# Bareilly Nagar Nigam v. Smt. Sudama & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 4 ILRA 1149
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-13
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 14272 of 2012
- **Bench:** Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bareilly-nagar-nigam-v-smt-sudama-ors-44885
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
- Applicability - Re-agitation of the matter -
Applicability of the P.G. Act to municipal
corporation is no longer res integra in view
of judgment in Mujib Ullah Khan‟s case -
Earlier order, being inter parties and the
same having not been put to challenge,
attained finality - Held, the petitioner cannot
be allowed to re-agitate the same ground
again. (Para 13 & 17)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of cases cited: -
1150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

4 All. Bareilly Nagar Nigam Vs. Smt. Sudama & Ors.
1149
exercise of power by the respondents in
the e-tender process. Further, the bid of
the
Joint
Venture
comprising
of
respondent nos. 6 and 7 was found to be
the lowest being 5.55% less than the
estimated cost of work which saved the
Department about Rs. 17 crores, and in
case they are ousted from the process and
tender is awarded to petitioner, huge loss
would be caused to public exchequer
without any legal justification.

55. Argument raised by counsel for
petitioner to the extent that the e-tender
document came later in time to the e-tender
notice, as such it would prevail cannot be
accepted, as the very genesis of e-tender
notice (NIT), and e-tender document is the
Master Circular of U.P. Jal Nigam which
guides and provides for all the work and
contract to be undertaken by the Department.
It is on the basis of this Circular that terms and
conditions were laid down in the e-tender
notice and further in the e-tender document.
Once the author of the document itself has
come out with clarification to the effect that
what will be the work experience and the
requirement of solvency certificate, there is no
justification to interfere in the tender process
on the ground of technicalities.

56. It is well-settled that the Courts
should refrain from exercise of judicial
review in matters relating to terms and
conditions of the tender document, and
only in case where breach of rules of
natural justice has been committed, or
decision has been reached which no
reasonable Tribunal would have reached
or there is an abuse of power, that the
Court can interfere.

57. In the present case, we find that
none of grounds raised by the petitioner
for invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution arise
and the bid of the Joint Venture being the
lowest and there being no deviation in the
tender process, we decline to interfere in
the tender process of respondent no. 2.

58. The writ petition is dismissed.
However, no order as to cost.
----------
(2019)12 ILR A1149

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.11.2019

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

Writ-C No. 14272 of 2012
with Writ-C cases No. - 14156 of 2012, 14274
of 2012,14276 of 2012, 14278 of 2012, 14280
of 2012, 14281 of 2012, 14282 of 2012, 14284
of 2012, 14285 of 2012 & 14286 of 2012

Bareilly Nagar Nigam ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Sudama & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anil Tiwari, Sri Satyam Singh, Sri
Hemant Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
- Applicability - Re-agitation of the matter -
Applicability of the P.G. Act to municipal
corporation is no longer res integra in view
of judgment in Mujib Ullah Khan‟s case -
Earlier order, being inter parties and the
same having not been put to challenge,
attained finality - Held, the petitioner cannot
be allowed to re-agitate the same ground
again. (Para 13 & 17)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of cases cited: -
1150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Vs Mujib
Ullah Khan & Ors. with Nagar Nigam,
Gorakhpur Vs Ram Shanker Yadav & Anr.
(2019) 6 SCC 103

2. Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur through Nagar
Ayukt Vs Suresh Pandey & Ors. 2019 (10) ADJ
418

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

1. Heard Sri Hemant Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mata
Prasad,
learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the State-respondents.

