# Hatam Singh & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 425
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-17
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 4986 of 2005
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta, Anish Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hatam-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52669
- **Pages:** 64

## Headnote

Ashwani K. Mishra, Jagannath Maurya,
Mahendra
Pratap,
Mahesh
Chandra
Chaturvedi
(Sr.
Adv.),
Rajesh
Dutta
Pandey, Tejasvi Misra, Ved Byas Mishra

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to acquisition of land under the
Land
Acquisition
Act,
1894-validity
of
notifications dated 16.10.2004 (S. 4/17) and
28.11.2005 (S. 6/17(1)); challenge confined to:
"Wrongful invocation of urgency provisions
under under S. 17(1) and (4) of the Act 1894
and dispensation of enquiry under S. 5-A of the
Act 1894";

Whether dispensation of inquiry under S. 5A of
Act, 1894 is illegal, arbitrary and founded on no
material to show existence of actual urgency?

Headnotes
Land Acquisition - S. 17(1) & (4) -
Dispensation of S. 5-A - Strict standard of
urgency - S. 17 is "an exception to the
normal procedure" and applies only where
land
is
"urgently
needed"
or
for
"unforeseen emergency" - Right under S.
5-A is "a substantial right" and has
"flavour of fundamental rights under
Article 14" - Planned Development - No
justification
for
invoking
emergency
clause
-
Development
of
residential
colonies "takes many years if not decades"
and "no reason why summary enquiry as
contemplated under S. 5-A may not be
held"
-
Ground
cited
-
fear
of
unauthorised
constructions
-
Held
insufficient - State relied solely on the
note stating: "There is likelihood of
construction
of
unauthorised
constructions
in
case
of
delay
in
acquisition of the proposed land, hence
necessary to invoke S. 17" Held to be
inadequate
and
contrary
to
law
-
Subjective satisfaction - Judicial review -
Formation of opinion vitiated - Delay of
over 13 months in issuing S. 6 notification
shows absence of real urgency - State
"remained totally oblivious of the fact that
it had invoked emergency powers" and
"failed to distinguish between existence of
public purpose and existence of real
urgency" - Relief - Moulding - Acquisition
not quashed in entirety - Following Sahara
India and NOIDA v. Ravindra Kumar,
Court
moulds
relief:
Option to State to retain all or part of the
land,
with
compensation
determined
under the 2013 Act.

Held: Dispensation of S. 5-A enquiry illegal -
"Formation of opinion by the State Government
to invoke S. 17, albeit subjective, suffers from
manifest error of law" - State acted "arbitrarily
and illegally" in invoking S. 17(1) and 17(4) - No
real urgency established - Ground of preventing
unauthorised
construction
"would
not
be
justified" - Development schemes "take many
years if not decades" -State delayed issuing S. 6
notification "after more than thirteen months" -
Relief moulded - option to retain land - Court
declines to quash entire acquisition; instead
grants option as in Sahara India: "It shall be
open to the respondents to retain any part of
the land in dispute" - Relevant date for
compensation deemed 01.01.2014 - If option
426 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
not
exercised,
"acquisition
would
stand
quashed" and land reverts - Delay/laches - not
fatal owing to

## Text

_Characters 0–39,995 of 190,840. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39995 for what follows._

10 All. Hatam Singh & Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. & Anr.
425
plaintiff-petitioner, whichever is earlier, the
petitioner shall not be dispossessed from
the suit property.

21. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 425
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ C No. 4986 of 2005
&
Connected With Other Cases

Hatam Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Pankaj Dubey, Pradeep Kumar Sinha, R D
Tiwari, Shiv Kant Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ashwani K. Mishra, Jagannath Maurya,
Mahendra
Pratap,
Mahesh
Chandra
Chaturvedi
(Sr.
Adv.),
Rajesh
Dutta
Pandey, Tejasvi Misra, Ved Byas Mishra

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to acquisition of land under the
Land
Acquisition
Act,
1894-validity
of
notifications dated 16.10.2004 (S. 4/17) and
28.11.2005 (S. 6/17(1)); challenge confined to:
"Wrongful invocation of urgency provisions
under under S. 17(1) and (4) of the Act 1894
and dispensation of enquiry under S. 5-A of the
Act 1894";

Whether dispensation of inquiry under S. 5A of
Act, 1894 is illegal, arbitrary and founded on no
material to show existence of actual urgency?

Headnotes
Land Acquisition - S. 17(1) & (4) -
Dispensation of S. 5-A - Strict standard of
urgency - S. 17 is "an exception to the
normal procedure" and applies only where
land
is
"urgently
needed"
or
for
"unforeseen emergency" - Right under S.
5-A is "a substantial right" and has
"flavour of fundamental rights under
Article 14" - Planned Development - No
justification
for
invoking
emergency
clause
-
Development
of
residential
colonies "takes many years if not decades"
and "no reason why summary enquiry as
contemplated under S. 5-A may not be
held"
-
Ground
cited
-
fear
of
unauthorised
constructions
-
Held
insufficient - State relied solely on the
note stating: "There is likelihood of
construction
of
unauthorised
constructions
in
case
of
delay
in
acquisition of the proposed land, hence
necessary to invoke S. 17" Held to be
inadequate
and
contrary
to
law
-
Subjective satisfaction - Judicial review -
Formation of opinion vitiated - Delay of
over 13 months in issuing S. 6 notification
shows absence of real urgency - State
"remained totally oblivious of the fact that
it had invoked emergency powers" and
"failed to distinguish between existence of
public purpose and existence of real
urgency" - Relief - Moulding - Acquisition
not quashed in entirety - Following Sahara
India and NOIDA v. Ravindra Kumar,
Court
moulds
relief:
Option to State to retain all or part of the
land,
with
compensation
determined
under the 2013 Act.

