# Bhikari & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 458
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-09
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 2121 of 2022
- **Bench:** Pritinker Diwaker, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhikari-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48339
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226, - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -
Section - 4(1)/17(4) - Sections 6/17(1) &
12 - writ petition seeking direction - to
grant benefit of payment of additional
compensation
or
allotment
of
5%
developed land in terms of Full Bench
decision of 'Gajraj Singh Judgement' -
admittedly, petitioners were neither the
parties in the writ petitions which were
decided along with 'Gajraj Singh & other
Cases' nor their land been acquired under
4 All. Bhikari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
459
the notification which were subject matter
before the said Full Bench - in view of
settled law laydown in case of 'Anand
Prakash & others' & in terms of Full bench
judgment - no mandamus can be claimed
legally for grant of such benefit as
enforceable right.(Para - 4, 11, 12, 17, 18)

Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,859 of 40,121. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39859 for what follows._

458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21. State of Punjab in Ghulam Qadir
vs. Special Tribunal and others 2002 (1)
SCC 33.

22. Dwarkadas Shrinivas v. The
Sholapur Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. &
Ors. AIR 1954 SC 119.

23. Mahant Moti Das v. S.P. Sahi, The
Special Officer in charge of Hindu
Religious Trust & others AIR 1959 SC 942.

24. Hamdard Dawakhana & Anr. v.
Union of India & Ors AIR 1960 SC 554.

25. Ashwani Kumar Vs Union of
India 2020 (13) SCC 585

26. Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. &
others vs Broach Borough Municipality &
Ors AIR 1970 SC 192.

27. S.R. Bhagwat & others Vs. State
of Mysore 1995 (6) SCC 16.

28. Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal
1993 Supp. (1) SCC 96(II).

29. G.C. Kanungo Vs. State of Orissa
1995 (5) SCC 96

30. Madan Mohan Pathak & another
Vs. Union of India & others 1978 (2) SCC
50.

31. A. Manjula Bhashini & others Vs.
The
Managing
Director,A.P. Women's
Cooperative Finance Corporation Ltd. and
another 2009 (8) SCC 431.

32. Mahant Moti Das v. S.P. Sahi,
The Special Officer in charge of Hindu
Religious Trust & Ors AIR 1959 SC
942.

33. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd v.
Meena Variyal & others 2007 (5) SCC 428.

34. D.S. Nakara & others Vs. Union
of India 1983 (1) SCC 305.

35. Delhi Transport Corporation Vs.
DTC Mazdoor Congress 1991 Sup (1) SCC
600.

36.

Pioneer
Urban
Land
&
Infrastructure Limited & another Vs. Union
of India & others, 2019 (8) SCC 416.
----------
(2022)04ILR A458
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 2121 of 2022

Bhikari & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Navin Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226, - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -
Section - 4(1)/17(4) - Sections 6/17(1) &
12 - writ petition seeking direction - to
grant benefit of payment of additional
compensation
or
allotment
of
5%
developed land in terms of Full Bench
decision of 'Gajraj Singh Judgement' -
admittedly, petitioners were neither the
parties in the writ petitions which were
decided along with 'Gajraj Singh & other
Cases' nor their land been acquired under
4 All. Bhikari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
459
the notification which were subject matter
before the said Full Bench - in view of
settled law laydown in case of 'Anand
Prakash & others' & in terms of Full bench
judgment - no mandamus can be claimed
legally for grant of such benefit as
enforceable right.(Para - 4, 11, 12, 17, 18)

Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Gajraj Singh & ors.Vs St. of UP & ors.(2011
vol. 11 ADJ 1 Full Bench),

2. Savitri Devi Vs St. of UP & ors.(2015 Vol. 7
SCC 21),

3. Mange @ Mange Ram Vs St. of UP &
ors.(2016 (8) ADJ 79 DB),

4. Khatoon & ors.Vs St. of UP & ors.(2018 Vol.
18 SCC 346),

5. Smt. Rameshwari & ors.Vs St. of UP &
ors.(Writ-C No. 18948 of 2017 decided on Dt.
03.05.2017),

6. Ramesh & ors.Vs St. of UP & ors.(2019 Vol. 4
ADJ 225 DB),

7. Ravnidra Kumar Vs District Magistrate, Agra &
ors.(2005 Vol.1 UPLBEC 118),

8. Anand Prakash & anr. Vs St. of UP &
ors.(2019 vol. 12 ADJ 171 DB)

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

1. Heard Sri Navin Kumar, learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners,
Sri
Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel
for the respondent no.3 and learned
Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been
filed seeking a direction to the respondents
to allot 5% developed land in terms of the
Full Bench decision of this Court in Gajraj
Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and
others1.

3. The petitioners claim to be owners
of khata no. 45 khasra no. 328 area 0.158
hectares
situate
in
Village
Sorkha
Zahidabad, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri,
District Gautam Budh Nagar which were
subject matter of acquisition proceedings in
terms of notification dated 12.04.2005
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 have
accepted the compensation amount.

4. The petitioners have specifically
stated that they 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.

5. 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
460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

6. It may be noticed that 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 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
4 All. Bhikari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
461
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
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
462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

7. Pursuant to the directions issued
under paragraph 482 (4) of the judgment 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.