2. These petitions have been filed
seeking to challenge a common order
dated
04.02.2012
passed
by
the
Controlling Authority under the Payment
of Gratuity Act, 19721/Deputy Labour
Commissioner, U.P., Bareilly in Case
Nos.138/P.G.A./2004,
139/P.G.A./2004,
140/P.G.A./2004,
141/P.G.A./2004,
143/P.G.A./2004,
147/P.G.A./2004,
148/P.G.A./2004,
149/P.G.A./2004,
151/P.G.A./2004,
159/P.G.A./2004
and
160/P.G.A./2004.
The
necessary
particulars in this regard are as follows:-

Serial
Numb
ers
Writ
Petition
s
Parties
Particulars
of
the
cases
before the
Controlling
Authority
1
Writ-C
No.142
72
of
2012
Bareilly
Nagar
Nigam
Vs. Smt.
Sudama
& Ors.
Case
No.139/P.G
.A./2004/0
4.02.2012
2
Writ-C
No.141
Bareilly
Nagar
Case
No.140/P.G
56
of
2012
Nigam
through
its
Municipa
l
Commiss
ioner Vs.
Fatima
Begum &
Ors.
.A./2004/0
4.02.2012
3
Writ-C
No.142
74
of
2012
Bareilly
Nagar
Nigam
Vs.
Munni
Devi
&
Ors.
Case
No.147/P.G
.A./2004/0
4.02.2012
4
Writ-C
No.142
76
of
2012
Bareilly
Nagar
Nigam
Vs.
Masih
Charan &
Anr.
Case
No.151/P.G
.A./2004/0
4.02.2012
5
Writ - C
No.142
78
of
2012
Bareilly
Nagar
Nigam
Vs.
Sushila &
Ors.
Case
No.149/P.G
.A./2004/0
4.02.2012
6
Writ-C
No.142
80
of
2012
Bareilly
Nagar
Nigam
Vs.
Kamla &
Anr.
Case
No.143/P.G
.A./2004/0
4.02.2012
7
Writ-C
No.142
81
of
2012
Bareilly
Nagar
Nigam
Vs.
Chanda
& Anr.
Case
No.138/P.G
.A./2004/0
4.02.2012
4 All. Bareilly Nagar Nigam Vs. Smt. Sudama & Ors.
1151
8
Writ-C
No.142
82
of
2012
Bareilly
Nagar
Nigam
Vs.
Naresh
Chand
Saxena &
Anr.
Case
No.141/P.G
.A./2004/0
4.02.2012
9
Writ-C
No.142
84
of
2012

Bareilly
Nagar
Nigam
Vs. Duli
& Ors.
Case
No.148/P.G
.A./2004/0
4.02.2012
10
Writ-C
No.142
85
of
2012
Bareilly
Nagar
Nigam
Vs.
Ramvati
& Ors.
Case
No.151/P.G
.A./2004/0
4.02.2012
11
Writ-C
No.142
86
of
2012
Bareilly
Nagar
Nigam
Vs.
Raman
Lal
&
Anr.
Case
No.159/P.G
.A./2004/0
4.02.2012

3. The writ petitions being based on
similar set of facts, with the consent of
parties, are being taken up and decided
together.

4. Writ-C No.14272 of 2012, has
been treated to be the leading petition,
wherein the order dated 04.02.2012
passed by the Controlling Authority in
Case
No.139/P.G.A./2004
(decided
alongwith the connected matters), is under
challenge.

5. The records of the case indicate
that upon an application filed by the
respondent-workmen,
Case
No.139/P.G.A./2004 was registered before
the Controlling Authority under the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972/Deputy
Labour Commissioner, U.P., Bareilly. In
terms of the aforementioned application it
was stated that only a part of the total
gratuity amount due to them had been
paid by the employer and accordingly
claims were raised for payment of the
balance amount. The aforementioned
application came to be decided by the
Controlling Authority by means of the
order dated 17.03.2005 directing payment
of the balance amount of gratuity.

6. Upon similar applications being
filed by the workmen who are parties in
the connected writ petitions, different
orders bearing date 17.03.2005 were
passed by the Controlling Authority
allowing the claims for payment of
difference of gratuity.