Held: Dispensation of S. 5-A enquiry illegal -
"Formation of opinion by the State Government
to invoke S. 17, albeit subjective, suffers from
manifest error of law" - State acted "arbitrarily
and illegally" in invoking S. 17(1) and 17(4) - No
real urgency established - Ground of preventing
unauthorised
construction
"would
not
be
justified" - Development schemes "take many
years if not decades" -State delayed issuing S. 6
notification "after more than thirteen months" -
Relief moulded - option to retain land - Court
declines to quash entire acquisition; instead
grants option as in Sahara India: "It shall be
open to the respondents to retain any part of
the land in dispute" - Relevant date for
compensation deemed 01.01.2014 - If option
426 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
not
exercised,
"acquisition
would
stand
quashed" and land reverts - Delay/laches - not
fatal owing to interim orders - Though some
petitions delayed, "acquisition proceedings were
kept in abeyance - No award was declared".
(Paras
18,19,26,27,30,49,50,51,78,79,80,81,108,111117) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Nandeshwar Prasad vs. U.P. Government,AIR
1964 SC 1217; Munshi Singh and others vs.
Union of India, (1973) S SSC 337; State of
Punjab vs. Gurnail Singh and others,1980 (1)
SCC 471; Om Prakash vs. State of U.P.,
(1998) 6 SCC 1; Union of India and Others vs.
Mukesh Hans, (2004) 8 SCC 14; Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Darius Shapur
Chenai & Ors, (2005) 7 SCC 627; Darshan Lal
Nagpal (Dead) By Lrs. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
and others, (2012) 2 SCC 327; Union of India
and others vs. Shiv Raj and others, (2014) 6
SCC 564; Union of India and others vs. Mukesh
Hans, (2004) 8 SCC 14; Anand Singh and
another v. State of U.P. and others, (2010) 11
SCC 242; Narayan Govind Gavate Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (1977) 1 SCC 133, Rajasthan
Housing Board and others vs. Shri Kishan and
others, ,(1993) 2 SCC 84; Smt. Manju Lata
Agrawal vs. State of U.P. and others,2007 (9)
ADJ 447 (DB); Zora Singh v. J.M. Tandon,AIR
1971 SC 1537, Radhe Shyam (Dead) through
Lrs. and others vs. State of U.P. and
others,2011 (5) SCC 553; Ramdhari Jindal
Memorial Trust vs. Union of India and others,
(2012) 11 SCC 370; Om Prakash and another
vs. State of U.P. and others, (1998) 6 SCC 1;
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority
vs. Devendra Kumar and Others, 2011 (6) ADJ
480; Sahara India Commercial Corporation
Limited and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others,
2017 (11) SCC 339; State of U.P. vs. Smt.
Pista Devi, (1986) 4 SCC 251; Rajasthan
Housing Board and others vs. Shri Kishan and
others,(1993) 2 SCC 84; Chameli Singh v.
State of U.P.,(1996) 2 SCC 549; Nand Kishore
Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Others and other
connected matters,2010 (10) SCC 282; A.P.
Sareen and Others vs. State of U.P. and
Others,(1997) 9 SCC 359; Kali Charan vs.
State of U.P. and Other,2024 SCC Online SC
3472; Kamal Sharma vs. State of U.P. and
Others and other connected matters,2023 (9)
ADJ 713 (DB), Shyoraj Singh and Others vs.
State of U.P.,2017 (SUP) ADJ 558; Kali
Charan vs. State of U.P. and Others,2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3472; Zora Singh Vs. J.M. Tandon
&
others,AIR
1971
SC
1537;
Indore
Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8
SCC 129; Faizabad Ayodhya Development
Authority Vs. Rajesh Kumar Pandey,2022 (18)
SCC 507, Sahara India Commercial Corporation
Limited and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and others,(2017) 11 SCC 339; Noida
Industrial Development Authority v. Ravindra
Kumar,2022 (6) ADJ 501 (SC); Hamid Ali
Khan (Dead) through Legal Representatives and
Another vs. State of U.P. and Others,(2021) 20
SCC 65; Aflatoon vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and
Others,(1975) 4 SCC 285.

List of Acts
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Right to Fair
Compensation
and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013; National Capital Region Planning Board
Act,
1985;
U.P.
Urban
Planning
and
Development Act, 1973; U.P. Panchayat Raj Act,
1947; General Clauses Act, 1897.

List of Keywords
Urgency; unauthorised constructions; planned
development; recreation site; regional plan;
sub-regional plan; Master Plan; dispensation of
inquiry; subjective satisfaction; interim orders;
de-notification; acquisition quashed; revert to
owners;
Karar
Niyamawali;
compensation;
public
purpose;
development
area;
Gram
Panchayat; laches; award; relevant date; option
to retain land.

Case Arising From
Writ-C No. 4986 of 2005 (Hatam Singh & Ors. v.
State of U.P. & Another) and connected batch
matters relating to acquisition of land in Village
Mohiuddinpur Kanawani, District Ghaziabad.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioners:
Pankaj Dubey, Pradeep Kumar Sinha, R. D.
Tiwari, Shiv Kant Mishra
For Respondents:
Ashwani K. Mishra, Jagannath Maurya,
Mahendra Pratap, Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi
(Sr. Adv.), Rajesh Dutta Pandey, Tejasvi Misra,
Ved Byas Mishra
10 All. Hatam Singh & Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. & Anr.
427
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar
Gupta, J.)

For ease of discussion, the judgment
has been structured as follows:-

INTRODUCTION

PREVIOUS JUDGEMENT OF THE
DIVISION BENCH

JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME
COURT

BACKGROUND FACTS

ANALYSIS
OF
RELEVANT
PROVISIONS & PRECEDENTS

(i) Applicability and scope of
Section 17 of the Act.

(ii) Interplay between Section 5A and Section 17-A of the Act.

(iii) Subjective satisfaction -
Scope of judicial review.

(iv) Application to the facts of the
case.

THE FUTURE COURSE AND THE
RELIEF

FINAL DIRECTIONS

INTRODUCTION

1. The present batch of writ petitions,
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,
seeks to question the validity of the
notifications dated 16 October, 2004 under
Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act,
1894' or 'the Act'), and dated 28
November, 2005 under Section 6 (1) of the
Act, 1894 proposing to acquire 367-0-5
bighas (229.3828 acres) of land of Village
Mohiddinpur Kanavani, Pargana Loni,
District Ghaziabad for a public purpose,
viz. 'construction of residential colony
under planned development scheme' by the
Ghaziabad
Development
Authority,
Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as
'GDA'). While issuing the notification
under Section 4 dated 16 October, 2004,
the power conferred upon the State
Government under Section 17(4) has been
invoked, thereby dispensing with the
enquiry contemplated under Section 5-A of
the Act, 1894. Likewise, while issuing
notification dated 28.11.2005 under Section
6 of the Act, 1894, the power under Section
17(1) of the Act, 1894 has been invoked,
empowering
the
Collector
to
take
possession of the acquired land after
expiration of 15 days from the date of
publication of notice under Section 9(1),
though, no award under Section 11 has
been made.

