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

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 407
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-19
- **Case number:** WRIT - C No. 5857 of 2020
- **Bench:** Bala Krishna Narayana, Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/praveen-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45963
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Land Acquisition Act,1894Section 4 & 6 - claim-entitlement to
additional compensation and allotment of
abadi plot-petitioners are not entitled to
408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the benefits claimed as the petitioners
case
is
not
covered
by
Full
Bench
Judgment in this regard-benefits were
confined to those land holders whose writ
petitions challenging the notifications had
been dismissed earlier and to those who
had not approached the court to challenge
the notifications which were subject
matter of challenge in the writ petitions
decided along with the case of Gajraj
Singh and Others.(Para 5 to 17)

B. Whatever compensation has to be given
for acquisition of the land is provided
under the Land Acquisition Act itself which
is
a
self-contained
code.
Any
G.O.
providing for any further benefit not
mentioned
with
the
intention
of
Parliament as contained in the Land
Acquisition Act. Hence, any such G.O.
would be violative of the Land Acquisition
Act and would hence be invalid. Such a
G.O. will also violate Article 16 of the
Constitution. (Para 16)

The petition is dismissed. (E-6)
List of Cases Cited: -

## Text

9 All. Praveen & Ors.Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
407
human life and property. So sub section 2
of Section 263 carves out an exception to
the mandatory provisions of Section 287
(supra) meaning thereby, building which is
claimed to be in a dilapidated condition or
in a ruinous condition, should be in such
form that an exercise under Section 287
will be such a long drawn one that before
such proceeding arrives at its logical end,
the ruinous building will fall endangering
life of the people and the property.

13. Applying the above provisions to
the facts of this case as the order impugned
herein is in purported exercise of power
under Section 263 of the Act, we notice
that neither the alleged notice cum order
dated 27th January, 2020 nor, earlier notice
issued in this regard contain any fact to
give an impression that building had
arrived
at
such
a
condition
that
municipality needed to exercise power
under Section 263 urgently and, therefore,
we are of the considered opinion that
exceptional clause has wrongly been
applied in the present case.

14. In such above view of the matter for
non compliance of the provisions as contained
under Section 287(2)(b), notice/order dated
27th January, 2020, cannot be sustained in law
and the matter is required to be revisited by the
authority concerned in consonance with
principles of the natural justice and with due
compliance of the provisions as contained
under Section 287 of the U.P. Municipalities
Act, 1916.

15. Accordingly, the orders passed in
respect of respective petitioners dated 27th
January, 2020 (filed as annexure 2 to the
writ petition) are hereby quashed.

16. We further observe and direct that
the authority, if desire to get the building
demolished on the the ground that building
has arrived in dilapidated condition, it shall
follow the procedure prescribed for under
Section 287 of the Act, 1916 by giving
notice to the respective petitioners fixing a
date to be present on the spot on the day of
inspection . The inspection shall be carried
out in the presence of the occupier and
every occupier shall sign inspection memo.
It is thereafter, notices for eviction shall be
issued to the respective petitioners. Thus, if
authority arrives at a conclusion that
building has arrived in a dilapidated
condition in the manner as observed
hereinabove, an appropriate order shall be
passed in the matter.

17. With the aforesaid liberty to the
concerned respondent, the writ petition is
allowed.
----------
(2020)09ILR A407
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

WRIT - C No. 5857 of 2020

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

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Hira Lal Singh (Kushwaha)

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

A. Civil Law - Land Acquisition Act,1894Section 4 & 6 - claim-entitlement to
additional compensation and allotment of
abadi plot-petitioners are not entitled to
408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the benefits claimed as the petitioners
case
is
not
covered
by
Full
Bench
Judgment in this regard-benefits were
confined to those land holders whose writ
petitions challenging the notifications had
been dismissed earlier and to those who
had not approached the court to challenge
the notifications which were subject
matter of challenge in the writ petitions
decided along with the case of Gajraj
Singh and Others.(Para 5 to 17)