7. The aforementioned orders dated
17.03.2005 passed by the Controlling
Authority came to be challenged by the
petitioner, Bareilly Nagar Nigam, by
filing writ petitions on the ground that the
P.G. Act, 1972 was not applicable to the
Bareilly Nagar Nigam. The particulars of
these writ petitions are as follows:-

Serial
Numbe
rs
Writ
Petitions
Parties
1
WRIT-C
No.41977
of 2005
Bareilly
Nagar
Nigam
through
Municipal
Commissioner
Vs.
Fatima Begum &
Ors.
2
WRIT-C
No.41988
of 2005
Bareilly
Nagar
Nigam
through
Municipal
1152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Commissioner
Vs.
Kamla & Ors.
3
WRIT-C
No.41932
of 2005
Bareilly
Nagar
Nigam
through
Municipal
Commissioner
Vs.
Masih
Charan
&
Anr.
4
WRIT-C
No.41991
of 2005
Bareilly
Nagar
Nigam
through
Municipal
Commissioner
Vs.
Sushila & Ors.
5
WRIT-C
No.41929
of 2005
Bareilly
Nagar
Nigam
through
Municipal
Commissioner
Vs.
Ramvati & Ors.
6
WRIT-C
No.41982
of 2005
Bareilly
Nagar
Nigam
through
Municipal
Commissioner
Vs.
Smt. Sudama & Ors.
7
WRIT-C
No.41984
of 2005
Bareilly
Nagar
Nigam
through
Municipal
Commissioner
Vs.
Duli & Anr.
8
WRIT-C
No.41989
of 2005
Bareilly
Nagar
Nigam
through
Municipal
Commissioner
Vs.
Munni Devi & Ors.
9
WRIT-C
No.41936
of 2005
Bareilly
Nagar
Nigam
through
Municipal
Commissioner
Vs.
Raman Lal & Anr.
10
WRIT-C
No.41972
of 2005
Bareilly
Nagar
Nigam
through
Municipal
Commissioner
Vs.
Chanda & Others
11
WRIT-C
No.41952
of 2005
Bareilly
Nagar
Nigam
through
Municipal
Commissioner
Vs.
Naresh
Chandra
Saxena & Anr.
12
WRIT-C
No.60132
of 2005
Bareilly
Nagar
Nigam
through
Municipal
Commissioner
Vs.
Munshi Lal & Anr.

8. The aforementioned writ petitions
were decided together as a bunch by
means of a common judgment and order
dated 04.04.2011. The judgment dated
04.04.2011 is being reproduced below:-

"1. In this entire bunch of writ
petitions, the order passed by Prescribed
Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act,
1972 (hereinafter referred to as "1972
Act") has been assailed on the ground that
the said Act has no application to Bareilly
Nagar Nigam.

2.
However,
it
is
not
demonstrated or shown to this Court as to
how 1972 Act is not applicable to Bareilly
Nagar Nigam. Application of 1972 Act is
provided in Section 1(3) of the Act itself
and read with definition clause, in my
view, the Prescribed Authority has not
erred in passing the impugned order
applying the aforesaid Act to petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the
petitioner, however, submitted that it was
pleaded before the Prescribed Authority
that the workman having already availed
benefit of gratuity under the rules framed
by Municipal Corporation and the same
having been paid, cannot claim benefit
under 1972 Act, inasmuch as, payment of
4 All. Bareilly Nagar Nigam Vs. Smt. Sudama & Ors.
1153
gratuity can be claimed either under 1972
Act or under the terms of statutory rules
framed by Municipal Corporation and not
both.

4. This question has been
considered by the Apex Court in Beed
District Central Coop. Bank Ltd. Vs. State
of Maharashtra & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 514
and referring to Section 4(5) of 1972 Act,
the Apex Court has held that provisions of
the Act envisage for one scheme. It can
not be segregated. Sub-section (5) of
Section 4 of 1972 Act does not
contemplate that the workman would be
at liberty to opt for better terms of the
contract, while keeping the option open in
respect of a part of the statute. While
reserving his right to opt for the
beneficent provisions of the statute or the
agreement, he has to opt for either of
them and not the best of the terms of the
statute as well as those of the contract. He
cannot have both. The Apex Court in para
16 categorically held that the workman
cannot opt for both the terms. Such a
construction would defeat the purpose for
which sub-section (5) of Section 4 has
been enacted.

5. To the same effect is the
decision
of
Delhi
High
Court
in
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Smt.
V.T. Naresh & Anr. In Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No.128/83 decided on 14th
August, 1985.