2. A Division Bench of this Court by
judgment dated 09.09.2016 allowed first set
of 30 writ petitions, leading one being
Writ-C No. 4986 (Hatam Singh and others
vs. State Of U.P. and another) and quashed
the acquisition notifications dated 16
October 2004 and 28 November 2005 in
respect of the land of the petitioners.
Another set of four writ petitions was
decided by judgment dated 30.09.2016 by
the same Division Bench in terms of its
previous judgement dated 09.09.2016 in the
case of Hatam Singh and others Vs. State
of U.P. and other connected matters.
Ghaziabad
Development
Authority,
Ghaziabad
challenged
the
aforesaid
judgements
dated
09.09.2016
and
30.09.2016 of the Division Bench of this
428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court by filing 34 special leave petitions,
out of which 33 were decided by the
Supreme Court vide judgement dated
31.10.2017 (Civil Appeal No. 18273 of
2017: GDA Vs. Rattan Singh and other
connected appeals), whereby, the matter
was remitted for a fresh consideration by
this Court. One remaining SLP No. 3426 of
2016 arising out of judgement of the
Division Bench of this Court dated
09.09.2016 in leading Writ Petition No.
4986 of 2005 (Hatam Singh and others Vs.
State of U.P. and another) came to be
decided by judgement dated 08.10.2018 in
terms of the previous judgement dated
31.10.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 18273 of
2017 and other connected matters and the
case was remitted back to this Court on the
same issues.

3. The Supreme Court has found that
certain documents placed before it for the
first time, which go to the root of the
matter, require consideration by this Court.
Accordingly, GDA has been permitted to
place on record before this Court the
documents it sought to rely upon before the
Supreme Court for the first time, and the
petitioners have been permitted to file
rejoinder affidavit in reply, with a direction
to this Court to take into consideration the
pleadings and documents, along with other
material already on record, for deciding the
following issues:

(a) Whether, regional plan, subregional plan and master plan were
approved by the competent authority under
provisions of National Capital Region
Planning Board Act. 1985 (in short NCRPB
Act); and

(b)
Whether,
inquiry
under
Section 5-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894
was rightly dispensed with.

4. In pursuance of liberty granted by
Supreme Court to the parties, they have
filed various affidavits, and thereafter, the
writ petitions were taken up for hearing.

5. Before we proceed to state the facts
of the case, we consider it apposite to
summarise the findings returned by the
Division Bench in the judgement dated
09.09.2016, the grounds on which the
matter has been remitted back, and the
issues which have to be considered afresh,
by this Court.

PREVIOUS
JUDGEMENT
OF
THE DIVISION BENCH

6. The Division Bench in paragraph 35
of the judgement dated 09.09.2016, noted
three issues raised by the writ-petitioners
concerning the validity of the acquisition
proceedings, as follows:-

"35. The first issue relates to
validity of acquisition of land at village
Mohiuddinpur Kanawani at the instance of
GDA. This question would be examined by
considering the matter on following three
angles:

(a)
Whether
village
Mohiuddinpur Kanawani part of Revenue
District Gautambudh Nagar could have
been acquired by GDA?

(b)
Whether revenue village
Mohiuddinpur Kanawani continued to be
part of 'Development Area' of GDA so as to
authorise GDA to proceed for acquisition
of land therein irrespective of fact as to
under which Revenue District it falls ?

(c) Whether the factum that
revenue village, Mohiuddinpur Kanawani,
was declared a village panchayat under
10 All. Hatam Singh & Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. & Anr.
429
U.P. Act, 1947, would make any difference
or would have any legal consequence in
acquisition proceedings initiated by GDA
in respect of the same ?"

7. These issues were dealt with
together. The relevant findings returned on
the said issues by the Division Bench are
extracted below:-

"53.
Moreover,
notification
issued under Section 3 of U.P. Act, 1973
bringing village Mohiuddinpur Kanawani
within 'Development Area of Ghaziabad'
has never been revoked and cancelled. In
fact, after notification dated 18th May,
1978, under Sections 2(d) and 3 of U.P.
Act, 1976, by virtue of Section 17, village
Mohiuddinpur Kanawani was deemed to
have been excluded from the application of
U.P. Act, 1973 but when notification dated
18th May, 1978 stood superseded by
notification dated 11.07.1989, and villlage
Mohiuddinpur Kanawani was not included
therein as part of NOIDA, the deeming
provision under Section 17 disappeared,
restoring earlier position that is reviving
notification dated 9th March, 1977 issued
under Section 3 of U.P. Act, 1973 and
village,
Mohiuddinpur
Kanawani,
continued to be a part of 'Ghaziabad
Development Area' to be developed by
GDA. Thus, we are clearly of the view that
after issue of notification dated 11th July,
1989, village Mohiuddinpur Kanawani
continued
to
be
within
territorial
jurisdiction
of
GDA
being
part
of
'Ghaziabad Development Area' by virtue of
notification dated 9th March, 1977 which
was never revoked or cancelled and
restored
its
efficacy
on
and
after
notification dated 11th July, 1989.

56. .......... In our view, creation of
Revenue District Gautambudh Nagar and
bringing village Mohiuddinpur Kanawani
within
the
revenue
jurisdiction
of
Gautambudh
Nagar
would
make
no
difference
and
village
Mohiuddinpur
Kanawani, as it was already declared
separately
as
a
part
of
'Ghaziabad
Development Area, would continue to have
retained the same status so far as GDA is
concerned.

57.
Now
comes
the
last
submission about declaration of village
Mohiuddinpur
Kanawani
as
Gram
Panchayat. Such a declaration is made
under provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj
Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as U.P.
Act, 1947). Such declaration is for the
purpose of governance of Gram Panchayat
in general by the provisions of U.P. Act,
1947, but there is nothing on record or
contained in the said statute to show, if
certain land or the entire area of a Gram
Panchayat is declared as a part of a
'development area' in a notification under
Section 3 of U.P. Act, 1973, it will be bad
or would infringe U.P. Act, 1947 or that
U.P. Act, 1947 would override U.P. Act,
1973. We have not been pointed out any
provision under U.P. Act, 1947 which may
show, if an area of Gram Panchayat is
notified to be a part of 'development area'
of Development Authority under U.P. Act,
1973, it would be inconsistent and in the
teeth of functioning of Gram Panchayat
under U.P. Act, 1947. The aforesaid
submission, therefore, is also rejected."

