# Dambar Singh & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 751
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-15
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 29560 of 2025
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Anish Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dambar-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52719
- **Pages:** 19

## Headnote

Anjali Upadhya, C S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether tenure-holders
whose land was acquired under notifications
covered by Gajraj (Full Bench) but who did not
file writ petitions challenging the acquisition are
entitled to allotment of "10% developed abadi
land" pursuant to para 482(3)(b) of Gajraj.

Headnotes
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Ss. 4, 6, 17,
5-A - Full Bench decision in Gajraj -
Additional 64.7% compensation and 10%
developed abadi land - Scope of benefit -
Petitioners, whose land was acquired for
"planned development", had admittedly
received
statutory
compensation
and
64.7%
additional
compensation
but
sought 10% developed abadi land relying
on Gajraj - Savitri Devi (SC) - Directions
not to form precedent - Supreme Court
affirmed Gajraj but expressly held: "this
order shall not be treated as a precedent
in any other case" - Khatoon (SC) - No
legal right to claim 10% abadi land for
non-petitioners - Petitioners who did not
challenge acquisition "are not entitled to
get the benefit of the aforementioned
second
direction"-
Negative
equality
under Art. 14 - No parity based on
wrong/irregular benefits given to others -
Article 14 "is not meant to perpetuate
illegality or fraud - does not envisage
752 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
negative equality" - Policy decision of
Authority - Scarcity of land - Not arbitrary
- Authority consciously decided to extend
64.7% additional compensation to nonpetitioners but not 10% abadi land due to
paucity of land; such decision upheld -
Petitioners have "neither any legal right
nor any factual foundation" to claim
allotment of 10% developed abadi land.

Held: Acquisition of petitioners' land was never
challenged; they were not writ petitioners in
Gajraj -Full Bench directions for 10% developed
plots were confined to writ petitioners - Para
482(4) only permitted the Authority to consider
extending
benefits
to
non-petitioners;
no
enforceable right accrues - Supreme Court in
Savitri Devi held that the Full Bench directions
would not form precedent for future cases-
Khatoon held that non-petitioners are not
entitled to get the benefit of the aforementioned
second direction - Division Benches in Mange @
Mange Ram and Runwell India Pvt. Ltd. rejected
identical claims - Article 14 cannot be invoked
for negative equality - Petitioners do not have
any vested right to claim the benefit of parity -
Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed.
(Paras
16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,28,31,32)
(E-7)

Case Law Cited
Gajraj and Others. v. State of U.P. and
others, (2011) 11 ADJ 1(FB); Savitri Devi v.
State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 21; Khatoon &
Ors. v. State of U.P., (2018) 14 SCC 346;
Bondu Ramaswamy v. Bangalore Development
Authority,2010 (7) SCC 129; Runwell India
Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, Writ C No.
14113 of 2017; Balraj Singh and 21 others v.
State of U.P. and 3 others, Writ C No.9496 of
2025 ; Mange @ Mange Ram v. State of U.P.
and others, 2016 (8) ADJ 79; Dheeraj Singh
and 11 others v. State of U.P. and 2 others,
Writ C No. 23059 of 2022 ; Sarjeet Singh v.
State of U.P. and 3 others, Writ C No. 23059
of 2022 ; Soukeen and another vs. State of UP
and another,Writ C No.20526 of 2025;
Basawaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition
Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81; Chandigarh Admn.
v. Jagjit Singh (1995) 1 SCC 745; Anand
Buttons Ltd. v State of Haryana (2005) 9 SCC
164; K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. (2006) 3 SCC
581; Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab (2010) 11
SCC 455; Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab
(2014) 15 SCC 715); The State of Odisha v.
Anup Kumar Senapati, 2019 SCC Online SC
1207; R. Muthukumar & Ors. vs. The Chairman
and Managing Director, TANGEDCO & Ors.,
2022 (2) SLR 778 (SC).

List of Acts
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Constitution of
India.

List of Keywords
10% developed abadi land; 64.7% additional
compensation; planned development; urgency
clause; dispensation of enquiry; paucity of land;
negative
equality;
tenure-holders;
poli

## Text

_Characters 0–39,805 of 65,364. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39805 for what follows._

10 All. Dambar Singh & Anr Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
751
present writ petition is not maintainable.
The case does not fall within any of the
well-recognized exceptions that would
justify bypassing the statutory remedy
under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act,
1996. The Arbitrator has substantially
complied with the judicial directions, has
not acted without jurisdiction, and has
followed due process in passing the
impugned order.

