# Lachhu Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 4 ILRA 1157
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-08-05
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 25692 of 2019
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lachhu-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44888
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

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

Writ Petition disposed. (E-1)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

4 All. Lachhu Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1157
(2019)12 ILR A1157

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.08.2019

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

Writ-C No. 25692 of 2019

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

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

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

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

Writ Petition disposed. (E-1)

List of cases cited: -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. A large number of writ petitions
were filed by the farmers. A batch of
petitions was decided by a common
judgement in the case of Gajraj and
others v. State of U.P. and others1. The
1158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner claims that he has also filed
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46933 of
2011 (Raghubar & others v. State of U.P.
& others) which was clubbed with the
lead petition2. This Court in Gajraj
(supra)
has
passed
the
following
directions:

"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 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."

4. The said judgement was affirmed
by the Supreme Court in the case of
Savitri Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and others.3 Relevant part of the
judgement of the Supreme Court reads as
under:

"48. To sum up, the 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.

Conclusion

50. Keeping in view all these
peculiar circumstances, we are of the
4 All. Lachhu Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1159
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. ...

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."

5. In the present case the petitioner
claims that he has filed writ petition,
therefore, he is entitled for 64.7%
additional compensation and is also
entitled for allotment of developed abadi
plot to the extent of 10% of acquired land.
The petitioner claims that his 2.6070
hectares land was acquired thus he is
entitled for 2607 sq.mtrs. but in view of
maximum limit of 2500 sq.mtrs he is
entitled for the same.

6. The petitioner has made several
representations but no decision has been
taken as yet.

7. We have heard learned counsel
for the petitioner, learned Standing
Counsel and Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh,
learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3.

8. Sri Singh has placed reliance on
the judgment in the case of Khatoon and
others v. State of U.P. and others4, and a
Division Bench judgement in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition Nos. 26718 of 20185 and
16647 of 20186.

9.

We
have
considered
the
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

10. The petitioner's plot no. 278 area
2.6070 hectare was said to be acquired.
The petitioner has not enclosed the
notification issued under Sections 4 & 6
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In
paragraph-6 of the writ petition the
petitioner has claimed that he has filed
Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 46933 of
2011. A copy of the judgement of the said
order is on the record as annexure-2 to the
writ petition. The said writ petition has
been filed by Raghubar and others which
was disposed of on 21.10.2011 in terms of
the judgement in Gajraj (supra).

11. The grievance of the petitioner is
that in compliance of the judgment in
Gajraj (supra) similarly placed persons
have been paid 64.70% developed plot up
to 10% of the total acquired land for
residential purposes but the petitioner has
been denied the allotment of developed
abadi plot to the extent of 10% of his
acquired land.

12. We find that the petitioner has
made representations dated 26.9.2017 and
19.6.2019 to the authority concerned
which is on the record.

13. Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh,
learned counsel for the respondents has
placed heavy reliance on the judgement of
the Supreme in Khatoon (supra). In
paragraph-15 of the said judgement it is
recorded that the appellants in those cases
have not filed any writ petition and for the
first time on 15.2.2016 they approached
the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Paragraph-15 of the said
judgement reads as under:

"15. The appellants herein, whose
lands were also acquired in these
acquisition proceedings, then woke up out
1160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of slumber and filed the writ petitions for
the first time on 15.02.2016 in the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad out of
which these appeals arise."

14. It is pertinent to mention that the
Full Bench in its operative portion of the
judgement in Gajraj (supra) has made it
clear that the land holders who have not
filed writ petition, their case shall be
considered by the Authority which shall
take a decision as to whether the benefit
of additional compensation and the
allotment of abadi plot be also given to
those land holders who have not come to
the Court relating to the notification
which are subject matter of challenge in
Gajraj (supra) and companion petitions
and all those land holders whose earlier
writ petitions challenging the notifications
have been dismissed.

15. It was urged by learned counsel
for the petitioner that in compliance of the
said directions the Authority has taken a
resolution to extend the benefit to those
persons also who have not filed writ
petition and has sought approval of the
State Government, however, the State
Government
vide
its
order
dated
21.9.2016
addressed
to
the
Chief
Executive Officer, Greater Noida, Gautam
Budh Nagar has rejected the said
proposal. The said Government Order
reads as under:

**la[;k
&
1214@77&3&56,e@16

izs"kd]

vfuy dqekj]

vuq lfpo]

mRrj izns'k 'kkluA

lsok esa]

eq[; dk;Zikyd vf/kdkjhA

xzsVj uks,Mk] xkSrceq)uxjA

vkS|ksfxd fodkl vuqHkkx & 3 y[kuÅ%
fnukad 21 flrEcj] 2016

fo"k; %& ek0 mPpre U;k;ky;@ek0 mPPk
U;k;ky; ds fofHkUu vkns'kksa ls vukPNkfnr
vftZr Hkwfe ds mu d`"kdksa dks Hkh ftUgsa
izkf/kdj.k cksMZ ds fofHkUu fu.kZ;ksa ls 64-70
izfr'kr
dh
nj
ls
vfrfjDr
izfrdj@vfrfjDrrk dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS]
dks izkf/kdj.k }kjk iwoZ fu/kkZfjr vgZrk@uhfr ds
vuqlkj ik= d`"kdksa dks 10 izfr'kr 1⁄4vf/kdre
2500 oxZ ehVj1⁄2 dh lhek rd fodflr Hkw[k.Mks
ds vkoaVu ds lEcU/k esaA

egksn;]

d`i;k mi;qZDr fo"k;d vius i=
la[;k & 106@Hkwys[k@Hkw0 i0@2016] fnukd
20-04-2016 dk lUnHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsa]
ftlesa izkf/kdj.k dh 104 oha cksMZ cSBd esa fy;s
x;s fu.kZ; ds vuqdze esa ek0 mPpre
U;k;ky;@ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds fofHkUu
vkns'kksa ls vukPNkfnr vftZr Hkwfe ds mu
d`"kdksa dks Hkh ftUgsa izkf/kdj.k cksMZ ds fofHkUu
fu.kZ;ksa ls 64-70 izfr'kr dh nj ls vfrfjDr
izfrdj@ vfrfjDrrk dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS]
dks izkf/kdj.k }kjk iwoZ fu/kkZfjr vgZRkk@uhfr ds
vuqlkj ik= d`"kdksa dks 10 izfr'kr 1⁄4vf/kdre
2500 oxZ ehVj1⁄2 dh lhek rd fodflr Hkw[k.Mksa
dks vkaofVr fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa 'kklu dh
vuqefr fn;s tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gSA
2- bl lEcU/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk
gS fd lUnfHkZr i= }kjk miyC/k djk;k x;k
izLrko lE;d fopkjksijkUr Lohdkj ;ksX; ugh
ik;k x;kA d`i;k rn~uqlkj voxr gksus dk d"V
djsaA

Hkonh;

g0 vi0

1⁄4vfuy dqekj1⁄2

 vuq lfpoA**

16. In the present case the said issue
need not to be decided since the
petitioner's case is that he had filed writ
petition and it was tagged and decided
along with the case of Gajraj and others.
4 All. Raju Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1161

17. In the present case the petitioner
has averred that he has filed a writ
petition and a copy of the order of
Raghubar (supra) is also on the record
hence the judgement of Khatoon (supra)
is not applicable in the facts of the present
case as the petitioner had filed writ
petition which was tagged with the case
of Gajraj and others as also it was
disposed of in the same terms.

18. In any view of the matter, we are
of the opinion that the grievance of the
petitioner be considered at the first
instance by the authority concerned by
passing a reasoned order. Accordingly, the
writ petition is disposed of with a
direction upon the second respondent to
consider the cause of the petitioner and
pass appropriate order. The authority
concerned shall make an endeavour to
address the grievance of the petitioner
expeditiously, preferably within three
months from the date of communication
of this order.

19. Needless to say that we have not
expressed our opinion on the merits of the case,
the authority concerned shall pass the order
independently and in accordance with law.

20. No order as to costs.
----------
(2019)12 ILR A1161

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 26861 of 2017

Raju ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Raj Karan Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ravi Prakash Pandey, Sri Vivek
Verma, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi

A. Civil Law - Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976 - Section 10 (5)
and (6) - Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 - Section
3(2)(a) - Abatement of proceeding - No
possession memo - Physical possession
of the land was never taken from the
petitioner. He is still in cultivatory and
physical possession - State authorities
have not taken possession from the
petitioner in terms of sub-section (5) or
sub-section (6) of Section 10 of the Act,
1976 - Held the proceeding initiated
under the Act, 1976 stands abated in
terms of sub-section 2(a) of Section 3 of
the Repeal Act. (Para 22, 34 & 37)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)

List of cases cited: -

1. St. of U.P. Vs Hari Ram (2013) 4 SCC 280,

2. Gajanan Kamlya Vs Addl. Collector & Comp.
Auth.& Ors. JT 2014 (3) SC 211

3. St. of U.P & Anr. Vs Nek Singh 2010 Law
Suit (All) 3581

4. Ram Singh Vs St. of U.P. & Ors. 2013 (7)
ADJ 662 (DB)

5. St. of U.P. Thru Secy Avas Avam Shahri Niyojan
Vs Ruknuddin & Ors. Writ-C No. 54830 of 2011,
decided on 03.10.2018: Law Suit (All) 3470

6. Lalji Vs St. of U.P. & Anr. 2018(5) ADJ 566

List of cases cited: -

1. Yasin and others v. State of U.P. and others
2014(4) ADJ 305(DB)