8. The Division Bench thus decided all
the aforenoted three issues against the
petitioners
and
in
favour
of
the
respondents.
Thereafter,
the
Division
Bench proceeded to frame four other
substantial issues with regard to the validity
of acquisition notifications. The relevant
paragraph-59 of the judgement wherein the
430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
issues have been framed, is extracted
below:-

"59. Now we come to other
substantial issues with regard to validity of
impugned acquisition notifications, i.e.:

(i)
Whether
dispensation
of
inquiry under Section 5A of Act, 1894 is
illegal, arbitrary and founded on no
material to show existence of actual
urgency?

(ii)
Whether
permission
or
sanction of NCRPB is mandatory. If so,
whether respondents have complied with
the said requirement?

(iii) Whether the notification
under section 6 is barred by time having
been published beyond one year from the
date of preliminary notification under
Section 4?

(iv)
Whether
acquisition
for
"Planned
Development"
i.e.
for
construction of residential colonies, at the
instance of GDA, is a colourble exercise of
power, since acquired land mostly is being
handed over and transferred to private
builders?"

9. While deciding issue no. 1, the
Division Bench held that the respondents
took more than four years in issuing the
notification under Section 6 of the Act,
1894 and thus, it was not a case of genuine
and bona fide urgency justifying exercise
of powers under Section 17(1) and (4) of
the Act, 1894. It was held that the right to
file
objection
against
proposal
of
acquisition of land published under Section
4 of the Act, 1894 was a substantial right
conferred by statute in favour of the
petitioners and it could not have been taken
away in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.

10. While deciding issue no. 2, the
Division Bench held that the 1985 Act was
enacted on a subject from the State list on
basis
of
resolutions
passed
by
the
legislatures of the State of Haryana,
Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh under Article
252 of the Constitution. The Division
Bench found that as per Master Plan, 2001
the acquired land was reserved as a
'recreation site' and its usage was changed
to 'residential' without obtaining approval
from the National Capital Region Planning
Board (hereinafter referred to as 'NCRPB').

11. It was also held that although,
under the Act, 1894 sub-regional plan
required approval of the NCRPB but there
was no clear cut pleading in any of the
affidavits filed by GDA that the same was
got approved from NCRPB. Consequently,
the acquisition of land for residential
purpose was not found to be in conformity
with the requirement of the Act, 1985.

12. On issue no. 3, as to whether
declaration under Section 6 of the Act,
1894 was beyond the period of one year
stipulated under the second proviso to subsection (1) of Section 6 of the Act 1894, it
was held that limitation period when
counted from the date of publication of the
corrigendums in the official gazettes dated
18.02.2005 and 02.08.2005 was well within
one year and therefore, not barred by
limitation. Additionally, it has also been
held that an interim order was passed in
leading writ petition on 22 October 2005
and the period thereafter, would have to be
excluded while counting the limitation and
in view thereof, also, the notification under
Section 6 of the Act 1894 was within
limitation.
10 All. Hatam Singh & Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. & Anr.
431

13. Issue no. 4 as to whether the
impugned notifications were a result of
colourable exercise of power was decided
against the petitioners in view of lack of
specific
pleadings
and
material
to
substantiate the same.

14. Additionally, in paragraphs 113
and 114 of the judgment, the plea relating
to infraction of Section 11A of the Act,
1894 was also repelled with the following
finding:

"113. Lastly, it is argued that
award has been made after two years and,
therefore, acquisition stands lapsed under
Section 11A of Act, 1894. It is not in
dispute that in most of writ petitions
interim orders have been passed. In leading
writ petition itself interim order was passed
on 22nd October, 2005.

114. Explanation of Section 11A
clearly provides that in computing two
years period, during which any action or
proceeding to be taken in pursuance of
declaration is stayed by Court of law shall
be excluded. In view thereof, it cannot be
said that acquisition in question can be
claimed by petitioners to have lapsed for
non-compliance of Section 11A, therefore,
this argument is rejected."

15. The concluding part of the
judgment of the Division Bench dated
09.09.2016 is extracted below for sake of
convenience:

"115. In the result and in view of
our findings dispensation of inquiry under
Section 5A by exercising power under
Sections 17(1) and (4) was arbitrary and
illegal and also there was no compliance of
provision of National Capital Region
Planning Board Act, 1985 at any stage,
impugned acquisition notifications cannot
be sustained. Had there been deficiency
only with regard to illegal dispensation of
inquiry under Section 5A, we could have
set aside only final declaration notification
issued under Section 6 and permitted
respondents to proceed from stage of
inviting objection from petitioner tenure
holders but since mandatory provisions of
Act, 1985 has also not been complied with,
in impugned acquisition proceedings, we
find no other way but to quash both the
acquisition
notifications
issued
under
Sections 4 and 6 in respect of land
belonging to petitioners in all writ petitions.

116. We are confining relief in
these writ petitions to petitioners only in
view of law laid down in Mahavir Sahkari
Avas Samiti Ltd. (supra), wherein Court
said in paragraph 15, said as under;

15. There is no dispute to the
settled legal proposition that in case the
acquisition proceedings are quashed by the
Court, it will cover the land of only those
persons who had approached the Court by
filing the petitions and it would not annul
the proceedings in respect of those persons
who had not approached the Court.

117. Writ petitions are allowed.
Impugned acquisition notifications dated
16th October, 2004 and 28th November,
2005 in so far as they relate to the
petitioners' land are hereby set aside.
Petitioners shall be entitled to cost which
we quantify to Rs.5000/- for each set of
writ petition against respondents 1, 2 and
3."

JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME
COURT

16. As noted above, before the
Supreme Court, the GDA filed additional
material and contended that the regional
432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
plan was prepared way-back in 1989, and
the same had been duly approved by
NCRPB under the 1985 Act. The SubRegional plan was required to be prepared
by the participating States and not by the
GDA. It was only required to prepare
master plan, and that it did not require
approval of the Board under the 1985 Act.
The State of U.P., being a participating
State, had duly prepared the Sub-Regional
plan, and it had due approval from NCRPB.
In the Regional Plan as well as SubRegional Plan, the use of land - whether for
'recreation' or 'residential' - was primarily
in relation to urbanization. Thus, the
finding of the Division Bench of this Court
in relation to violation of provisions of the
Act 1985 was not correct. It was also
contended that there was some defect in the
name of the district mentioned in the
notifications, and it took some time to
make necessary corrections to rectify the
same. However, this could not defeat the
urgency, which was otherwise there in view
of the fact that the land was required for
planned development, a public purpose.

17. The Supreme Court deemed it
appropriate to permit the GDA to place on
record before this Court the entire material
in relation to sanctions granted by NCRPB
and other relevant aspects. The petitioners
were also granted opportunity to file
rejoinder affidavit, and the matter was
required to be reconsidered by this Court
on the aspect relating to the alleged noncompliance with the provisions of the 1985
Act and whether dispensation of enquiry
under Section 5-A of the Act was valid.
The relevant part of the judgment of
Supreme
Court
dated
31.10.2017
is
extracted below:

"After hearing learned counsel
for the parties, in our opinion, it would be
just
and
appropriate
to
permit
the
Ghaziabad Development Authority to place
on record, the notifications, as well as the
Regional Plan, the Sub-Regional Plan and
also sanctions granted by the Board, as also
the Master Plan, along with proper
pleadings and affidavit. The land owners be
permitted to file a rejoinder affidavit and
thereafter, the matter be heard afresh and
decided
on
aforesaid
aspects.
The
observation made by the High Court, that
Sub-regional Plan was not prepared by the
Ghaziabad Development Authority, is not
in accordance with law. Sub-Regional Plan
is required to be prepared by participating
States. The Master Plan only was to be
prepared by the Ghaziabad Development
Authority and that did not require approval
of Board under 1985 Act. All these aspects
are required to be taken care of by the High
Court in proper perspective. The decision
of the High Court, for want of proper
pleadings, as to non compliance of 1985
Act, is found to be untenable. Both the
appellants as well as the respondent have
not pleaded, with exhaustive details, the
actual factual situation that has been urged
before us for the first time.

The other objection raised is with
respect to the finding as to the non-holding
of an inquiry under Section 5A of the Act is
also required to be gone into afresh. After
duly considering the submissions of the
rival parties."

18. It is noteworthy that the petitioners
did not challenge the findings of the
Division Bench in its judgment dated
09.09.2016 on various issues decided
against them by filing any separate appeal
or cross objections. The Supreme Court has
not set aside the entire judgement of the
Division Bench. Thus, the findings of the
Division Bench on the issues decided
10 All. Hatam Singh & Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. & Anr.
433
against
the
petitioners
have
attained
finality.

19. Albeit, one of the issues remitted
by the Supreme Court was regarding
alleged non-compliance of the provisions
of the 1985 Act, but at the stage of final
hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners
unequivocally stated that after going
through the documents brought on record
before this Court by GDA on the said
aspect, they are not pressing the plea. Thus,
counsel for the petitioners limited the
challenge to acquisition notifications only
to
the
other
aspect
viz.,
wrongful
invocation of urgency provisions under
Section 17(1) and (4) of the Act 1894 and
dispensation of enquiry under Section 5-A
of the Act, 1894.

20. Before we proceed to take note of
the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioners on the aspect
relating to wrongful invocation of urgency
provisions,
we
deliniete
the
factual
background of the present case.

21. The Division Bench in its
judgment dated 09.09.2016 noted facts
from the Writ-C No. 4986 of 2005 (Hatam
Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and
another), treating the same to be leading
petition.

22. For sake of convenience and to
ensure consistency, we also proceed to treat
the said petition as leading case and note
the facts pleaded by the parties in the said
case for purposes of discussion and
analysis. However, wherever required, we
would also refer to pleadings from the other
petitions.

BACKGROUND FACTS

23. The respective plots of the
petitioners, which are subject matter of the
acquisition proceedings in the present batch
of petitions, have been summarized by the
Division Bench in paragraph-2 of the
judgment. Relevant part of the same is
extracted below:

Sl.
N
o.
Writ
Petition
Petitioner
s' name
Details
of
Kharsa/
Gata no.
Area
(in
bigha/
hectare/
sq yd)
1.
4986 of
2005
1. Hatam
Singh
2.
Jagat
Singh
3. Khajan
Singh
4. Deepak
Singh
5.
Devendra
Singh
6.
Shakuntal
a Devi
256/2

299

381

457/1

450
1-1-5
(3214.06
sq yd)
2-0-0
(6050 sq
yd)
1-17-0
(5596.25
sq yd)
0-10-0
(1512.05
sq yd)
1-0-0
(3025 sq
yd)
3.
39171
of 2005
M/S
Shri
Nemi
Nath
Foundat
ion
M/S Shri
Nemi
Nath
Foundatio
n
278

279

1-4-7
(3/5th
share
(3682.934
sq yd)
0-10-0
(1512.5
sq yd)
4.
76749
of 2005
1.
Sri
Dharam
Singh
2.
Sri
Karan
Singh
3.
Smt.
Mayawati
4.
Smt.
Kisan Dai
5.
Sri
Bool
Chand
6.
Sri
Chatar
Singh
7.
Sri
Kabool
Singh
8.
Sri
454
455

463

303

304

289

291

437

438

495

300 sq.
yard

1-6-0
(3932.5
sq yd)

0-18-0
(2722.5
sq yd)
1-10-0
(4537.5
sq yd)
0-13-0
(1966.25
sq yd)
2-8-0
(7260 sq
yd)
434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Kishan
Lal
9.
Sri
Layak
Ram
10.
Sri
Dheeraj
Singh
11.
Sri
Deep
Chand
12.
Sri
Mahendra
Singh

13.
Sri
Ravinder
Kumar

14.
Sri
Surinder
Kumar
15. Smt.
Raj Kali
16.
Sri
Sukhbir
Singh
17.
Sri
Tej Singh
18.
Sri
Khajan
Singh
19. Smt.
Harkali
20.
Sri
Suraj
Singh
21.
Sri
Chander
Singh
22.
Sri
Bed Ram
23.
Sri
Prem Raj
24.
Sri
Jabar
Singh
25.
Sri
Nawal
Singh
26.
Sri
Kanwar
Singh.
27.
Sri
Bhanwar
491