B. Whatever compensation has to be given
for acquisition of the land is provided
under the Land Acquisition Act itself which
is
a
self-contained
code.
Any
G.O.
providing for any further benefit not
mentioned
with
the
intention
of
Parliament as contained in the Land
Acquisition Act. Hence, any such G.O.
would be violative of the Land Acquisition
Act and would hence be invalid. Such a
G.O. will also violate Article 16 of the
Constitution. (Para 16)

The petition is dismissed. (E-6)
List of Cases Cited: -

1. Gajraj & ors. Vs St. Of U.P. & ors. (2011) 11 ADJ 1

2. Smt. Rameshwari & 3 ors. Vs St. Of U.P. & 2
ors.,Writ C No. 18948 of 2017

3. Ramesh & ors. Vs St. Of U.P. & ors. (2019) 4
ADJ 225

4. Ravindra Kumar Vs D.M.,Agra & ors. (2005) 1
UPLBEC 118

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Ramendra
Pratap
Singh,
learned
counsel
for
respondent No.3.

2. The petitioners have preferred the
present writ petition with the following
prayers:-

"a. issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the order
dated 06.09.2019 passed by respondent
no.3.

b. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondent no.3 to provide 10%
developed land s well as 64.7% Additional
Compensation in view of the full bench
judgement Gajraj and others Versus State
of U.P. and others in respect of the land
acquired of the petitioner no.1 plot no.344
Khasra number No.699/2, 737/2, petitioner
no.2 plot no.305 Khasra No.740, 622
petitioner no.3 plot no.8 Khasra No.621,
petitioner no.4 to 10 Khasra No.670 village
Surajpur, Pargana Dadri District Gautam
Budh Nagar.

c. Issue any other writ order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case.
d. Award the cost of the petition in favour
of the petitioners."

3. Fact in brief as contained in the
writ petition are that the petitioners are
owners and Bhumidhar with transferable
rights of their respective land situate in
Village Surajpur, Pargana Dadri, District
Gautambudh Nagar. The lands of the
petitioners were acquired by the State
Government by issueing a notification
dated 13.9.1996 under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act, 1894) which was
followed by a notification dated 28.10.1996
issued under Section 6 of the Act, 1894.

4. It is stated in paragraph 5 of the
writ petition that the lands were acquired
on the basis of conception that the
acquiring authority will provide 10%
developed land to each and every petitioner
in order to sustain their livelihood after the
9 All. Praveen & Ors.Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
409
acquisition of their entire lands. In this
regard, learned counsel for the petitioners
also placed reliance upon a resolution dated
22.11.1997 passed by the respondent
authorities. It is further stated in the writ
petition that subsequently the aforesaid
resolution
was
revised
and
now,
a
resolution has been passed to provide 10%
developed land to the farmers of NOIDA
and 5% to the farmers of the Greater
NOIDA.

5. A large number of writ petitions
were filed before this Court challenging the
notification issued by the respondent
authority and ultimately, the aforesaid writ
petitions were decided by full bench of this
Court in the case of Gajraj and others Vs.
State of U.P. and others reported in 2011
(11) ADJ 1 (FB) It further revealed from
perusal of the record that the petitioners
had also earlier filed a writ petition before
this Court being Writ C No.57766 of 2012
(Praveen and 9 others Vs. State of U.P. and
2 others). The said writ petition was finally
disposed of by another co-ordinate Bench
of this Court vide its judgement and order
dated 9.2.2015. The order passed in the
aforesaid case is quoted hereinbelow :-

"Petitioners have approached this
Court seeking a writ of mandamus
commanding the respondents to pay the
additional compensation in respect of their
land,
which
was
subject
matter
of
acquisition.

The land of the petitioners was
acquired vide notification dated 13-091996 and 28-10-1996 issued under Section
4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
respectively
for
planned
industrial
development by Greater Noida Industrial
Development Authority.

Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh,
learned counsel for the NOIDA Authority
states that since the petitioners have
already received compensation long back
and there is inordinate delay and laches in
filing the writ petition, therefore, the
petitioners cannot be held for payment of
any additional compensation and the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed on the
ground of laches.