7.1. The petitioners' grievance is
essentially about quantum of compensation,
which is a matter for determination under
Section 34 proceedings where the scope of
interference, evidence appreciation, and
legal standards are specifically defined by
the statute. Writ courts are not meant to
function
as
appellate
forums
of
consideration
and
re-examining
compensation awards.

F. FINAL ORDERS:-

8. In view of the above analysis and
for the reasons stated hereinabove, this writ
petition is dismissed as not maintainable,
with liberty to the petitioners to avail the
statutory remedy under Section 34 of the
Arbitration Act, 1996, if they are so
advised, within the limitation period
prescribed thereunder.

8.1. It is clarified that this Court has
not expressed any opinion on the merits of
the petitioners' claim or the adequacy of
compensation awarded. These issues are
left open to be decided independently by
the appropriate forum under Section 34 of
the Arbitration Act, 1996 proceedings, if
filed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 751
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.10.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ C No. 29560 of 2025
Connected with Writ C No. 25039 of 2025 &
Other cases

Dambar Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vidya Prakash Singh

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

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether tenure-holders
whose land was acquired under notifications
covered by Gajraj (Full Bench) but who did not
file writ petitions challenging the acquisition are
entitled to allotment of "10% developed abadi
land" pursuant to para 482(3)(b) of Gajraj.

Headnotes
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Ss. 4, 6, 17,
5-A - Full Bench decision in Gajraj -
Additional 64.7% compensation and 10%
developed abadi land - Scope of benefit -
Petitioners, whose land was acquired for
"planned development", had admittedly
received
statutory
compensation
and
64.7%
additional
compensation
but
sought 10% developed abadi land relying
on Gajraj - Savitri Devi (SC) - Directions
not to form precedent - Supreme Court
affirmed Gajraj but expressly held: "this
order shall not be treated as a precedent
in any other case" - Khatoon (SC) - No
legal right to claim 10% abadi land for
non-petitioners - Petitioners who did not
challenge acquisition "are not entitled to
get the benefit of the aforementioned
second
direction"-
Negative
equality
under Art. 14 - No parity based on
wrong/irregular benefits given to others -
Article 14 "is not meant to perpetuate
illegality or fraud - does not envisage
752 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
negative equality" - Policy decision of
Authority - Scarcity of land - Not arbitrary
- Authority consciously decided to extend
64.7% additional compensation to nonpetitioners but not 10% abadi land due to
paucity of land; such decision upheld -
Petitioners have "neither any legal right
nor any factual foundation" to claim
allotment of 10% developed abadi land.

Held: Acquisition of petitioners' land was never
challenged; they were not writ petitioners in
Gajraj -Full Bench directions for 10% developed
plots were confined to writ petitioners - Para
482(4) only permitted the Authority to consider
extending
benefits
to
non-petitioners;
no
enforceable right accrues - Supreme Court in
Savitri Devi held that the Full Bench directions
would not form precedent for future cases-
Khatoon held that non-petitioners are not
entitled to get the benefit of the aforementioned
second direction - Division Benches in Mange @
Mange Ram and Runwell India Pvt. Ltd. rejected
identical claims - Article 14 cannot be invoked
for negative equality - Petitioners do not have
any vested right to claim the benefit of parity -
Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed.
(Paras
16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,28,31,32)
(E-7)