8. 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 vs. State
of U.P. and others2 had made it clear that
the directions issued by the Full Bench
shall not be treated as a precedent in future
cases.

9. We may also refer to the case of
Mange @ Mange Ram Vs. State of U.P.
and others3, 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
4 All. Bhikari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
463
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 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."

10. 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.
464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. 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 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)].
4 All. Bhikari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
465

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
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. One cannot dispute that the
Act does not provide for grant of such
reliefs to the landowners under the Act.
Similarly, there is no dispute that the State
paid all statutory compensation, which is
payable under the Act, to every landowner.
Not only that every landowner also got
additional compensation @ 64.70% over
and above what was payable to them under
the Act.

48. The reliefs in Gajraj were
granted by the High Court by exercising
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution and keeping in view the
peculiar facts and circumstances arising in
the case at hand. They were confined only
to the landowners, who had filed the writ
petitions. Even this Court in Savitri Devi
case held that the directions given be not
treated as precedent for being adopted to
other cases in future and they be treated as
confined to that case only.

xxxx

51. In our opinion, therefore,
there is no case made out by the appellants
for grant of any relief much less the relief
of allotment of additional developed abadi
466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
plot. If we entertain the appellants' plea for
granting them the relief then it would
amount to passing an order contrary to this
Court's directions contained in para 50 of
the order passed in Savitri Devi case."

12. The question as to whether the
benefit of the directions issued by the Full
Bench in the case of Gajraj Singh and
others
for
providing
additional
compensation to the extent of 64.70% and
developed abadi plot to the extent of 10%
of the land acquired was liable to be
extended to such tenure holders also whose
lands were not acquired in terms of the
notifications which were under challenge in
the case of Gajraj Singh and others, has
also been considered by a coordinate
Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Smt. Rameshwari and 3 others Vs. State
of U.P. and 2 others5 and in terms of
judgment dated 3.5.2017, it has been held
as follows :-

"A perusal of the Full Bench
judgement in the case of Gajraj Singh
(Supra) goes to show that in order to save
the acquisition proceedings, direction for
payment of additional compensation and
allotment of developed abadi plot was
issued in peculiar facts and circumstances,
particularly,
the
fact
that
extensive
development had taken place even though
the Full Bench found that opportunity to
file objection under Section 5A Act had
been wrongly denied to the tenure holders.
However, the benefit extended to the land
owners in lieu of saving the acquisition
proceedings, even though the same were
found to be illegal and liable to be quashed,
was
restricted
to
the
acquisition
proceedings challenged before it.

However,
the
question
of
extending
the
benefits
of
additional
compensation and allotment of developed
abadi plot to such land holders whose
challenge
to
the
land
acquisition
notification already stood dismissed or such
land holders who did not approach this
Court challenging the land acquisition
notification though the said notifications
were subject matter of challenge before the
Full Bench, was left open to be decided by
the authority. As already noticed above, in
pursuance of the aforesaid directions, the
authority took a decision in its Board
meeting for making payment of additional
compensation to the extent of 64.7% to all
land
holders
whether
they
had
put
challenge
to
the
land
acquisition
notifications or not. However, in respect of
allotment of abadi plot to the extent of
10%, the authority took a decision not to
extend the benefit to such land holders who
had not approached the writ court and had
not questioned the acquisition proceedings.

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 127518-18 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.

In view of above facts and
discussions, it is clear that the relief which
was granted by the Full Bench in the case
of Gajraj Singh (Supra) affirmed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Savitri
Devi (Supra) cannot be made applicable to
the acquisition proceedings which were not
assailed and were not subject matter of
adjudication before the Full Bench in the
case of Gajraj Singh (Supra). Thus, we are
4 All. Bhikari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
467
of the considered opinion that the ratio
dicendi of the Full Bench does not stand
attracted in the case of the petitioners and
they cannot claim parity with those tenure
holders who were before the Full Bench in
the case of Gajraj Singh (Supra). The
petitioners are thus not entitled to the relief
claimed in this petition. The impugned
order therefore, does not suffer from any
infirmity requiring any interference by this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.

Writ
petition
fails
and
accordingly stands dismissed."

13. A similar view has been taken in a
recent judgment of this Court in Ramesh
and others Vs. State of U.P. and others6,
wherein it was stated as follows:-

"14.Moreover,
the
directions
issued by the Full Bench in the case of
Gajraj Singh and others under para 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
notifications had 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 and others. The directions
under para 482 (4) 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 others and connected
matters."