The
issue
came
up
for
consideration before a Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Gajraj & others vs.
State of U.P. & others, [2011(11) ADJ
1(FB)] and it has been answered in
paragraph 481 as under :

"481. As noticed above, the land
has been acquired of large number of
villagers in different villages of Greater
Noida and Noida. Some of the petitioners
had earlier come to this Court and their
writ petitions have been dismissed as
noticed above upholding the notifications
which
judgments
have
become
final
between them. Some of the petitioners may
not have come to the Court and have left
themselves in the hand of the Authority and
State under belief that the State and
Authority shall do the best for them as per
law. We cannot loose sight of the fact that
the above farmers and agricultures/owners
whose land has been acquired are equally
affected by taking of their land. As far as
consequence and effect of the acquisition it
equally affects on all land losers. Thus land
owners whose writ petitions have earlier
been dismissed upholding the notifications
may have grievances that the additional
compensation which was a subsequent
event granted by the Authority may also be
extended to them and for the aforesaid,
further spate of litigation may start in so
far as payment of additional compensation
is concerned. In the circumstances, we
leave it to the Authority to take a decision
as to whether the benefit of additional
compensation shall also be extended to
410 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
those with regard to whom the notifications
of acquisition have been upheld or those
who have not filed any writ petitions. We
leave this in the discretion of the
Authority/State which may be exercised
keeping in view the principles enshrined
under Article 14 of the Constitution of
India."

In view of above, the petitioners
herein are entitled to be extended the same
benefit as observed in the case of Gajraj
(Supra) quoted above.

Writ petition accordingly stands
disposed of in terms of the aforesaid
observations made in the case of Gajraj
(Supra). "

6. From perusal of the same, it is clear
that directions were given by this Court to
take a decision as to whether the benefit of
additional compensation shall also be
extended to the petitioners or not.

7. It appears from perusal of the
record that pursuant to the directions given
by this Court on 9.2.2015, an order dated
21.11.2015 was passed by the respondent
No.3. The order dated 21.11.2015 is not
brought on record by the petitioners for the
reasons best known to them.

8. The order dated 21.11.2015 was
again challenged by the petitioners before
this Court by filing a writ petition before
this Court being Writ C No.17258 of 2019
(Praveen and 8 others Vs. State of U.P. and
2 others). The aforesaid writ petition was
finally allowed by another co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide its judgement and
order dated 20.5.2019. The order dated
21.11.2015 was quashed only in view of
the facts that no reasons were assigned for
rejecting the claim of the petitioners.
Pursuant to the order dated 20.05.2019
passed by this Court, now a decision has
been taken by the Chief Executive Officer
Greater
NOIDA,
Gautam
Budh
Nagar/respondent No.3 dated 6.9.2019
rejecting the claim of the petitioners. The
petitioners have filed the present writ
petition challenging the aforesaid order
dated 06.09.2019 passed by the respondent
No.3.

9. It is argued by learned counsel for
the petitioners that the case of the
petitioners is squarely covered by the Full
Bench judgment of this Court passed in
Gajraj and others (supra) and as such, the
petitioners are entitled for 10% developed
land
as
well
as
64.7%
additional
compensation. It is further argued that in
large number of writ petitions, similar relief
was also granted in favour of the farmers
similarly situate

10. It is an admitted position that the
petitioners did not challenge the land
acquisition proceedings. The writ petition
is also silent as to whether the notifications
under which the land of the petitioners was
acquired, were under challenge in the
bunch of writ petitions which were decided
along with the case of Gajraj Singh and
others (supra).

11.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the respondents no.1 and 2
and also the learned counsel for the Greater
Noida have submitted that the benefit
granted by the Full Bench in the case of
Gajraj Singh and others would not be
applicable to the case of the petitioners for
the reason that the petitioners were neither
parties in the writ petitions which had been
decided along with the case of Gajraj Singh
and others nor there is any assertion by the
petitioners that the notifications under
which their land had been acquired were
subject matter of challenge in the case of
9 All. Praveen & Ors.Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
411
Gajraj Singh and others. Further more, it
has been submitted that in terms of the
direction contained in the Full Bench
judgment, the Greater Noida had taken a
decision not to allot the abadi plot to the
extent of 10% to those land owners who
had not approached the writ court and had
not challenged the acquisition proceedings.

