# Anand Prakash & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 1304
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-20
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 66367 of 2015
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anand-prakash-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45180
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sri Shivam Yadav

A. Compensation - Land Acquisition - in
view of the Full Bench decision in Gajraj
Singh case, petitioners have received
compensation
amount
as
also
the
additional compensation at the rate of
64.70%,
however
they
are
seeking
direction for allotment of developed
abadi plot to the extent of 10% of their
acquired land - whether the petitioners
1306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
who were neither parties in the writ
petitions which had been decided along
with the Gajraj Singh case nor had their
land
been
acquired
under
the
notifications which were subject matter
of challenge in the Gajraj Singh case and
connected matters can claim allotment of
developed abadi plot to the extent of
10% of their acquired land.

The directions issued by the Full Bench in the
case of Gajraj Singh under paragraph 482(4) in
terms of which the authority was to take a
decision as to whether benefit of additional
compensation and allotment of abadi plot to
the extent of 10% was to be given, was
confined to those land holders whose writ
petitions challenging the notification has been
dismissed earlier and to those who had not
approached
the
court
to
challenge
the
notifications which were subject matter of
challenge in the writ petitions decided along
with the case of Gajraj Singh. The directions
had been made in view of the peculiar facts of
the case having regard to the extensive
development
which
had
taken
place
subsequent to the acquisition proceedings and
thereafter the Supreme Court in the case of
Savitri Devi had made it clear that the
directions issued by the Full Bench shall not be
treated as precedent in future cases. (Para 26)

The directions under paragraph 482(4) of the
judgment aforesaid were not in respect of
those persons such as the petitioners in the
present case whose land had been acquired in
terms of notifications which were not subject
matter of challenge in the case of Gajraj Singh
and connected matters. Thus the decision of
not giving additional developed abadi land to
the persons such as petitions cannot be held to
be either arbitrary or discriminatory, more so,
when the said decision was based on the
reasoning that the authority had not developed
land to allot to these landowners. (Para 27)

B. Land Acquisition Act - right to claim
additional benefit in lieu of acquisition of
land - repelled in the case of Ravindra
Kumar by Full Bench.

Land Acquisition is a self-contained Code
providing the procedure to be followed for
acquisition as well as for assessment of the
valuation and payment of fair and just
compensation to the persons whose and were
acquired and in the absence of any statutory
provision no other claim can be raised as a
matter of right. (Para 21)

Writ Petition rejected. (E-10)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,702 of 55,218. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39702 for what follows._

1 All. Narendra Giri Mahant Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1305
constructions voluntarily, the authority can
get that demolished at the cost of the
occupant.

50. At this stage, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the petitioner Sri
C.B.Yadav
submits
that
since
constructions have been found to be
beyond area of 4335 Sq.ft. recorded in the
GLR No. 94 and Survey No. 71 as per the
measurement exercise carried out by the
Prayagraj Development Authority in the
presence of the representatives of the
petitioner and the officers concerned, and
the report has been prepared to that count,
Mahant has applied on 18.12.2019 for
grant of sanction/ regularization of the
existing structure and the Magh Mela is
shortly to be organized in the area, some
reasonable time may be allowed to remove
the standing constructions in questions
shown as red shaded, beyond the area of
4335 Sq.ft recorded as private land of
Hanuman Temple premises in question.

51. To the above request, learned
counsel for the respondents has no
objection and we also find that since Magh
Mela is shortly to begin, it would be in the
public interest to grant sufficient time to
the petitioner to remove unauthorized
constructions.

52. In view of above, therefore, we
hereby direct that petitioner shall remove
all the constructions permanent and
temporary beyond the area 4335 Sq.ft..
shown in the map prepared by the
Prayagraj Development Authority (supra)
within a period of three months from today
and positively by 19th of March, 2020,
failing which it would be open for the
respondent to carry out necessary exercise
for
removal
of
the
unauthorized
constructions.

53. Writ petition thus stands disposed of
with the aforesaid observations and directions.

54. The registry is directed to supply
certified copy of the survey map and the
report to the respective parties, if they
apply for the same.