Case Law Cited
Gajraj and Others. v. State of U.P. and
others, (2011) 11 ADJ 1(FB); Savitri Devi v.
State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 21; Khatoon &
Ors. v. State of U.P., (2018) 14 SCC 346;
Bondu Ramaswamy v. Bangalore Development
Authority,2010 (7) SCC 129; Runwell India
Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, Writ C No.
14113 of 2017; Balraj Singh and 21 others v.
State of U.P. and 3 others, Writ C No.9496 of
2025 ; Mange @ Mange Ram v. State of U.P.
and others, 2016 (8) ADJ 79; Dheeraj Singh
and 11 others v. State of U.P. and 2 others,
Writ C No. 23059 of 2022 ; Sarjeet Singh v.
State of U.P. and 3 others, Writ C No. 23059
of 2022 ; Soukeen and another vs. State of UP
and another,Writ C No.20526 of 2025;
Basawaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition
Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81; Chandigarh Admn.
v. Jagjit Singh (1995) 1 SCC 745; Anand
Buttons Ltd. v State of Haryana (2005) 9 SCC
164; K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. (2006) 3 SCC
581; Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab (2010) 11
SCC 455; Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab
(2014) 15 SCC 715); The State of Odisha v.
Anup Kumar Senapati, 2019 SCC Online SC
1207; R. Muthukumar & Ors. vs. The Chairman
and Managing Director, TANGEDCO & Ors.,
2022 (2) SLR 778 (SC).

List of Acts
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Constitution of
India.

List of Keywords
10% developed abadi land; 64.7% additional
compensation; planned development; urgency
clause; dispensation of enquiry; paucity of land;
negative
equality;
tenure-holders;
policy
decision; peculiar facts and circumstances.

Case Arising From
Writ C No. 29560 of 2025 (leading case)
Connected with Writ C No. 25039 of 2025 &
other cases Before the Allahabad High Court,
Original Jurisdiction (Civil), decided on
15.10.2025.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioners:
Vidya Prakash Singh
(In connected matters:) Ramesh Kumar Pandey,
Ganga Dhar Shukla, Krishna Kant Dubey,
Santosh Kumar Dubey, Sudhanshu Chaurasia,
Om Prakash Chaurasia, Samar Bahadur,
Guru Prasad, Sanjay Kumar Mishra,
Sabana Azami, Pradeep Kumar Sharma
Advs. for the Respondents:
Anjali Upadhya, C.S.C.
M.C. Chaturvedi, Senior Counsel
Devesh Vikram, Uttara Bahuguna, Ambrish
Shukla,
G.C. Saxena, Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, Standing
Counsel

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra
Tripathi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vidya Prakash Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioners in
leading Writ C No.29560 of 2025; Sri
Ramesh Kumar Pandey, Sri Ganga Dhar
Shukla, Sri Krishna Kant Dubey, Sri
Santosh Kumar Dubey, Sri Sudhanshu
10 All. Dambar Singh & Anr Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
753
Chaurasia, Sri Om Prakash Chaurasia, Sri
Samar Bahadur, Sri Guru Prasad, Sri
Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Ms. Sabana Azami
and Sri Pradeep Kumar Sharma for the
petitioners in the connected matters, Sri
M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mrs. Anjali Upadhya, learned
counsel for the respondent authority in all
the aforementioned matters and Sri Devesh
Vikram, Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, Sri Ambrish
Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel, Sri G.C.Saxena and Sri Fuzail
Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel
for the State-respondents.

2. In this bunch of the writ petitions,
petitioners have prayed for direction in the
nature
of
mandamus
directing
the
development authority to comply with the
directions issued by Full Bench of this
Court in Gajraj and others vs. State of
U.P. and others pursuant to the allotment
of 10% developed abadi land and also
direct the development authority to allot
10% land to the petitioners within a time
frame.

3. In all the writ petitions, common
question of fact and law is involved, hence
all these writ petitions have been taken up
together, and are being heard and decided
by common judgment and Writ C 29560 of
2025 has been treated as leading writ
petition. For facility, the facts of the
leading Writ C No.29560 of 2025 is being
taken into consideration.

4. The facts in brief as contained in the
leading writ petition are that the petitioners
are bhumidhars with transferable rights of
Khasra No.440 area 1.106 hectare situated
in Village Haibatpur, Tehsil Dadri, District
Gautam Buddh Nagar. A notification under
Section 4(1)/17 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 was issued by the State
Government on 31.08.2007 acquiring the
petitioners' land for 'planned development'.
Later on, a notification under Section 6 of
the Act, 1894 had also been issued. After
the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of
the Act, 1894, the development authority
had taken possession over the acquired
land. Since the urgency clause was invoked
by virtue of provision contained under
Section 17 of the Act, 1894, initially 80%
compensation was paid to the tenure holder
i.e. father of the petitioners, which is also
not in dispute but no industry had been
established and the lands were transferred
to the private builders for raising multistoried residential apartments.