14. The question as to whether claim
for any additional benefit can be raised as a
matter of right in lieu of acquisition of land
was subject matter of consideration before
a Full Bench of this Court in Ravindra
Kumar Vs. District Magistrate, Agra and
others7, wherein the claim sought to be
raised for appointment in service in lieu of
acquisition of land was repelled and it was
held that the Land Acquisition Act is a selfcontained 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 land were acquired and in the
absence of any statutory provision no other
claim can be raised as a matter of right. The
observations made in the judgment in this
regard are as follows:-

"21. The Land Acquisition Act is
a self-contained Code and provides the
procedure to be followed for acquisition as
well as for assessment of the valuation and
payment of fair and just compensation as
per market value of the person whose land
is acquired. In addition to that market value
of the land interest @ 12% is also given
from the date of publication of the
Notification vide Section 23 (1-A). Besides
that, a sum of 30% on such market value is
also paid as solatium for distress and for
inconvenience or difficulties caused to the
person
on
account
of
compulsory
acquisition of the land vide Section 23 (2)
of the Act. Therefore, a person whose land
is
acquired
not
only gets
adequate
compensation as per market value of the
land but also gets interest on the amount of
compensation (@) 12% from the date of
notification under Section 4 of the Act as
well as an amount of solatium, which is
30% of the amount of compensation.
Neither the Land Acquisition Act nor the
regulations provides that in the event of
acquisition of the land one of the family
members of the landholder shall be given
468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
employment in addition to the amount of
compensation. Therefore, in the absence of
any statutory provision or any promise, the
petitioner
respondent
cannot
claim
appointment as a matter of right nor can the
respondent make such appointment."

15. The aforementioned position has
been considered in a recent decision of this
Court in Anand Prakash and Another vs.
State of U.P. and others8, wherein the
question which was considered was 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.
The Division Bench after a detailed
discussion of the factual and the legal
position observed as follows:-

"22. In view of the foregoing
discussion it follows that the directions
issued by the Full Bench in the case of
Gajraj Singh and others for payment of
additional compensation and developed
abadi plot were in respect of the petitioners
in the bunch of writ petitions which were
decided by the Full Bench. The question of
extending
the
benefit
of
additional
compensation and allotment of developed
abadi plot to such landholders whose writ
petitions challenging the notifications had
been dismissed earlier and also those
landholders who had not approached the
Court challenging the notifications which
were subject matter of challenge before the
Full Bench, was left open to be decided by
the authority.

23. It was in pursuance of the
aforesaid directions that the authority took
a decision at its board meeting for payment
of additional compensation to the extent of
64.70% to all landholders whether they had
chosen to challenge the land acquisition
notifications or not; however, insofar as
allotment of developed abadi plot to the
extent of 10% of the acquired land is
concerned the authority took a decision not
to extend the said benefit to such
landholders who had not approached the
writ court and had not raised any challenge
to the acquisition proceedings."

16. In the case at hand, the land of the
petitioners was acquired in terms of
proceedings initiated by means of the
notification dated 12.04.2005 issued under
Section 4(1)/17(4), and the notification
dated 27.07.2006 issued under Section 6/17
(1) of the Act 1894. Admittedly the
petitioners did not choose to challenge the
land acquisition proceedings and it is also
not the case of the petitioners that the
notifications in terms of which the land of
the petitioners was acquired were subject
matter of challenge in the writ petitions
which were decided by the Full Bench in
the case of Gajraj Singh and others.

17. It may be noticed that there was
no direction in the judgment of the Full
Bench for grant of payment of additional
compensation or 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 the
notifications which were not subject matter
of challenge in the case of Gajraj Singh
and Others and connected bunch of writ
petitions.
4 All. Amita Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
469

18. The petitioners have admitted to
having accepted the compensation in
respect of their land which was subject
matter of acquisition. The additional benefit
by way of allotment of developed abadi
plot which is sought by the petitioners not
being founded on any legally enforceable
right no mandamus can be claimed for
grant of such benefit.

19. In view of the foregoing
discussion, the petitioners are not entitled
to reliefs which have been sought.

20. The writ petition thus fails and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2022)04ILR A469
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ C No. 26269 of 2020

Amita Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mukul Kumar Sharma, Rakesh Kumar
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226, Essential Commodities Act,
1955
-
Section
3
-
U.P.
Essential
Commodities (Regulation of Sale and
Distribution Control) Order, 2016 - Clause
2(I), 8(6), 12: - Validity of Cancellation
Order of Fair Price Shop License &
dismissal of statutory Appeal - an
inspection carried out by a 'Minority
Welfare Officer' - Show cause notice -
reply
submitted
-
not
considered
-
Petitioner's License of Fair Price Shop was
cancelled relying upon the inspection in
question - statutory Appeal dismissed -
writ petition - inspection in question
carried out without there being such
authority/ delegated power as per Clause
2 (I) under 'Designated Authority' -
'delegatus non potest delegare' - hence,
impugned orders are set aside. (Para - 4,
11, 12, 18)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

1. St. of Bombay Vs Shiva Balak (AIR 1965 SC
661),

2. NGEF vS Chandra (2005 Vol. 8 SCC 219),

3. Writ C No. 12696 of 2009 (Mohd. Suaif & anr.
Vs St. of UP & ors.Decided on 07.05.2019.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel.

2. The present petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 14.11.2018
whereby the fair price shop license of the
petitioner has been cancelled as well as the
order dated 14.02.2020 whereby the appeal
preferred against the cancellation order was
rejected.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the
petitioner was a fair price shop license
holder having a shop situate at Tahsil
Mahmoodabad District Sitapur.