55. However, before we part with the
case, we may record our appreciation for
the tremendous task undertaken by the
Advocate Commissioners in rendering
their assistance in the matter by preparing
spot inspection report quite meticulously
in respect of the inspection carried out by
the Prayagraj Development Authority.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1304

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 66367 of 2015

Anand Prakash & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ram Surat Saroj, Sri Prem Chand Saroj

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Shivam Yadav

A. Compensation - Land Acquisition - in
view of the Full Bench decision in Gajraj
Singh case, petitioners have received
compensation
amount
as
also
the
additional compensation at the rate of
64.70%,
however
they
are
seeking
direction for allotment of developed
abadi plot to the extent of 10% of their
acquired land - whether the petitioners
1306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
who were neither parties in the writ
petitions which had been decided along
with the Gajraj Singh case nor had their
land
been
acquired
under
the
notifications which were subject matter
of challenge in the Gajraj Singh case and
connected matters can claim allotment of
developed abadi plot to the extent of
10% of their acquired land.

The directions issued by the Full Bench in the
case of Gajraj Singh under paragraph 482(4) in
terms of which the authority was to take a
decision as to whether benefit of additional
compensation and allotment of abadi plot to
the extent of 10% was to be given, was
confined to those land holders whose writ
petitions challenging the notification has been
dismissed earlier and to those who had not
approached
the
court
to
challenge
the
notifications which were subject matter of
challenge in the writ petitions decided along
with the case of Gajraj Singh. The directions
had been made in view of the peculiar facts of
the case having regard to the extensive
development
which
had
taken
place
subsequent to the acquisition proceedings and
thereafter the Supreme Court in the case of
Savitri Devi had made it clear that the
directions issued by the Full Bench shall not be
treated as precedent in future cases. (Para 26)

The directions under paragraph 482(4) of the
judgment aforesaid were not in respect of
those persons such as the petitioners in the
present case whose land had been acquired in
terms of notifications which were not subject
matter of challenge in the case of Gajraj Singh
and connected matters. Thus the decision of
not giving additional developed abadi land to
the persons such as petitions cannot be held to
be either arbitrary or discriminatory, more so,
when the said decision was based on the
reasoning that the authority had not developed
land to allot to these landowners. (Para 27)

B. Land Acquisition Act - right to claim
additional benefit in lieu of acquisition of
land - repelled in the case of Ravindra
Kumar by Full Bench.

Land Acquisition is a self-contained Code
providing the procedure to be followed for
acquisition as well as for assessment of the
valuation and payment of fair and just
compensation to the persons whose and were
acquired and in the absence of any statutory
provision no other claim can be raised as a
matter of right. (Para 21)

Writ Petition rejected. (E-10)

List of cases cited: -

1. Gajraj Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and
ors 2011 (11) ADJ 1 (FB)

2. Savitri Devi Vs. State of U.P. and ors 2015
(7) SCC 21

3. Mange @ Mange Ram Vs. State of U.P. and
ors 2016 (8) ADJ 79 (DB)

4. Khatoon and ors Vs. State of U.P. and ors
(2018) 14 SCC 346

5. Smt. Rameshwari and 3 ors Vs. State of U.P.
and 2 ors Writ C No. 18948 of 2017, decided
on 03.05.2017

6. Ramesh and ors Vs. State of U.P. and ors
2019 (4) ADJ 225

7. Ravindra kumar Vs. District Magistrate, Agra
and ors (2005) 1 UPLBEC 118

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Prem
Chandra Saroj learned counsel, on behalf
of the petitioners, is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Prem Chandra Saroj,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the
fourth respondent, and Sri Mata Prasad,
learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the State-respondents.

3. The present writ petition has been
filed seeking a direction to the respondents
to allot developed abadi plot to the
1 All. Anand Prakash & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1307
petitioners to the extent of 10% of their
acquired land in view of the Full Bench
decision of this Court in Gajraj Singh
and others Vs. State of U.P. and others.

4. The petitioners claim to be owners
of certain land parcels situate in Village
Soharkha Jahidabad, Pargana and Tehsil
Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar which
were
subject
matter
of
acquisition
proceedings in terms of notification dated
31.07.2005
issued
under
Section
4
(1)/17(4), and the notification dated
27.07.2006 issued under Section 6/17 (1)
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The
petitioners admit to having received
compensation amount and also additional
compensation at the rate of 64.70% in
view of the Full Bench judgment of this
Court in the case of Gajraj Singh and
others (supra).