5. It also transpires from the record
that the notifications under Section 4 (1)
read with Section 17 (4) and Section 6 (1)
read with Section 17 (1) of the Act, 1894
dated 12.03.2008 and 30.06.2008, which
were initially issued for Village Patwari,
Tehsil Dadari, District Gautam Budh
Nagar, were challenged before this Court in
Har Karan Singh. The said writ petition
alongwith other connected writ petitions
were allowed by the Division Bench vide
judgment and order dated 19.07.2011 and
consequently,
the
notifications
were
quashed. Later on, the Division Bench of
this
Court,
dealing
with
the
same
notifications issued under Section 4 and 6
of the Act, 1894 in Gajraj and others vs.
State of UP and others alongwith other
writ petitions of similar nature, had doubted
the correctness of the judgment rendered in
Har Karan Singh's case (supra). Vide
order dated 26.07.2011 passed in the
aforesaid case, the matter was referred to
Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constitution of
a Larger Bench. Finally, the Full Bench had
decided the matter vide judgment and order
dated 21.10.2011 in Gajraj's case (supra).
Now, the petitioners are claiming the same
754 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
benefit, as has been allowed in the case of
Gajraj (supra).

6. It is claimed that in pursuance of the
judgment of Full Bench in Gajraj's case
(supra)
the
petitioners
got
due
compensation as well as 64% additional
compensation and also got 6% developed
abadi land but as directed by the Full
Bench in Gajraj's case (supra) the
petitioners
have
not
received
10%
developed land. The petitioners approached
the respondent no.2 several times for
allotment of 10% developed land in
compliance of the Full Bench decision in
Gajraj's case (supra) but nothing has been
done to comply with the decision of the
Full Bench.

7. The respondent no.2 in its 117th
Board meeting dated 10.02.2020 proposed
to provide the vacant buildings/flats in lieu
of 10% developed abadi land which was
contrary to the decision of Full Bench in
Gajraj's case (supra). Later on, the
development authority had decided to allot
10% developed abadi land to only those
persons who had filed writ petitions before
this Court and decided in the bunch of
Gajraj's case (supra). In fact, the petitioners
had not filed any writ petition in the said
bunch
challenging
the
acquisition
notifications.

8. Shri Ramesh Kumar Pandey,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners
vehemently submitted that the petitioners
are entitled to allotment of 10% developed
land on the basis of directions contained in
Full Bench judgment of this Court in
Gajraj's case (supra) as well as the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Savitri
Devi. He submitted that subsequent to the
aforesaid
judgment,
the
respondent
authority
itself
had
granted
64.7%
additional compensation to all the land
holders and taken a conscious decision to
allot 10% of developed land.

9. The counsels for the petitioners
emphasized his submissions on the ground
that even though one Raghuraj, who died
on 29.09.2009, was not even a party in
Gajraj's
case
(supra),
which
was
pronounced later on in the year 2011 but in
arbitrary
manner,
the
development
authority had allowed 10% developed plot
in his favour. In the same manner, the
benefit had also been extended to Jagram.
Admittedly, they had not challenged the
acquisition proceedings and they were
accorded 10% developed abadi land in the
years
2015
and
2017
respectively.
Similarly, the land of Rohtash, Lokesh,
Vikram, & Ramesh were acquired by the
development
authority
for
the
same
purpose i.e. 'planned development' and they
have also not challenged the acquisition
proceedings in any court of law but the
development authority has provided 10%
developed abadi land to them in the years
2015 and 2017 and the respondents had
discriminated with the petitioners. He
submitted that as the petitioners are on
identical footing as some other farmers
were also accorded the benefit, therefore, it
cannot be said that the authority had not
extended the benefit to other tenure holders
and they cannot adopt pick and choose
policy to discriminate the petitioners as
they had allowed 10% residential plot to
other tenure holders, who had not assailed
the acquisition proceedings and more so,
even they were not a party in Gajraj's case
(supra).