453

452

451M

454M

501

259

510

514

515

454M

455M

440
1-1-0
(3176.25
sq yd)
0-8-0
(1210 sq
yd)
0-16-0
(2420 sq
yd)
0-17-0
(2571.2
sq yd)
0-12-0
(1815 sq
yd)
1-2-0
(3327.5
sq yd)
0-11.5-0
(1739.375
sq yd)
1-10-5
(4775.31
sq yd )
0-8-0
(1210 sq
yd )
0-6-0
(907.5 sq
yd)
1-0-0
(3025 sq
yd)
0-17-0
2571.25
sq yd)
1-10-0
4537.5 sq
yd)
0-2-15
(415.93
sq yd)
0-15-10
(9830 sq
yd)
2-3-10
(6589.37
sq yd)
Singh
28.
Sri
Vir Singh

5.
76751
of 2005
1.Pushpe
ndra
Kumar
Singh
2.
Dharmen
dra
Kumar
Singh
3.
Jitendra
Kumar
Singh
407
250 sq.
yards
6.
77647
of 2005
1. Anoop
Singh
2. Khem
Chand
3.Udai
Singh
4.
Bhagwat
Singh
5.Smt.
Shanti
Devi
6.
Rajender
Singh
7.
Fateh
Singh
511

456

257
516
0-17-0
(2571.25
sq yd)
0-15-5
(2382.18
sq yd)
0-15-0
(2268.75
sq yd)
0-16-0
(1/3rd
(2420 sq
yd)
7.
77668
of 2005
Smt.
Devki
Singh
380

382
3-6 1/4-0
(19057.5
sq yd)
1-6-0
(3932.5
sq yd)
8.
77670
of 2005
1.
S.M.
Chopra
2.
Kiran
Chopra
300

383
1-12-0
(4840 sq
yd)
1-12-0
(4840 sq
yd)
9.
77902
of 2005
1.
Raj
Singh
2.
Babu
Lal
395
0-17-0
(2571.25
sq yd)
10
.
78873
of 2005
1.
Rita
Devi
2.
Brij
Kishore
3.
Ram
482
483
226/5

226/5
6-13-0
(20116.25
sq yd)
0-3-10
10 All. Hatam Singh & Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. & Anr.
435
Singh
4.
Moti
Pandit
5. Abdul
Wahid
6.
Indu
Devi
7. Ganga
Prasad
8.
Devi
Das
9. Sanjay
Kumar
Chorisya
10. Veer
Singh
11.
Umesh
Kumar
12.
Parmila
Devi
13.
Brij
Lal
Verma
14. Vinod
Kumar
Pandey
15.
Sharmila
Thakur
16.
Ishwar
Dayal
17.
Vishnu
Kumar
Sharma
18. Desh
Raj
19.
Pushpa
Devi
20.
Kalpana
Upadhya
21.
Shahnaj
22. Nakul
Thakur
23.
Kavita
24.
Rakesh
Kumar
(1966.25
sq yd)
10-0-12
(30340.74
4sq yd)
25. Rupa
Devi
26. Satish
Pandit
27.
Pradeep
Kumar
Thakur
28.
Laxman
29. Smt.
Asha
Devi
30.
Raj
Kumar
31.
Amina
Khatoon
32. Saroj
Sanju
33. Kripal
Singh
34.
Shiv
Shankar
Tiwari

35.
Dinesh
Kumar
Yadav
36.
Rameshw
ar Shah
37.
Kuldeep
Kumar
38.
Munim
39. Ram
Vilash
40.
Subhan
41. Pratap
Singh
42.
Suresh
Yadav
43.
Bindeshw
ari Prasad
44. Ram
Pal
45. Mool
Chand
46.
436 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Salleddin
Ansari
47.
Surendra
Gupta
48.
Manohar
Lal
49.
Ranesh
Kumar
50.
Mantoon
Mahto
51.
Rachna
Devi
52. Sonia
53. Sunil
54. Veer
Singh
55.
Bhupendr
a
56. Vinod
Sharma
57.
Vishnu
Dev
Mahto
58. Golik
Kumar
Mohanti
59. Karan
Singh
60.
Rajesh
Thakur
61.
Om
Prakash
Thakur

62. Ram
Ashrey
63. Ashok
Kumar
64.
Ramesh
Devi
65. Ram
Dev
Sharma
66.
Raj
Kumari
67.
Shiv
Prasad
Singh
68. Omi
69. Anita
70.
Rajesh
Singh
71. Anju
Sharma
72. Sarju
Prashad
73.
Leelawati
74.
Mamta
Devi
75. Maya
Devi
76. Nand
Kishore
77.
Munni
Lal
78. Radhe
Shyam
79. Radhe
Shyam
80. Anuj
Gautam
81. Laxmi
Devi
82.
Rajesh
Kumar
Chaoudha
ry
83.
Munnu
Singh
84.
Mansori
Rai
85. Asha
Devi
Srivastav
a
86. Rattan
Singh Pal
87.
Prayag
88. Prem
Singh
Bist
89.
Anil
Kumar
10 All. Hatam Singh & Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. & Anr.
437
Mahto
90.
Shiv
Mohan
Yadav
91.
Jagdish
Mahto
92.
Raj
Dulari
93. Manju
Devi
94.
Madhulik
a Singh
95.
Champa
Devi
96. Jyatri
Devi
97. Badri
Prashad
98. Ram
Kewal
99.
Chanchal
Dhiman
100.Ravi
nder Nath
101.Gudd
u Verma
102.Ravi
Shankar
Mishra
11
.
363
of
2006
1.
Sri
Ratan
Singh
2.
Sri
Dayanand
3.
Sri
Brahmana
nd
4.
Sri
Likhi
Ram
5. Jagdish
Prasad
6.
Sri
Mithan
Singh
7.
Sri
Braham
Singh
8.
Sri
Rajbeer
Singh
240