5. It is an admitted position that the
petitioners did not challenge the land
acquisition proceedings. The writ petition
is also silent as to whether the notifications
under which the land of the petitioners was
acquired, were under challenge in the
bunch of writ petitions which were
decided along with the case of Gajraj
Singh and others.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the
State respondents and also the learned
counsel for the Noida Authority have
submitted that the benefit granted by the
Full Bench in the case of Gajraj Singh
and others would not be applicable to the
case of the petitioners for the reason that
the petitioners were neither parties in the
writ petitions which had been decided
along with the case of Gajraj Singh and
others nor there is any assertion by the
petitioners that the notifications under
which their land had been acquired were
subject matter of challenge in the case of
Gajraj Singh and others. Further more, it
has been submitted that in terms of the
direction contained in the Full Bench
judgment, the Noida Authority had taken a
decision not to allot the abadi plot to the
extent of 10% to those land owners who
had not approached the writ court and had
not
challenged
the
acquisition
proceedings.

7. The question which thus falls for
consideration is as to whether as per the
directions in the case of Gajraj Singh and
others, the petitioners, who were neither
parties in the writ petitions which had been
decided along with the case of Gajraj
Singh and others nor had their land been
acquired under the notifications which
were subject matter of challenge in the
writ petitions decided by the Full Bench in
the case of Gajraj Singh and others and
connected matters, could claim entitlement
to allotment of abadi plot to the extent of
10% of their acquired land.

8. In the case of Gajraj Singh and
others, the writ petitions challenging the
notifications in respect of land acquisition
proceedings with respect to tracts of land
situate in different villages of Greater
Noida and Noida were decided and the
writ petitions were disposed of in terms of
the following directions :-

"481. As noticed above, the land
has been acquired of large number of
villagers in different villages of Greater
Noida and Noida. Some of the petitioners
had earlier come to this Court and their
writ petitions have been dismissed as
noticed above upholding the notifications
which judgments have become final
between them. Some of the petitioners
may not have come to the Court and have
1308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
left themselves in the hand of the
Authority and State under belief that the
State and Authority shall do the best for
them as per law. We cannot loose sight of
the fact that the above farmers and
agricultures/owners whose land has been
acquired are equally affected by taking of
their land. As far as consequence and
effect of the acquisition it equally affects
on all land losers. Thus land owners whose
writ petitions have earlier been dismissed
upholding the notifications may have
grievances
that
the
additional
compensation which was a subsequent
event granted by the Authority may also
be extended to them and for the aforesaid,
further spate of litigation may start in so
far as payment of additional compensation
is concerned. In the circumstances, we
leave it to the Authority to take a decision
as to whether the benefit of additional
compensation shall also be extended to
those
with
regard
to
whom
the
notifications of acquisition have been
upheld or those who have not filed any
writ petitions. We leave this in the
discretion of the Authority/State which
may be exercised keeping in view the
principles enshrined under Article 14 of
the Constitution of India.

482. In view of the foregoing
conclusions we order as follows:

1. The Writ Petition No. 45933
of 2011, Writ Petition No. 47545 of 2011
relating to village Nithari, Writ Petition
No. 47522 of 2011 relating to village
Sadarpur, Writ Petition No. 45196 of
2011, Writ Petition No. 45208 of 2011,
Writ Petition No. 45211 of 2011, Writ
Petition No. 45213 of 2011, Writ Petition
No. 45216 of 2011, Writ Petition No.
45223 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45224 of
2011, Writ Petition No. 45226 of 2011,
Writ Petition No. 45229 of 2011, Writ
Petition No. 45230 of 2011, Writ Petition
No. 45235 of 2011, Writ Petition No.
45238 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45283 of
2011 relating to village Khoda, Writ
Petition No. 46764 of 2011, Writ Petition
No. 46785 of 2011 relating to village
Sultanpur, Writ Petition No. 46407 of
2011 relating to village Chaura Sadatpur
and Writ Petition No. 46470 of 2011
relating to village Alaverdipur which have
been filed with inordinate delay and laches
are dismissed.