12. The question which thus falls for
consideration is as to whether as per the
directions in the case of Gajraj Singh and
others (supra), the petitioners, who were
neither parties in the writ petitions which
had been decided along with the case of
Gajraj Singh and others (supra) nor had
their
land
been
acquired
under
the
notifications which were subject matter of
challenge in the writ petitions decided by
the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj Singh
and others and connected matters, could
claim
entitlement
to
additional
compensation and allotment of abadi plot
to the extent of 10% of their acquired land.

13. In the case of Gajraj Singh and
others
(supra),
the
writ
petitions
challenging the notifications in respect of
land acquisition proceedings with respect to
tracts of land situate in different villages of
Greater Noida and Noida were decided and
the writ petitions were disposed of in terms
of the following directions :-

"481. As noticed above, the land
has been acquired of large number of
villagers in different villages of Greater
Noida and Noida. Some of the petitioners
had earlier come to this Court and their
writ petitions have been dismissed as
noticed above upholding the notifications
which
judgments
have
become
final
between them. Some of the petitioners may
not have come to the Court and have left
themselves in the hand of the Authority and
State under belief that the State and
Authority shall do the best for them as per
law. We cannot loose sight of the fact that
the above farmers and agricultures/owners
whose land has been acquired are equally
affected by taking of their land. As far as
consequence and effect of the acquisition it
equally affects on all land losers. Thus land
owners whose writ petitions have earlier
been dismissed upholding the notifications
may have grievances that the additional
compensation which was a subsequent
event granted by the Authority may also be
extended to them and for the aforesaid,
further spate of litigation may start in so
far as payment of additional compensation
is concerned. In the circumstances, we
leave it to the Authority to take a decision
as to whether the benefit of additional
compensation shall also be extended to
those with regard to whom the notifications
of acquisition have been upheld or those
who have not filed any writ petitions. We
leave this in the discretion of the
Authority/State which may be exercised
keeping in view the principles enshrined
under Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.

482. In view of the foregoing
conclusions we order as follows:

1. The Writ Petition No. 45933 of
2011, Writ Petition No. 47545 of 2011
relating to village Nithari, Writ Petition
No. 47522 of 2011 relating to village
Sadarpur, Writ Petition No. 45196 of 2011,
Writ Petition No. 45208 of 2011, Writ
Petition No. 45211 of 2011, Writ Petition
No. 45213 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45216
of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45223 of 2011,
Writ Petition No. 45224 of 2011, Writ
Petition No. 45226 of 2011, Writ Petition
No. 45229 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45230
of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45235 of 2011,
Writ Petition No. 45238 of 2011, Writ
Petition No. 45283 of 2011 relating to
412 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
village Khoda, Writ Petition No. 46764 of
2011, Writ Petition No. 46785 of 2011
relating to village Sultanpur, Writ Petition
No. 46407 of 2011 relating to village
Chaura Sadatpur and Writ Petition No.
46470
of
2011
relating
to
village
Alaverdipur which have been filed with
inordinate delay and laches are dismissed.

2. (i) The writ petitions of Group
40 (Village Devla) being Writ Petition No.
31126 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 59131 of
2009, Writ Petition No. 22800 of 2010,
Writ Petition No. 37118 of 2011, Writ
Petition No. 42812 of 2009, Writ Petition
No. 50417 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 54424
of 2009, Writ Petition No. 54652 of 2009,
Writ Petition No. 55650 of 2009, Writ
Petition No. 57032 of 2009, Writ Petition
No. 58318 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 22798
of 2010, Writ Petition No. 37784 of 2010,
Writ Petition No. 37787 of 2010, Writ
Petition No. 31124 of 2011, Writ Petition
No. 31125 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 32234
of 2011, Writ Petition No. 32987 of 2011,
Writ Petition No. 35648 of 2011, Writ
Petition No. 38059 of 2011, Writ Petition
No. 41339 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 47427
of 2011 and Writ Petition No. 47412 of
2011 are allowed and the notifications
dated 26.5.2009 and 22.6.2009 and all
consequential actions are quashed. The
petitioners shall be entitled for restoration
of their land subject to deposit of
compensation which they had received
under
agreement/award
before
the
authority/Collector.