10. In support of his submission, he
had placed reliance on the judgment and
order dated 05.03.2019 passed by the
Division Bench in Writ C No.7734 of 2019
10 All. Dambar Singh & Anr Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
755
(Sundar and others vs. State of UP and
others), wherein the Division Bench had
directed the authority to decide the
representation of Sundar and others.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners
further submitted that the decision taken by
development authority not to allot 10%
abadi land to tenure holders whose
acquisition were covered by the Full Bench
in Gajraj's case but had not filed writ
petitions to challenge the acquisition
proceedings is arbitrary as there is no
rationale in not granting this benefit to
persons who had not filed writ petitions,
particularly when such persons have been
granted the additional compensation of
64.70%. In support of his submission, he
had placed reliance on the judgment and
order of this Court passed in Soukeen and
another vs. State of UP and another.

12. Per contra, Sri M.C.Chaturvedi,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
development authority vehemently opposed
the writ petitions and submitted that the
Full Bench in Gajraj's case (supra) had left
it open to the respondent authority to take a
decision
as
to
whether
additional
compensation and 10% abadi land had to
be given to such persons who had not filed
writ petitions. The development authority
after carefully examining the financial
position and the land available with the
authority took a conscious decision to
provide 64.70% additional compensation to
such persons who had not filed writ
petitions to challenge the acquisition
proceedings but in view of the paucity of
land available with the authority, 10%
abadi land was being provided to only such
persons who had filed writ petitions and not
to those who had not filed writ petitions.
This policy decision does not suffer from
any arbitrariness which may call for
interference by the Court under Article 226
of the Constitution and all the writ petitions
are liable to be dismissed. In support of his
submission he has placed reliance on the
judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in
Khatoon and Ors. Vs. The State of U.P.

13. We have carefully considered the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties.

14. We had passed a detailed order on
28.08.2025 in the instant bunch of writ
petitions led by Writ C No.29560 of 2025
filed by Dambar Singh and another and
directed the counsel for the development
authority to file an affidavit of Chief
Executive Officer, Greater New Okhla
Industrial
Development
Authority
indicating the stand of the authority on the
aforesaid issue in the light of judgment
rendered in Runwell India Pvt. Ltd. vs.
State of U.P. and others8 and Balraj
Singh and 21 others v. State of UP and 3
others. For ready reference, the order dated
28.08.2025 is reproduced hereinafter:-

"1. The present writ petition has
been instituted seeking a writ of mandamus
directing the Greater Noida Industrial
Development Authority to comply with the
directions issued by the Full Bench of this
Court in Gajraj v. State of U.P. and others,
2011 (11) ADJ 1, for allotment of 10%
developed abadi land.

2. The petitioners claim to be
tenure-holders of the land acquired by the
State of Uttar Pradesh vide notification
dated 31.08.2007 for purposes of industrial
development. It is further asserted that they
have already received 64% additional
compensation together with 6% developed
abadi land in compliance with the
judgment and order dated 21.10.2011
rendered by the Full Bench of this Court.
756 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Reliance is also placed upon the order
dated 03.07.2025, passed in Writ-C No.
20526 of 2025, Soukeen and another v.
State of U.P. and others.

3.
Per
contra,
Ms.
Anjali
Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.2, has placed reliance on the
judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Runwell India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
U.P. and others (Writ-C No. 14113 of
2017),
wherein
similar
claims
were
rejected. It is submitted that the issue
raised in the present writ petition already
stands concluded in a batch of petitions,
wherein the Coordinate Bench relied upon
the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Savitri Devi v. State of U.P. and
Khatoon and others v. State of U.P. and
others. She has further drawn attention to
the judgment of another Division Bench in
Balraj Singh and 21 others v. State of U.P.
and 3 others (Writ-C No. 9496 of 2025),
wherein it was held, by a reasoned and
speaking order, that the petitioners have no
locus
to
maintain
such
petitions.
Accordingly, it is urged that the present
writ petition deserves outright dismissal.

4. This Court notes that its board
is chocked up with a large number of writ
petitions seeking similar reliefs. In several
such matters, the petitioners' claims have
been relegated to the respondent authority
for consideration in light of the aforesaid
judgments. However, despite repeated
directions, the respondent authority has
failed to take a decision even in a single
case. Such persistent inaction constitutes a
clear failure to discharge its statutory and
legal obligations and renders nugatory the
judicial directions already issued. Once the
matter has been relegated, it is incumbent
upon the authority to act with due
promptitude and to take a reasoned
decision within a reasonable time.