2. (i) The writ petitions of Group
40 (Village Devla) being Writ Petition No.
31126 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 59131 of
2009, Writ Petition No. 22800 of 2010,
Writ Petition No. 37118 of 2011, Writ
Petition No. 42812 of 2009, Writ Petition
No. 50417 of 2009, Writ Petition No.
54424 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 54652 of
2009, Writ Petition No. 55650 of 2009,
Writ Petition No. 57032 of 2009, Writ
Petition No. 58318 of 2009, Writ Petition
No. 22798 of 2010, Writ Petition No.
37784 of 2010, Writ Petition No. 37787 of
2010, Writ Petition No. 31124 of 2011,
Writ Petition No. 31125 of 2011, Writ
Petition No. 32234 of 2011, Writ Petition
No. 32987 of 2011, Writ Petition No.
35648 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 38059 of
2011, Writ Petition No. 41339 of 2011,
Writ Petition No. 47427 of 2011 and Writ
Petition No. 47412 of 2011 are allowed
and the notifications dated 26.5.2009 and
22.6.2009 and all consequential actions are
quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled
for restoration of their land subject to
deposit of compensation which they had
received under agreement/award before
the authority/Collector.

2(ii) Writ petition No. 17725 of
2010 Omveer and others Vs. State of U.P.
(Group 38) relating to village Yusufpur
Chak Sahberi is allowed. Notifications
dated 10.4.2006 and 6.9.2007 and all
consequential actions are quashed. The
1 All. Anand Prakash & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1309
petitioners shall be entitled for restoration
of their land subject to return of
compensation received by them under
agreement/award to the Collector.

2(iii) Writ Petition No.47486 of
2011 (Rajee and others vs. State of U.P.
and others) of Group-42 relating to village
Asdullapur is allowed. The notification
dated 27.1.2010 and 4.2.2010 as well as all
subsequent proceedings are quashed. The
petitioners shall be entitled to restoration
of their land.

3. All other writ petitions except
as mentioned above at (1) and (2) are
disposed of with following directions:

(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.

(b) All the petitioners shall be
entitled for allotment of developed Abadi
plot to the extent of 10% of their acquired
land subject to maximum of 2500 square
meters. We however, leave it open to the
Authority in cases where allotment of
abadi plot to the extent of 6% or 8% have
already been made either to make
allotment of the balance of the area or may
compensate the land owners by payment
of the amount equivalent to balance area
as per average rate of allotment made of
developed residential plots.

4.The Authority may also take a
decision as to whether benefit of additional
compensation and allotment of abadi plot
to the extent of 10% be also given to;

(a) those land holders whose
earlier
writ
petition
challenging
the
notifications
have
been
dismissed
upholding the notifications; and

(b) those land holders who have
not come to the Court, relating to the
notifications which are subject matter of
challenge in writ petitions mentioned at
direction No.3.

5. The Greater NOIDA and its
allottees are directed not to carry on
development and not to implement the
Master Plan 2021 till the observations and
directions of the National Capital Regional
Planning Board are incorporated in Master
Plan 2021 to the satisfaction of the
National Capital Regional Planning Board.
We make it clear that this direction shall
not be applicable in those cases where the
development is being carried on in
accordance with the earlier Master Plan of
the Greater NOIDA duly approved by the
National Capital Regional Planning Board.

6. We direct the Chief Secretary
of the State to appoint officers not below
the level of Principal Secretary (except the
officers
of
Industrial
Development
Department who have dealt with the
relevant files) to conduct a thorough
inquiry regarding the acts of Greater Noida
(a) in proceeding to implement Master
Plan 2021 without approval of N.C.R.P.
Board, (b) decisions taken to change the
land use, (c) allotment made to the
builders and (d) indiscriminate proposals
for acquisition of land, and thereafter the
State Government shall take appropriate
action in the matter."
1310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. In terms of the aforementioned
directions,
particularly
the
directions
issued under paragraph 482(3), it was held
that all the petitioners in the bunch of writ
petitions would be entitled for payment of
additional compensation to the extent of
64.70% in addition to the compensation
already received and also would be
entitled for allotment of developed abadi
land to the extent of 10% of their acquired
area.