6. In taking the above view I am
also fortified by a judgement of this Court
in Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur
Vs. Mujib Ulla Khan & Ors. 2008(117)
FLR 277.

7. Learned counsel for the
workmen-respondents submitted that they
have been directed to be paid only the
difference and not more than that which
fact could not be shown to be incorrect by
learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. Since only difference has
been directed to be paid to respondentsworkmen so as to give the benefit of only
one scheme and not both, I do not find
any reason to interfere with impugned
orders. However, only by way of
clarification, I provide that the claim of
workmen having been made under 1972
Act shall be confined to the benefit
admissible thereunder and if payment of
gratuity has been made under the rules
framed by the Municipal Corporation,
such amount would be taken into
consideration while satisfying demand of
workmen under impugned orders.

9. In the circumstances, I find
no reason to interfere with the impugned
order.

10. Writ petitions lacks merit.
Dismissed."

9.

An
application
seeking
clarification
of
the
judgment
dated
04.04.2011 was filed, which was rejected
vide order dated 22.11.2011.

10. Pursuant to the aforementioned
judgment dated 04.04.2011 a common
order dated 04.02.2012 has been passed
by the Controlling Authority in all the
connected matters pertaining to the
workmen who are parties in the present
writ petition and the connected petitions.
The Controlling Authority in terms of the
order dated 04.02.2012 has directed the
petitioner to make necessary deposit in
terms
of
the
earlier
order
dated
17.03.2005 whereunder the claims of the
workmen for payment of difference of the
amount of gratuity had been allowed.

11. The order dated 04.02.2012
which is a common order in the bunch of
matters decided together, has been sought
to be assailed on the ground that as per
1154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
terms of sub-section (5) of Section 4 of
the P.G. Act, 1972 the workmen could not
opt for the benefit of the terms of the
statute as well as those of the contract and
benefit of only one scheme could be
taken.

12. Learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the State-respondents has
supported the order passed by the
Controlling Authority by submitting that
in terms of the order passed by the
Controlling Authority only difference of
the gratuity amount has been directed to
be paid and as such it could not be said
that the claims have been raised seeking
benefit of the terms of the statute as well
as those of the contract.

13. The issue with regard to the
applicability of the P.G. Act, 1972 to
municipal corporations, governed in terms
of the provisions contained under the U.P.
Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 is no
longer res integra in view of the
pronouncement made in the judgment in
the case of Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam,
Kanpur Vs. Mujib Ullah Khan & Ors.
with Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur Vs. Ram
Shanker Yadav & Anr.2 wherein taking
into view of the provisions of the P.G. Act,
1972
and
the
notification
dated
08.01.1982 issued under Section 1(3)(c),
the P.G. Act, 1972 was held to be
applicable. The relevant observations
made in the aforesaid judgment are being
extracted below:-

"3. The appellant, the Municipal
Corporation, Kanpur is governed by the
Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act,
1959, whereas, the Respondent is an
employee of the appellant. The employees
in both cases claimed gratuity by invoking
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Controlling
Authorities under the Act. The argument
of the Appellant before the learned Single
Judge was that the gratuity is payable in
accordance with the Retirement Benefits
and General Provident Fund Regulations,
1962 framed Under Section 548 of the
1959 Act as amended on 11.01.1988.
Such Regulations contemplate payment of
gratuity at the rate of 15 days' salary per
month for 16.5 months. It was found by
the High Court that it is the Act which is
applicable, whereby, gratuity calculated at
the rate of 15 days' salary for every
completed year without any ceiling of
months or part thereof.

4. The argument raised by the
appellant before the High Court is, that
the gratuity is payable in terms of Rule
4(1) of the 1962 Regulations published
Under Section 548 (1) of the 1959 Act as
amended on 11.01.1988. Therefore, the
employees of the Municipalities
 are entitled to gratuity only in terms of
such Regulations and not under the Act.