5. At this stage, Ms. Anjali
Upadhya, learned counsel for respondent
no.2, submits that some further time may be
granted to enable the authority to place on
record its decision so as to assist the Court
in proper adjudication of the case.

6. In view of aforesaid, the Chief
Executive Officer, Greater New Okhla
Industrial
Development
Authority,
is
directed to file a affidavit indicating the
stand of the Authority on the aforesaid
issue in the light of the judgments rendered
in Runwell India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and
Balraj Singh (supra). The affidavit shall be
filed before the next date of hearing.

7. List this matter as fresh for
further orders on 18.09.2025."

15. In response to the aforesaid order,
the detailed affidavit has been filed on
17.09.2025 indicating therein that there is
no provision for providing 10% developed
land which was acquired by the State for
'planned industrial development' under the
Act, 1894 and the directions were issued to
provide 10% developed land to the
petitioners vide judgment and order dated
21.10.2011 passed in Gajraj's case (supra).
The Full Bench judgment was challenged
in Civil Appeal No.4506 of 2015 preferred
by Savitri Devi, wherein Hon'ble Apex
Court vide order dated 14.05.2015 clarified
that the order passed by the Full Bench is
based on peculiar circumstances and it
would not form precedent for future cases.
In para-11 of the affidavit it is stated that in
Writ C No.14113 of 2017 filed by Runwell
India Pvt. Ltd., the claim of 10% developed
land was rejected by the Division Bench
vide judgment and order dated 31.05.2022
on the ground that the land owners cannot
get the same benefit as in Gajraj's case
(supra). Similar claim had also been
rejected by this Court in Dheeraj Singh
and 11 others vs. State of UP and 2
10 All. Dambar Singh & Anr Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
757
others10 and in Sarjeet Singh vs. State of
UP and 3 others.

16.
Undisputedly,
the
land
of
petitioners were acquired by notification
dated 31.08.2007 issued under Section 4 of
Act, 1894. The aforesaid acquisition
proceedings were never challenged by
petitioners even the same were subject
matter of dispute in a bunch of Writ
Petitions, led by Writ Petition No. 37443 of
2011, which was decided by a Full Bench
of
this
Court
vide
judgment
dated
21.10.2011 reported as Gajraj's case
(supra).

17. One of the plea that was raised
before the Full Bench in Gajraj's case
(supra) was that the State Government was
not justified in dispensing with the
provisions of Section 5-A of the Act, 1894
by invoking the provisions of sub-sections
(1) and (4) of Section 17 of the Act, 1894.
The Full Bench held that the State was not
justified in dispensing with the enquiry
contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act,
1894. Consequently, the Full Bench had
issued three sets of directions. The first set
of the writ petitions that had been filed with
unexplained
delay
and
laches
were
dismissed. In the second set of writ
petitions, wherein the notifications were
issued in respect of villages where no
development
had
taken
place,
the
dispensation of enquiry was not justified
and consequently, the notifications were
quashed. The third set of writ petitions
pertaining to some villages, wherein
substantial development had taken place,
instead
of
quashing
the
acquisition
proceedings even after accepting the plea
that the provisions of Section 17(1) of the
Act, 1894 were wrongly invoked and the
enquiry, as contemplated under Section 5A
of the Act, 1894, was dispensed with, was
not justified i.e. considering the substantial
development, the Full Bench deemed it
appropriate to enhance the compensation
by 64.7% as well as issued directions for
allotment of developed abadi plots.

18. The relevant portion of the
directions issued by the Full Bench in
Gajraj's case in respect of petitions, where
relief for additional compensation and
allotment of developed abadi plot was
granted, is reproduced hereunder:-

"482 (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
758 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

19. The Full Bench in Gajraj's case
(supra), instead of quashing the acquisition
proceedings under challenge before it in
regard to certain villages in which
extensive development had taken place,
even after holding that providing of
opportunity to file objections under Section
5-A of the Act, 1894 had wrongly been
denied to the tenure-holders, saved the
acquisition
proceedings
and
issued
directions
for payment
of additional
compensation and for providing certain
percentage of developed abadi plot. The
said benefit was restricted to the tenure
holders who had challenged the acquisition
proceedings
before
the
Full
Bench.
However, the Full Bench in paragraph
482(4) also directed that the authority may
take a decision as to whether the benefit of
additional compensation and allotment of
10% abadi plot be given to those tenureholders whose petitions challenging the
acquisition proceedings had earlier been
dismissed by the Division Bench of the
High Court and to those who had not filed
writ petitions challenging the notifications
in issue before the Full Bench.