10. In paragraph 482 (4), the
Authority was directed to take a decision
as to whether benefit of additional
compensation and allotment of abadi plot
to the extent of 10% was to be given to
those land owners whose writ petitions
challenging the notifications had been
dismissed earlier and also those land
holders who had not come to the Court to
challenge the notifications which were
subject matter of challenge in the writ
petitions decided along with the case of
Gajraj Singh and others. It may be
pertinent to note that there was no
direction
for
grant
of
payment
of
additional
compensation/allotment
of
abadi land or for consideration of the said
benefits by the Authority in respect of
those persons whose land had been
acquired in terms of notifications which
were not subject matter of challenge in the
case of Gajraj Singh and others and
connected bunch of writ petitions.

11. The judgment in the case of
Gajraj Singh and others was challenged
before the Supreme Court in the case of
Savitri Devi vs. State of U.P. and others,
and the same was affirmed after duly
taking notice of the facts of the case where
the High Court was faced with a scenario
where, on the one hand, invocation of
urgency provisions under Section 17 and
dispensing with the right to file objections
under Section 5-A, was found to be illegal
and on the other hand, there was a
situation where because of delay in
challenging
the
acquisitions
by
the
landowners, developments had taken place
in the villages and in most of the cases,
third party rights had been created.

12. It was in the face of this situation
that the Court in the case of Gajraj Singh
and others came out with a solution
which was equitable to both the sides by
way of providing them a practical and
workable
solution
by
adequately
compensating the landowners in the form
of compensation as well as allotment of
developed abadi land at a higher rate i.e.
10% of the land acquired of each of the
landowners against the eligibility under
the policy to the extent of 5% and 6% in
the case of land parcels under the Noida
and Greater Noida respectively.

13. The Supreme Court in the case of
Savitri Devi also took note of the fact that
directions had been issued by the High
Court in the peculiar circumstances of the
case and would not form a precedent for
future cases. The relevant extracts from
the judgment in the case of Savitri Devi
are as follows:-

"44. We have also to keep in
mind another important feature. Many
residents of Patwari village had entered
into
agreement
with
the
authorities
agreeing to accept enhanced compensation
@ 64.7%. This additional compensation
was, however, agreed to be paid by the
authorities only in respect of landowners
of Patwari village. The High Court has
bound the authorities with the said
agreement by applying the same to all the
land owners thereby benefiting them with
1 All. Anand Prakash & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1311
64.7% additional compensation. There
could have been argument that the
authorities cannot be fastened with this
additional
compensation,
more
particularly,
when
machinery
for
determination
for
just
and
fair
compensation is provided under the Land
Acquisition Act and the land owners had,
in fact, invoked the said machinery by
seeking reference Under Section 18
thereof.
Likewise,
the
scheme
for
allotment of land to the land owners
provides for 5% and 6% developed land in
Noida and Greater Noida respectively. As
against that, the High Court has enhanced
the said entitlement to 10%. Again, we
find that it could be an arguable case as to
whether High Court could grant additional
land
contrary
to
the
policy.
Notwithstanding the same, the Noida
authority have now accepted this part of
the High Court judgment after the
dismissal of the appeals filed by the Noida
authority, and a statement to that effect
was made by Mr. Rao.

45. We may point out that while
dismissing the appeals of Noida authority,
following remarks were made:

9. Insofar as allotment of 10
per cent of the plots is concerned, the High
Court, in exercise of its discretionary
power, has thought it fit, while sustaining
the notification issued by the authority for
protecting them for allotting 10 per cent of
the developed plots; and, there again they
have put a cap of 2,500 sq.mtrs. In fact, in
the course of the order, the High Court has
taken into consideration the agreement that
was entered into by the authority with the
villagers of Patwari and, in some cases, the
authority itself has agreed to raise 6 to 8
per cent of the developed plots to the
agriculturists. The High Court has also
taken into consideration the observations
made by this Court in the case of Bondu
Ramaswamy v. Bangalore Development
Authority 2010 (7) SCC 129, where this
Court has gone to the extent of directing
the authorities to allot 15 per cent of the
developed plots. In our view and in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of these
cases, since the relief that is given to the
Respondents/agriculturists
is
purely
discretionary relief by the Court in order to
sustain the notification issued by the
authorities, we do not find any good
ground to interfere with the impugned
judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the
High Court, at the instance of the
Petitioners/Appellants/
authorities,
namely, NOIDA and Greater NOIDA.