5. The High Court relied upon a
judgment
reported
as
Municipal
Corporation of Delhi v. Dharam Prakash
Sharma AIR 1999 SC 293 to hold that
only employees of Central Government or
the State Government are exempt from
the applicability of the Act, therefore, the
employees of the Appellants would be
governed by the Act and are entitled to
gratuity in terms of the scale mentioned
therein. It was held that the Act is not
applicable
only
to
the
Central
Government or State Governments in
terms of definition of an "employee"
under Section 2 (e) of the Act. Therefore,
the employees of the Municipalities are
entitled to the gratuity in terms of the
provisions of the Act.

6. The appellant relies upon
Section 3 of the U.P. Dookan Aur Vanijya
Adhishthan Adhiniyam, 1962 which is to
4 All. Bareilly Nagar Nigam Vs. Smt. Sudama & Ors.
1155
the effect that such Act will have no
application to the office of Government or
Local Bodies. Therefore, on the strength
of such statutory provision, it was argued
that the Act would not be applicable in
respect
of
the
Municipalities.
The
appellant is not a factory, mine, oilfield,
plantation, port and railway company and
that there is no notification as stipulated
under Clause (c) of Section 1(3) of the
Act. Therefore, the employees of the
Municipalities are entitled to the gratuity
in terms of the Regulations framed in
exercise of powers of Section 548 of the
1959 Act and not under the Act.

7. On the other hand, the
learned Counsel for the Respondent
pointed out that the Central Government
has published a notification in terms of
Section 1(3)(c) of the Act on 08.01.1982
to extend the applicability of the Act to
the Municipalities. Thus, the Act is
applicable to the Municipalities..."

x x x x x

10. In terms of the above said
Section 1(3)(c) of the Act, the Central
Government has published a notification
on 08.01.1982 and specified local bodies
in which ten or more persons are
employed, or were employed, on any day
of the preceding twelve months as a class
of establishment to which this Act shall
apply....

11. We find that the notification
dated 08.01.1982 was not referred to
before the High Court. Such notification
makes it abundantly clear that the Act is
applicable to the local bodies i.e. the
Municipalities. Section 14 of the Act has
given an overriding effect over any other
inconsistent
provision
in
any
other
enactment. The said provision reads as
under:

"14. Act to override other
enactments, etc. The provisions of this
Act or any Rule made thereunder shall
have effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in any
enactment other than this Act or in any
instrument or contract having effect by
virtue of any enactment other than this
Act."

12. In view of Section 14 of the
Act, the provision in the State Act
contemplating payment of gratuity will be
inapplicable in respect of the employees
of the local bodies.

13. Section 2(e) of the Act alone
was referred to in the judgment reported
as Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The
said judgment is in the context of CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972 which specifically
provides for payment of Pension and
Gratuity. The Act is applicable to the
Municipalities, therefore, it is wholly
inconsequential even if there is no
reference
to
the
notification
dated
08.01.1982.

14. The entire argument of the
appellant is that the State Act confers
restrictive benefit of gratuity than what is
conferred under the Central Act. Such
argument is not tenable in view of Section
14 of the Act and that liberal payment of
gratuity is in fact in the interest of the
employees. Thus, the gratuity would be
payable under the Act. Such is the view
taken by the Controlling Authority."

14.

The
notification
dated
08.01.1982, referred to above, had been
issued in terms of Section 1(3)(c) of the
P.G. Act, 1972 whereunder the Central
Government specified local bodies in
which ten or more persons are employed
or were employed, on any day preceding
twelve months, as a class of the
establishment to which the Act shall
apply. The notification dated 08.01.1982
reads as under:-
1156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"New Delhi, the 8th January, 1982

NOTIFICATION

S.O. No. 239....-In exercise of the
powers conferred by Clause (c) of Subsection (3) of Section 1 of the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972), the
Central Government hereby specified
'local bodies' in which ten or more
persons are employed, or were employed,
on any day preceding twelve months, as a
class of establishments to which the said
Act shall apply with effect from the date
of publication of this notification in the
Official Gazette.

Sd/.

