramendra Pratap Singh
With
WRIT - C No. - 5605 of 2012
Omi and others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Suneel Rai
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Anuj Srivastava, Ramendra Pratap Singh
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. On 03.09.2025, Shri Dinesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel holding the brief of learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that his clients' prayer for interference by directing enhanced compensation on acquisition of their lands had not been covered by order dated 25th November, 2011 of a Division Bench made in Writ-C No. 67629 of 2011 (Narpat and others vs. State of U.P.). The coordinate Bench had considered the objection of Mr. Anuj Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 - NOIDA Authority and passed a detailed order on 11.09.2025, which is reproduced below:
"Mr. Anuj Srivastava, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent no.2 and with reference to our order dated 3rd September, 2025 submits, order dated 25th November, 2011 of a Division Bench made in Writ-C no.67629 of 2011 (Narpat and others vs. State of U.P.) does not cover petitioners' claim for enhanced compensation. He relies on order dated 8th September, 2025 of a Division Bench dismissing Writ-C no.6097 of 2012 (Sanjay Tyagi and other vs. State of U.P. through Secretary and others).
Mr. Dinesh Kumar Yadav, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners disputes the submission. Mr. Anubhav Chandra, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State.
Paragraphs 1 to 3 in our order dated 3rd September, 2025 are reproduced below.
"1. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Yadav, learned advocate holding the brief appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, his clients' prayer for interference by directing enhanced compensation on acquisition of their lands stands covered by order dated 25th November, 2011 of a Division Bench made in Writ- C no. 67629 of 2011 (Narpat and others vs. State of U.P.).
2. Mr. Anubhav Chandra, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State. Mr. Anuj Srivastava, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent no. 2 and submits, pre-year 2000 writ petitions seeking benefit of judgment dated 21st October, 2011 made in the leading writ petition no. 37443 of 2011 (Gajraj and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others) have been dismissed by this Court.
3. Respondent no. 2 is to consider its position in respect of relied upon order dated 25th November, 2011 (supra)."
Respondent no.2 is seeking to rely on order dated 8th September, 2025 (supra) to oppose petitioners' claim. Said order though made in the writ petition of year 2012 relies on Gajraj (supra). Reliance by respondent no.2 cannot be acted upon because said order dated 8th September, 2025 (supra) was passed ex parte against petitioners in the writ petition. Respondent no.2 must get ready for hearing and disposal of the writ petition.
List under same heading on 23rd September, 2025. Adjournment granted is peremptory. "
3. Later, the objection of the petitioners had also been considered while passing the order dated 23.09.2025, which is also reproduced below for ready reference:
"1. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Yadav, learned advocate, holding the brief appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, his clients are claiming, inter alia, 64.70 % additional amount of compensation on acquisition of their lands following view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2011 (11) ADJ 1.
2. Mr. G.C. Tiwari, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State.
3. Mr. Anuj Srivastava, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent no.2 (the development authority) and submits, petitioners are not entitled to so claim. He submits, Gajraj (supra) was subject matter of appeal before the Supreme Court, dealt with on judgment in Savitri Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2015) 7 SCC 21. He relies on paragraph 50, reproduced below.
"50. 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."
Mr. Srivastava also relies on view taken by a Division Bench of this Court on judgment dated 3rd May, 2017 dismissing Writ-C no. 18948 of 2017 (Smt. Rameshwari and 3 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others). A paragraph from the judgment is reproduced below.
"In the case in hand, the petitioners' land was acquired by means of notification dated 09.09.1997. Equally admitted fact is that the petitioners accepted the award and did not come forward to challenge the land acquisition proceedings. Not only that, notification dated 9.9.2017 whereunder an area 1275-18-18 including Gata no. 582 area 6-5-13, 538 area 0-15-6, 609 area 1-2-12 and 615 area 9-10-10 of the petitioners situate at village Tugalpur was acquired was not subject of matter of challenge before the Full Bench."
4. Parties have adjournment for petitioners to demonstrate that their case is same as petitioners in Gajraj (supra) while respondents might demonstrate otherwise. Same on acquisition under the notification in Gajraj (supra).
5. List on 14th October, 2025. "
4. Shri Anuj Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the NOIDA Authority, submits that the relief sought by the petitioners is not maintainable in light of the law laid down by this Court in Gajraj (supra). He contends that the Full Bench in Gajraj accorded relief only to tenure holders whose lands were acquired pursuant to notifications issued in or after the year 2002, whereas the acquisition in question in the instant matters pertains to the year 1995. It is thus urged that the petitioners cannot claim parity with those covered by Gajraj (supra). He further relies on the Division Bench order dated 25.11.2011 in Writ?C No. 67629 of 2011 (Narpat and others v. State of U.P.), to submit that similar claims for enhanced compensation were declined. He further submits that even 5% developed land has already been allotted to the petitioners, and therefore, no further relief is admissible.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in the instant petition. Accordingly, both the aforementioned writ petitions stand dismissed.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
October 28, 2025
NLY