10. This order shall not be
treated as a precedent in any other case.

46. Thus, we have a scenario
where, on the one hand, invocation of
urgency provisions under Section 17 of the
Act and dispensing with the right to file
objection under Section 5A of the Act, is
found to be illegal. On the other hand, we
have a situation where because of delay in
challenging these acquisitions by the
landowners, developments have taken
place in these villages and in most of the
cases, third party rights have been created.
Faced with this situation, the High Court
going by the spirit behind the judgment of
this Court in Bondu Ramaswamy came out
with the solution which is equitable to
both sides. We are, thus, of the view that
the High Court considered the ground
realities of the matter and arrived at a more
practical
and
workable
solution
by
adequately compensating the land owners
in the form of compensation as well as
allotment of developed Abadi land at a
higher rate i.e. 10% of the land acquired of
each of the landowners against the
eligibility and to (sic under) the policy to
the extent of 5% and 6% of Noida and
Greater Noida land respectively.
1312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

47. Insofar as allegation of some of
the Appellants that their abadi land was
acquired, we find that this allegation is
specifically denied disputing its correctness.
There is specific averment made by the
NOIDA Authority at so many places that
village abadi land was not acquired. It is
mentioned that abadi area is what was found
in the survey conducted prior to Section 4
Notification and not what is alleged or that
which is far away from the dense village
abadi. It is also mentioned that as a
consequence of the acquisition, the Authority
spends crores and crores of rupees in
developing the infrastructure such as road,
drainage, sewer, electric and water lines etc.
in the unacquired portion of the village abadi.
During the course of hearing, Chart No. 2 in
respect of each village of Greater Noida was
handed over for the consideration of this
Court, wherein the amount spent by the
Authority on the development, including
village development (which is the unacquired
village abadi), has been given in Column No.
4 thereof. It has been the consistent stand of
the NOIDA Authority that prior to the
issuance of Section 4 Notification under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, survey was
conducted and the abadi found in that survey
was not acquired. In fact, affidavits in this
respect have also been filed not only in this
Court but also in the High Court. We have
mentioned that there has been a long gap
between acquisition of the land and filing of
the writ petitions in the High Court by these
Appellants challenging the acquisition. If they
have undertaken some construction during
this period they cannot be allowed to take
advantage thereof. Therefore, it is difficult to
accept the argument of the Appellants based
on parity with three villages in respect of
which the High Court has given relief by
quashing the acquisition.

48.
To
sum
up,
following
benefits are accorded to the land owners:

48.1-
increasing
the
compensation by 64.7%;

48.2- directing allotment of
developed abadi land to the extent of 10%
of the land acquired of each of the land
owners;

48.3- compensation which
is increased at the rate of 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.

49. This,
according
to us,
provides
substantial
justice
to
the
Appellants.

Conclusion

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.

51. We may record that some of
the Appellants had tried to point out
certain clerical mistakes pertaining to their
specific cases. For example, it was argued
by one Appellant that his land falls in a
village in Noida but wrongly included in
Greater Noida. These Appellants, for
getting such clerical mistakes rectified, can
always approach the High Court.

52. The Full Bench judgment of the
High Court is, accordingly, affirmed and all
these appeals are disposed of in terms of the said
judgment of the Full Bench."

14. Pursuant to the directions issued
under paragraph 482 (4) of the judgment
1 All. Anand Prakash & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1313
in the case of Gajraj Singh and others
the respondent authority took a decision in
its Board meeting for paying additional
compensation to the extent of 64.70% to
all
land
owners
whether
they
had
challenged the notifications or not. A
decision was also taken not to allot abadi
plot to the extent of 10% to those land
owners who had not approached the writ
court
and
had
not
questioned
the
acquisition proceedings. This decision of
the authority was based on the fact that
such huge area of developed abadi land
was not available so as to allot it to all
such persons who did not approach the
Court.

15. The contention of the petitioners that
irrespective
of
the
fact
whether
the
notifications issued in respect of land
acquisition proceedings were under challenge
along with the bunch of cases decided by the
Full Bench they should be granted the same
benefit regarding developed abadi plot as was
granted by the Full Bench is liable to be
rejected, for the reason that in the case of
Gajraj Singh and others the Full Bench
granted relief to the petitioners and to such
persons
whose
earlier
writ
petitions
challenging
the
notifications
had
been
dismissed or who had not come to the Court
challenging the notifications which were
subject matter of challenge in the writ
petitions, in view of the peculiar facts of the
case
having
regard
to
the
extensive
development
which
had
taken
place
subsequent to the acquisition proceedings, and
also that the Supreme Court in the case of
Savitri Devi had made it clear that the
directions issued by the Full Bench shall not be
treated as a precedent in future cases.