20. The judgment of the Full Bench
passed in the case of Gajraj's case (supra)
was subject matter of challenge before
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Savitri Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others.
Relevant paragraphs 44 to 52 of the
aforesaid judgment are quoted herein below
:-

"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 at the rate
of 64.7%. This additional compensation
was, however, agreed to be paid by the
authorities only in respect of land owners
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
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
10 All. Dambar Singh & Anr Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
759
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 Vs. 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 land
owners, developments have taken 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 and Others (supra)
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 land owners against the
eligibility and to the policy to the extent of
5% and 6% of Noida and Greater Noida
land respectively.

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
760 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 land owners 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.

50. Conclusion 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."

21. As a consequence of the Full
Bench decision in Gajraj's case (supra) and
the decision rendered by the Supreme
Court in Savitri Devi's case (supra) the
development authority was required to
examine as to whether it would pay
additional 64.70% compensation as also
10% abadi land to land owners who had not
filed writ petitions to challenge the
acquisition proceedings. The development
authority also decided not to allot 10%
abadi land to such persons. The Full Bench
had drawn a distinction between those who
had filed writ petitions and those who had
not. Upon consideration of various factors
the development authority, however, in
view of the directions contained in
paragraph 482(4) of the judgment rendered
by the Full Bench in Gajraj's case, took a
decision to provide only 64.70% additional
10 All. Dambar Singh & Anr Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
761
compensation to such land owners who had
not filed writ petitions.

22. After the aforesaid judgment of the
Supreme Court the matter was again taken
up before a Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Mange @ Mange Ram Vs.
State of U.P. and others. In the aforesaid
case it was held that the action of the
respondents
in
not
giving additional
developed abadi lands to the petitioner is
neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. The
relevant
paragraphs
of
the
aforesaid
judgment namely Mange @ Mange Ram
(supra) are reproduced herein below:-

"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.

15. In the light of the aforesaid,
no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
All the writ petition fails and are
dismissed."

23. The Full Bench in Gajraj's case
(supra) had issued specific directions for
providing 64.70% additional compensation
and 10% abadi land to such persons who
had filed writ petitions but in regard to such
tenure holders who had not challenged the
acquisition proceedings, left it open to the
development authority to take a decision to
provide 64.70% additional compensation as
also to allot 10% abadi land. The
petitioners do not have a vested right to
claim 64.70% additional compensation and
10% abadi land. They were entitled to
receive compensation in terms of the award
made by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer under Section 11 of the Act, 1894.
This additional compensation of 64.70%
and 10% abadi land was granted by the Full
Bench in Gajraj's case to save the
acquisition as it had found that dispensing
with the enquiry under section 5-A of the
Act, 1894 was not justified.

24. It also transpires that on the similar
facts and circumstances, the matter was
also agitated before Hon'ble Supreme Court
762 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in Khatoon's case (supra). The same was
rejected by the Supreme Court on the
ground that the appellants have neither any
legal right nor any factual foundation to
claim the relief of allotment of additional
developed abadi plot. The relevant portion
of the judgement is reproduced herein
below :-

"36. As mentioned above, it is not
in dispute that out of the two directions
given by the High Court in the case of
Gajraj (supra), one direction, namely,
award of additional compensation payable
at the rate of 64.70% to every landowner
was
already
implemented
by
the
State/Authority and accordingly payment
was
also
made
to
the
Appellants
notwithstanding dismissal of their writ
petitions. In other words, the Appellant got
the partial benefit of the order passed in
Gajraj's case (supra) even without contest.

37. 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 the
case of Gajraj (supra), namely, allotment
of developed abadi plot to the Appellants.

38. 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.

39. First, the High Court in the
case of Gajraj (supra) 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
condition No. 3(a) and (b)].

40.