2(ii) Writ petition No. 17725 of
2010 Omveer and others Vs. State of U.P.
(Group 38) relating to village Yusufpur
Chak Sahberi is allowed. Notifications
dated 10.4.2006 and 6.9.2007 and all
consequential actions are quashed. The
petitioners shall be entitled for restoration
of
their
land
subject
to
return
of
compensation received by them under
agreement/award to the Collector.

2(iii) Writ Petition No.47486 of
2011 (Rajee and others vs. State of U.P.
and others) of Group-42 relating to village
Asdullapur is allowed. The notification
dated 27.1.2010 and 4.2.2010 as well as all
subsequent proceedings are quashed. The
petitioners shall be entitled to restoration
of their land.

3. All other writ petitions except
as mentioned above at (1) and (2) are
disposed of with following directions:

(a) The petitioners shall be
entitled
for
payment
of
additional
compensation to the extent of same ratio
(i.e. 64.70%) as paid for village Patwari in
addition to the compensation received by
them under 1997 Rules/award which
payment shall be ensured by the Authority
at an early date. It may be open for
Authority to take a decision as to what
proportion of additional compensation be
asked to be paid by allottees. Those
petitioners who have not yet been paid
compensation
may
be
paid
the
compensation
as
well
as
additional
compensation as ordered above. The
payment of additional compensation shall
be without any prejudice to rights of land
owners under section 18 of the Act, if any.

(b) All the petitioners shall be
entitled for allotment of developed Abadi
plot to the extent of 10% of their acquired
land subject to maximum of 2500 square
meters. We however, leave it open to the
Authority in cases where allotment of abadi
plot to the extent of 6% or 8% have already
been made either to make allotment of the
balance of the area or may compensate the
land owners by payment of the amount
equivalent to balance area as per average
rate of allotment made of developed
residential plots.
9 All. Praveen & Ors.Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
413

4.The Authority may also take a
decision as to whether benefit of additional
compensation and allotment of abadi plot
to the extent of 10% be also given to;

(a) those land holders whose
earlier
writ
petition
challenging
the
notifications
have
been
dismissed
upholding the notifications; and

(b) those land holders who have
not come to the Court, relating to the
notifications which are subject matter of
challenge in writ petitions mentioned at
direction No.3.

5. The Greater NOIDA and its
allottees are directed not to carry on
development and not to implement the
Master Plan 2021 till the observations and
directions of the National Capital Regional
Planning Board are incorporated in Master
Plan 2021 to the satisfaction of the
National Capital Regional Planning Board.
We make it clear that this direction shall
not be applicable in those cases where the
development is being carried on in
accordance with the earlier Master Plan of
the Greater NOIDA duly approved by the
National Capital Regional Planning Board.

6. We direct the Chief Secretary
of the State to appoint officers not below
the level of Principal Secretary (except the
officers
of
Industrial
Development
Department who have dealt with the
relevant files) to conduct a thorough
inquiry regarding the acts of Greater
Noida (a) in proceeding to implement
Master Plan 2021 without approval of
N.C.R.P. Board, (b) decisions taken to
change the land use, (c) allotment made to
the
builders
and
(d)
indiscriminate
proposals for acquisition of land, and
thereafter the State Government shall take
appropriate action in the matter."

14. The question as to whether the
benefit of the directions issued by the Full
Bench in the case of Gajraj Singh and
others (supra) for providing additional
compensation to the extent of 64.70% and
developed abadi plot to the extent of 10%
of the land acquired was liable to be
extended to such tenure holders also whose
lands were not acquired in terms of the
notifications which were under challenge in
the case of Gajraj Singh and others
(supra), has also been considered by a
coordinate Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Smt. Rameshwari and 3
others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others in
Writ C No.18948 of 2017 decided on
3.5.2017 and in terms of judgment dated
3.5.2017, it has been held as follows:-

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

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

In
the
case
in
hand,
the
petitioners' land was acquired by means of
notification dated 09.09.1997. Equally
admitted fact is that the petitioners
accepted the award and did not come
forward to challenge the land acquisition
proceedings. Not only that, notification
dated 9.9.2017 whereunder an area 127518-18 including Gata no. 582 area 6-5-13,
538 area 0-15-6, 609 area 1-2-12 and 615
area 9-10-10 of the petitioners situate at
village Tugalpur was acquired was not
subject of matter of challenge before the
Full Bench.