16. We may also refer to the case of
Mange @ Mange Ram Vs. State of U.P.
and others, where in a similar set of facts,
certain petitioners, whose lands had been
acquired under notifications, which were
challenged not by the petitioners but by
other similarly situate landowners, filed
writ petitions in the year 2016 praying that
they being similarly situate with those
landowners, who had filed writ petitions
and
challenged
the
acquisition
proceedings, were also entitled to claim
the same relief, which had been granted to
the writ petitioners in terms of the
judgment in the case of Gajraj Singh and
others and upheld in the case of Savitri
Devi. The claim raised by the petitioners
therein was turned down by this Court
after recording a conclusion that the
benefit granted by the Full Bench in the
case of Gajraj Singh and others cannot
be extended to the petitioners even though
they may be similarly situate and the
action of the respondents in not giving
additional developed abadi land was
neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. The
observations made in the judgment are as
follows :-

"11. Having heard the learned
counsel for the parties and having perused
the direction given by the Full Bench in
Gajraj's case (supra) as well as the
decision of the Supreme Court in Savitri
Devi (supra), we find that the judgment of
the Full Bench was affirmed by the
Supreme Court in Savitri Devi (supra).
While affirming the decision, the direction
of the Full Bench in paragraph 484(4) to
the authority to consider the case for
payment of additional compensation and
allotment of developed abadi plot to those
land owners, who had not challenged the
acquisition proceedings or whose writ
petitions were dismissed earlier was also
affirmed by the Supreme Court. Based on
such direction, the authority took a
decision to pay additional compensation to
1314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
all the land owners irrespective of the fact
as to whether they had challenged the
acquisition proceedings or not. But with
regard to allotment of developed abadi
land, the authority took a decision not to
allot to those land owners, who had not
approached the writ Court on the ground
that they have no developed land to allot to
these land owners. The fact that the
authority does not have any developed
land for allotment has not been disputed as
no rejoinder affidavit has been filed nor
any evidence has been brought on record.
We also find that such decision taken by
the
Board
is
neither
arbitrary
nor
discriminatory.

12. The Full Bench in order to
save the acquisition proceedings had
issued the direction for payment of
additional compensation and for allotment
of developed abadi plots in the extenuating
facts and circumstances of the case. The
Supreme Court acceded to the said
consideration holding that the Full Bench
was justified in issuing such directions in
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case and in order to save the acquisition
proceedings from the vice of arbitrariness.
The Supreme Court while affirming the
decision of the Full Bench categorically
held that the said decision would not be
treated to form a precedent for future
cases. The Supreme Court held:

"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."

13. Thus, we are of the opinion
that the ratio decendi of the Full Bench
cannot be applied to similarly situated
persons. The said benefit given by the Full
Bench
cannot
be
extended
to
the
petitioners, even though they may be
similarly situated and their land had been
acquired under the same notification.

14. We are of the view that the
action of the respondents in not giving
additional developed abadi land to the
petitioners
is
neither
arbitrary
nor
discriminatory, especially when there is no
evidence to dispute the fact that the
respondents have no developed land with
them for allotment."

17. The aforementioned judgment in
the case of Mange @ Mange Ram Vs.
State of U.P. and others decided along
with
other
connected
matters
was
subjected to challenge before the Supreme
Court and came to be decided in terms of
the judgment in Khatoon and others Vs.
State of U.P. and others4.

18. The question as to whether the
landowners were entitled to claim benefit
of the judgment passed by the Full Bench
in the case of Gajraj Singh and others,
which had been upheld in the case of
Savitri Devi, insofar as it related to
allotment of additional abadi plot was
considered by the Supreme Court in
aforementioned case of Khatoon and
others and the contention sought to be
raised on the basis of the principles
underlying Article 14 of the Constitution
was repelled after taking notice of the fact
that insofar as allotment of abadi plot is
concerned the High Court in the case of
Gajraj Singh and others had confined the
relief only to the petitioners therein and for
other landowners the matter was left to
discretion of the authority concerned
which had declined to extend the said
relief. It was held that the appellants had
1 All. Anand Prakash & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1315
neither any legal right nor any factual
foundation to claim the relief of allotment
of
additional
developed
abadi
plot.
Furthermore, it was taken note of that the
relief in the case of Gajraj Singh was
granted by the High Court in exercise of
its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 and was confined to the petitioners
therein, and even the Supreme Court in
Savitri Devi case held that said directions
were not to be treated as precedent and
were limited only to the facts obtaining in
that case. The relevant observations made
in the judgment in the case of Khatoon
and others are being extracted below :-