411

413

517

497

454

494 &
495

447, 448,
449
502

488

419
0-4-0
(605sq
yd)
1-5-0
(3781.25s
q yd)
0-7-0
(1058.75s
q yd)
1-0-0
(3025sq
yd)
1-4-0
(3630sq
yd)
1-4-0
(3630sq
yd)
855 sq
yard

4-9-0
9. Sri Jai
Ram
10. Sri Jai
Pal Singh
11.
Sri
Kishan
12.
Sri
Beer
Singh
13.
Sri
Bhim Raj
14.
Sri
Suraj
Singh
15.
Sri
Ajab
Singh
16.
Sri
Mahendra
Singh
17.
Sri
Jagmal
18.
Sri
Dharam
Singh
19.
Sri
Mahendra
Singh
20.
Sri
Sattan
Singh
21.
Sri
Mani
Ram
22.
Sri
Des Raj
23.
Sri
Ant Raj
24.
Sri
Ram
Prakash
25.
Sri
Brij Pal
26.
Sri
Satveer
27.
Sri
Kavinder
28.
Sri
Narender
29.
Sri
Indra Raj
30.
Sri
Ishwar
31.
Sri
Naresh

504

440

419

504

419

504

420

440

419

504

420

440

441

494 &
495

441

285

487

539

516

488

418

458
(13461.25
sq yd)
0-6-0
(907.5sq
yd)
1-0-0
(3025sq
yd)
1-15-0
(5293.75s
q yd)
0-18-0
(2722.5sq
yd)
3-14-2
(11207.62
4sq yd)
1-15-0
(5293.75s
q yd)
0-18-0
(2722.5sq
yd)
1-15-0
(5293.75s
q yd)
0-18-0
(2722.5sq
yd)
0-8-0
(1210sq
yd)
3-14-2
(11207.62
4sq yd)
1-15-0
(5293.75s
q yd)

0-18-0
(2722.5sq
yd)
0-8-0
(1210sq
yd)
3-14-2
(11207.62
4sq yd)
2-5-0
(6806.25s
q yd)
0-8-7
(1262.934
sq yd)
2-5-0
438 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
32.
Sri
Dharmen
der
33. Smt.
Jagwati
34.
Sri
Jabar
Singh
35.
Sri
Nawal
Singh
36.
Sri
Kanwar
Singh
37.
Sri
Bhawarn
Singh
38.
Sri
Beer
Singh
39.
Sri
Mahesh
40.
Sri
Raj
Kumar
41.
Sri
Manoj
42.
Sri
Vinod
Kumar
43.
Sri
Tek
Chand
44.
Sri
Sant Ram
45.Sri
Hansa
Ram
46.
Sri
Kara
Singh
47.
Sri
Budh
Ram
48. Sri Jai
Pal
49.
Sri
Rampat
Singh
50. Ratan
Singh
51.
Sri
Braham
Singh
52.
Sri
(6806.25s
q yd)
0-14-0
(2117.5sq
yd)
2-6-0
(6957.50s
q yd)
1-6-0
(3932.5sq
yd)
2400 sq
yard

2-0-0
(6050sq
yd)
1-0-0
(3025 sq
yd)
0-12-0
(1815sq
yd)
Jatan
Singh
53.
Sri
Jagdish
Singh
54.
Sri
Prem
Singh
55.
Sri
Dharam
Singh
56.
Sri
Charan
Singh
57.
Sri
Bhagat
Singh
58.
Sri
Chaman
Singh
59.
Sri
Jagat
Singh
60.
Sri
Desh Raj
Singh
61.
Sri
Velu
62.
Sri
Satish
63.
Sri
Sita Ram
64.
Sri
Shree Pal
65.
Sri
Satender
66. Smt.
Kanika
Saraswat
67.
Deewan
Chand
68. Smt.
Suresh
69.
Sri
Misri Lal
70.
Sri
Pyare Lal
71.
Sri
Om Beer
72. Smt.
Biro Devi
73.
Sri
Bablu
74.
Sri
10 All. Hatam Singh & Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. & Anr.
439
Narender
75.
Sri
Kavinder
76. Smt.
Ram Kali
77.
Sri
Charan
Singh
78.
Sri
Bhule
Ram
12
.
1622 of
2006
1.Madhub
an
Sahkari
Awas
Samiti
Ltd.
2.
Anuradha
3.
Smt.
Mina
Devi
315

348

347

349

350

351

310

344

345
0-11-0
(1663.75s
q yd)
0-19-0
(2873.75s
q yd)
0.5310
(6350.71s
q yd)
0.2910
(3480.33s
q yd)
0.2780
(3324.85s
q yd)
0.6070
(7259.6sq
yd)
0.3160
(3779.33s
q yd)
0.1520
(1817.90s
q yd)
0.3160
(3279.33s
q yd)
13
.
5495 of
2006
1.
Dhan
Pal
2.
Ram
Pal
3. Sardar
Singh
4. Munshi
5.
Ram
Kishan
6.. Pappu
7. Raje
8. Raj Pal
9. Mannu
10. Jagga
11. Smt.
Sona
Devi
237

406

432/2
0.291
(3480.33s
q yd)
0-13-0
(1966.25s
q yd)
0.253
(3025.85s
q yd)
14
.
5503 of
2006
1. Gaggan
Deep
Gandhi
2. Param
Jeet
Ghandhi
156

157

279

169
0.0380 h
(454.48sq
yd)
0.3670 h
(4389.28s
q yd)
0.2400
(2870.38s
q yd)
0.1640
(1961.42s
q yd)
15
.
5505 of
2006
1.
Anita
Babbar
2. Rajani
Babbar
3. Ashok
Sachdeva
280

284

285
0-14-0
(2117.5sq
yd)
1-1-19
(3319.928
sq yd)
1-8-1
(4242.562
sq yd)
16
.
52592
of 2006
1. S.B.H.
Sahkari
Avas
Samiti
Limited
2.
Dr.
R.P.
Singh
276
0-17-0
(2571.25s
q yd)
17
.
56295
of 2006
Jagat
Singh
298
306
1400.125
sq yard
1663.75
sq yard
18
.
56588
of 2006
1.
Daya
Nand
Sharma
2.
Brahma
Nand
Sharma
3. Lakhi
Ram
Sharma
4. Jagdish
Sharma
5.
Ram
Chandra
6.
Raj
Veer
Singh
7. Bhram
Singh
8.
Sri
Chand
9. Kailash
412