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

Writ
petition
fails
and
accordingly stands dismissed."

15. A similar view has been taken in a
recent judgment of this Court in Ramesh
and others Vs. State of U.P. and others
reported in 2019 (4) ADJ 225, wherein it
was stated as follows:-

"14.Moreover,
the
directions
issued by the Full Bench in the case of
Gajraj Singh and others under para 482 (4)
in terms of which the Authority was to take
a decision as to whether benefit of
additional compensation and allotment of
abadi plot to the extent of 10% was to be
given, was confined to those land holders
whose writ petitions challenging the
notifications had been dismissed earlier
and to those who had not approached the
court to challenge the notifications which
were subject matter of challenge in the writ
petitions decided along with the case of
Gajraj Singh and others. The directions
under para 482 (4) were not in respect of
those persons such as the petitioners in the
present case whose land had been acquired
in terms of notifications which were not
subject matter of challenge in the case of
Gajraj Singh and others and connected
matters."

16. It is to be noted at this juncture
that earlier also a Full Bench of this Court
in the case of Ravindra Kumar Vs.
District Magistrate, Agra and others
reported in 2005 (1) UPLBEC 118 has
held that land acquisition act is itself a self
contained code. Any other provision
providing for further benefit has not been
9 All. Sri Mahesh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
415
mentioned in the Land Acquisition Act. In
that case the petitioner had claimed
employment in the State Government over
and above the compensation paid which the
Court declined. The paragraph 22 of the
aforesaid judgement is reproduced below
hereinbelow :-

"22. There is no provision under the
Land Acquisition Act under which the
Circular dated 28.12.1974 could be issued.
Whatever compensation has to be given for
acquisition of the land is provided under the
Land Acquisition Act itself which is a selfcontained Code. Any G.O. providing for any
further benefit not mentioned in the Land
Acquisition Act would be inconsistent with the
intention of Parliament as contained in the
Land Acquisition Act. Hence any such GO.
would be violative of the Land Acquisition Act
and would hence be invalid. Such a G.O. will
also violate Article 16 of the Constitution as
already mentioned above."

17. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, we are of the view that the
petitioners are not entitled to the benefits
claimed by them in the present writ
petition. The case of the petitioners is not at
all covered by the Full Bench judgement of
Gajraj Singh and others (supra). After
going
through
the
entire
facts
and
circumstances of the case as well as the law
laid down by this Court, we are of the
opinion that the order dated 06.9.2019
passed by the respondent no.3 is absolutely
perfect and valid order and does not call for
any interference by this Court specially
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. It is further clear on the facts as
narrated above that the petitioners have
neither any legal right nor any factual
foundation to claim the relief of additional
compensation as well as allotment of
additional developed abadi land.

18. The writ petition is devoid of
merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2020)09ILR A415
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.04.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.

WRIT - C No. 6532 of 2006
&
WRIT - C No. 15174 of 2012
&
WRIT - C No. 1877 of 2012
&
WRIT - C No. 1873 of 2012

Sri Mahesh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Pankaj Dubey, Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi, Sri
Pranjal Mehrotra, Sri R. Venkatramani, Sri
S.K. Mishra, Sri Satish Chaturvedi, Usha
Kiran, Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, Sri M.C.
Chaturvedi, Sri Anurag Khanna

A. Civil Law - Land Acquisition Act (1 of
1894) - Section 4 - Acquisition of land -
Challenge - Ground - land acquired for a
private
company
but
mandatory
procedure of Chapter VII r.w. Rules 1963
not followed - Held - Land acquired at the
instance of State Industrial Development
Corporation
Limited
(UPSIDCL)
which
forwarded land to Ambuja Cement Ltd (R5)- UPSIDCL, incorporated under Act as a
State Government company-its objective
to
acquire
land,
allot
land
to
entrepreneurs
for
promoting
industrialization
in
State-R-5
set
up
industrial unit for contributing to Govt.