(R.K.A. Subrahmanya)

Additional Secretary
 (F. No. S-70020/16/77-FPG)"

15. The judgment in the case of
Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Vs.
Mujib Ullah Khan & Anr. has been
followed in a recent judgment of this
Court in Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur
through Nagar Ayukt Vs. Suresh
Pandey & two Ors.3 wherein the
relevant statutory provisions and the case
law on the subject has been considered in
detail.

16. The contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner with regard to
the point that the workmen concerned
could not opt for better terms of gratuity
as per the terms of the statute as well as
those of the contract, was specifically
considered by this Court in the earlier
round of litigation which was decided by
the judgment dated 04.04.2011 in Writ-C
No.41977
of
2005
(and
connected
matters) and the said argument was
repelled by stating that in terms of the
orders
passed
by
the
Controlling
Authority since only difference in the
amount of gratuity had been directed to be
paid to the respondent-workmen so as to
give benefit of only one scheme and not
both, there was no reason to interfere with
the orders impugned. The judgment also
clarified that the claim of the workmen
having been made under the P.G. Act,
1972 shall be confined to the benefit
admissible therein and if payment of
gratuity has been made under the rules
framed by the municipal corporation, such
amount
would
be
taken
into
consideration.

17. The judgment dated 04.04.2011
being inter partes and the same having not
been put to challenge, the said judgment
has attained finality and the petitioner
cannot be allowed to re-agitate the same
grounds again.

18. The order dated 04.02.2012
which is sought to be challenged in the
present bunch of petitions having been
passed in pursuance of the observations
made in the judgment dated 04.04.2011
passed in Writ-C No.41977 of 2005 (and
connected matters), the same cannot be
faulted with.

19. Counsel appearing for the
petitioner has not been able to dispute the
legal proposition with regard to the
applicability of the provisions of the P.G.
Act, 1972 to municipal corporations,
including the petitioner-Nagar Nigam.

20. No other ground was raised by
the counsel for the petitioner.

21. The writ petitions lack merit and
are accordingly dismissed.
----------
4 All. Lachhu Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1157
(2019)12 ILR A1157

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.08.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 25692 of 2019

Lachhu Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sudhir Dixit, Sri Deepti, Sri Utkarsh
Dixit

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anjali Upadhya

A. Civil Law - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -
Entitlement
of
64.7%
additional
compensation as well as of allotment of
developed abadi plot to the extent of 10% of
acquired land - Judgement in Gajraj has
made it clear that the land holders who have
not filed writ petition, their case shall be
considered by the Authority, which shall take
a decision as to whether the benefit of
additional compensation and the allotment
of abadi plot be also given to those land
holders who have not come to the Court.
(Para 14)

Writ Petition disposed. (E-1)

List of cases cited: -

1. Gajraj and others v. State of U.P. and
others (2011) 11 ADJ 1 (FB)

2. Savitri Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others (2015) 7 SCC 21

3. Khatoon and others v. State of U.P. and
others; Civil Appeal No. 2127 of 2018 (arising
out of SLP (C) No. 35758 of 2016) : 2018(2)
RCR (Civil) 164.

4. Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 26718 of 2018;
Atar Singh and others v. State of U.P.

5. Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 16647 of 2018;
Suresh Singh and others v. State of U.P. and
others

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Singh Baghel, J. &
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.)

1. The petitioner has preferred this
writ petition for issuance of a direction to
the respondents to allot the developed
abadi to the extent of 10% of the acquired
land. The relief claimed in the writ
petition reads as under:

"i) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the Respondents to allot the
developed Abadi Plot to the extent of 10%
of the acquired land, subject to maximum
of 2500 square meter in pursuance of the
land of the petitioner acquired by the
Authority bearing Khata No. 278 Khasra
No. 152 measuring 2.6070 hectare
situated at Village Pali, Pargana & Tehsil
Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar."

2. It is stated that Greater Noida
Industrial Development Authority (for
short,
"the
Authority")
acquired
petitioner's bhumidhari land being Khata
No. 278 Khasra No. 152 situated at
Village Pali, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri,
District Gautam Budh Nagar.

3. A large number of writ petitions
were filed by the farmers. A batch of
petitions was decided by a common
judgement in the case of Gajraj and
others v. State of U.P. and others1. The