415/2M

392

393

414

409M

413M

416/2

409M

410

415M

0.0510
(609.95sq
yd)
0.5190
(6207.18s
q yd)
0.4430
(5298.24s
q yd)
0.3290
(3934.81s
q yd)
0.3410
(4078.32
sq yd)
11-4-15
(33993.43
sq yd)
1-10-0
(4537.5sq
yd)
0-15-2
440 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Chand
10.Janduv
a
11.Vijay
Pal
12.Bheem
Raj
13.Dilva
14.Suraj
Singh
15.Chand
er Singh
16.Palm
Ram
Singh
17.Ved
Ram
Singh
18.Ramey
Chand
19.Prem
Singh
20 Rajesh
Kumar
Singhal
417

229

400

439

523

524

447

449

448

490

522

482

165

239

259
(2283.874
sq yd)
0.0160
(1913.58s
q yd)
0.1640
(1961.42s
q yd)
0.0130
(155.47sq
yd)
0.2280
(2726.85s
q yd)
1-3-0
(3478.75s
q yd)
0-18-0
(2722.5sq
yd)
2-16-0
(8470sq
yd)
(1-6-0)/2
3932.5sq
yd)
(1-6-0)/2
(3932.5sq
yd)
(0-13-0)/2
(1966.25s
q yd)
(2-9-0)/2
(7411sq
yd)
1-6-0
(3932.5sq
yd)
1-5-0
(3781.25s
q yd)
0-14-0/2
(2117.5sq
yd)
0-3-0
(453.75sq
yd)
1-14-3
(5165.186
sq yd)
1-3-0
(3478.75s
q yd)
0-6-0
(907.5sq
yd)
19
.
47797
of 2009
Shri Anil
Kumar
Jain
149

151
0.1260
(1506.95s
q yd)
0.0130
(155.48sq
yd)
20
.
47339
of 2010
1.
Ram
Veer
2. Bhopal
Singh
3.
Mahesh
Chand
4. Suresh
Chand
5. Sanjay
6. Suresh
Singh
7. Ratani
8.
Hem
Chand
9.
Sukhpal
10. Kesh
Ram
11. Sripal
12. Prem
Singh
13.
Zila
Singh
14.
Kishon
Devi
15.
Kheemraj
16.
Khairati
17. Ratan
Singh
18. Heera
Lal
19. Tulsi
Ram
20. Fateh
Singh
21. Jagan
22.
Parmal
23. Satish
24. Prem
Singh
25.
Brahm
Prakash
249
0.5690
(6805.18
sq yd)
10 All. Hatam Singh & Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. & Anr.
441
26.
Brijesh
27.
Neeraj
28.
Praveen
29.
Pramod
30. Lala
21
.
4566 of
2011
Bhuley
Ram
389
390
160 mtr
2120 mtr
22
.
36270
of 2011
M/S S.V.
Liquor
(India)
Ltd.
406
0.8290 h
(9914.75s
q yd)
23
.
2476 of
2012
Balwant
Rai
Kathuria
300

302
0-2-0
(302.5 sq
yd)
1-5-0
(3781.25
sq yd))
24
.
28223
of 2012
Amarjeet
Kaur
Gandhi
290
0-14-0
(2117.5
sq yd)
25
.
37492
of 2012
1. Shyam
Lal
2.
Ram
Kishan
3.
Babu
Ram
4.
Dharam
Veer
5. Chatar
Singh
6. Bhoop
Singh @
Pappu
7. Karan
Singh
8.
Smt.
Leelawati
9. Gyano
10. Anoj
11.
Kailash
12.
Bhram
Singh
13.
Rampat
14. Jatan
Singh
15. Ratan
Singh
237M

195 &
196

183

187

188

389

390

202

436

201

435

167

168

262

265

.2446 h
(2925.39s
q yd)
.0418 h
(499.92sq
yd)
.0890/2 h
(1064.43s
q yd)
.2530/2 h
(3025.85s
q yd)
.1900/2 h
(2272.38s
q yd)
.0160
(191.35sq
yd)
.2220
(2655 sq
yd)
.2660
(3181.33
sq yd)
.2280
(2726.86
sq yd)
.4170
(4987.28
sq yd)
.3410
16.
Jagdish
17. Prem
Singh
18.
Dharam
Singh
19.
Dhanpal
20.
Rampal
21. Sardar
Singh
22.
Munshi
23.
Bheem
Singh
24.
Bheem
Saran
25.
Maharaj
Singh
26. Hem
Chand @
Kalwa
27. Sukh
Lal
267

269

270

272

273

275

167

168

262

265

267

269

270

272

273

275

230
(4078.33
sq yd)
.1260/2
(1506.95
sq yd)
.1260/2
(1506.95
sq yd)
.2400/2
(2870.38
sq yd)
.3540/2
(4233.80
sq yd)
.0510/2
(609.95
sq yd)
.1770/2
(2116.90
sq yd)
.1770/2
(2116.90
sq yd)
.2910/2
(3480.33
sq yd)
.1530/2
(1829.86
sq yd)
.2660/2
(3181.33
sq yd)
.1260/2
(1506.95
sq yd)
.1260/2
(1506.95
sq yd)
.2400/2
(2870.38
sq yd)
.3540/2
(4233.80
sq yd)
.0510/2
(609.95
sq yd)
.1770/2
(2116.90
sq yd)
.1770/2
(2116.90
sq yd)
.2910/2
(3480.33
442 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sq yd)
.1530/2
(1829.86
sq yd)
.2660/2
(3181.33s
q yd)
.3290
(3934.81s
q yd)
26
.
16390
of 2013
1.
Surendra
Singh
2.
Devendra
Singh
3.
Vijendra
Singh
4. Sanjay
5.
Smt.
Bala Devi
255

261
1-13-0
(4991.25
sq yd)
2-3-0
(6503.75
sq yd)
27
.
17162
of 2013
1.
Smt
Vimlelsh
Bansal
2.
Ankit
Nagar
3.
Anuj
Nagar
4.
Mahipal
Singh
5.
Surendra
Pal Singh
285
25568.14
sq. mtr
28
.
21562
of 2013
1.
Sunil
Sachdev
2. Harish
Sachdev
3.
Janak
Sachdev
4. Naresh
Chand
5. Jadish
6.