"16. In other words, the case of
the appellant writ petitioners before the
High Court was that the reliefs, which
were granted to the landowners by the Full
Bench in Gajraj case and affirmed by this
Court in Savitri Devi case be also granted
to the appellants because their lands were
also acquired in the same acquisition
proceedings in which the lands of the writ
petitioners of Gujraj case was acquired. In
effect, the relief was prayed on the
principles of parity between the two
landowners qua State.

17. It is, however, pertinent to
mention that so far as the direction of the
High
Court
to
award
additional
compensation payable @ 64.70% was
concerned,
the
same
was
already
implemented by the State by paying the
compensation to all the landowners
including the appellants without any
contest.

18. In this view of the matter, the
only question before the High Court in the
appellants' writ petitions that remained for
decision was as to whether the appellants
are also entitled to claim the relief of
allotment of developed abadi plot to the
extent of 10% of their acquired land
subject to maximum of 2500 Sq.M.in
terms of the judgment in Gajraj case and
Savitri Devi case.

xxxx

36. Therefore, the only question
that now survives for consideration in
these appeals is whether the appellants are
entitled to get the benefit of second
direction issued by the High Court in
Gajraj, namely, allotment of developed
abadi plot to the appellants.

37. In our considered opinion,
the appellants are not entitled to get the
benefit of the aforementioned second
direction and this we say for the following
reasons.
38. First, the High Court in Gajraj had, in
express terms, granted the relief of
allotment
of
developed
abadi
plot
confining it only to the landowners, who
had filed the writ petitions. In other words,
the High Court while issuing the aforesaid
direction made it clear that the grant of this
relief is confined only to the writ
petitioners [see conditions 3(a) and (b)].

39. Second, so far as the cases
relating to second category of landowners,
who had not challenged the acquisition
proceedings (like the appellants herein)
were concerned, the High Court dealt with
their cases separately and accordingly
issued directions which are contained in
conditions 4(a) and (b) of the order.

40. In conditions 4(a) and (b),
the High Court, in express terms, directed
the Authority to take a decision on the
question as to whether the Authority is
willing to extend the benefit of the
directions contained in conditions 3(a) and
(b) also to second category of landowners
or not.

41. In other words, the High
Court, in express terms, declined to extend
the grant of any relief to the landowners,
who had not filed the writ petitions and
1316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
instead directed the Authority to decide at
their end as to whether they are willing to
extend the same benefit to other similarly
situated landowners or not.

42. It is, therefore, clear that it
was left to the discretion of the Authority
to decide the question as to whether they
are willing to extend the aforesaid benefits
to second category of landowners or not.

43. Third, as mentioned supra,
the Authority, in compliance with the
directions, decided to extend the benefit in
relation to payment of an additional
compensation @ 64.70% and accordingly
it was paid also. On the other hand, the
Authority declined to extend the benefit in
relation to allotment of developed abadi
plot to such landowners.

44. Fourth, it is not in dispute,
being a matter of record, that when the
Authority failed to extend the benefit
regarding allotment of additional abadi
plot to even those landowners in whose
favour the directions were issued by the
High Court in Gajraj and by this Court in
Savitri Devi, the landowners filed the
contempt petition against the Authority
complaining of non-compliance with the
directions of this Court but this Court
dismissed the contempt petition holding
therein that no case of non-compliance
was made out.

45. In our view, the appellants
have neither any legal right and nor any
factual foundation to claim the relief of
allotment of additional developed abadi
plot. In order to claim any mandamus
against the State for claiming such relief, it
is necessary for the writ petitioners to
plead and prove their legal right, which
should be founded on undisputed facts
against the State. It is only then the
mandamus can be issued against the State
for the benefit of writ petitioners. Such is
not the case here.

xxxx

47.