# Ravindra Kumar Verma & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 653
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-04
- **Case number:** Writ -C No. 11305 of 2018
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, Brij Raj Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravindra-kumar-verma-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51320
- **Pages:** 46

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 4, 6, 9,
117(1) & 117(6) - U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 -Rule 26 -
U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Sections
28, 32 & 33 - Petitioners houses and
adjacent lands stood on land recorded as
Abadi in Category 6(2) under Para A-124
of Uttar Pradesh Lands Records Manual
since time of their forefathers - Presumed
that houses and adjacent lands were
settled with respective occupiers of land
in terms of Section 9, and consequently,
occupiers became owners of said land -
Petitioners asserted that resumption of
land, virtually amounts to acquiring land
654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of petitioners by administrative order -
Petitioners
contended
that
St.
Government has no power to resume land
and can be acquired as per relevant laws
after paying proper compensation. (Para
2, 4)

Held,
no
document
produced
by
petitioners which shows that property in
question for which they are seeking
benefit u/s 9 was lawfully held by them or
their predecessors-in-interest and also
certain buildings were existing on date of
vesting - Copies of Parivar Register filed
for some of petitioners cannot be relied
upon as Parivar Register came to be
maintained after coming into operation of
U.P. Panchayat Raj Maintenance of Parivar
Register Rules, 1970. (Para 75)

From revenue records it was clear that
said land has been recorded as Sarvajanik
Abadi since 1359 Fasli under Category
6(2) i.e. a Government land, also clear by
Section 4 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, i.e after
abolition of Zamindari, falls within area of
eSt. covered by notification u/s 4 and
vested in St. free from all encumbrances.
(Para 81)

Petitioners are simply encroachers over
Government Abadi land and their status
was no more than that of an encroacher -
Benefit of Section 9 can be claimed only in
respect of such buildings as were in
existence on date of vesting and any
building, constructed later on, cannot be
held to be settled with its owner, occupier
etc. - Being owner and rightful title-holder
of land, St. Government has power to
resume land in terms of section 117(6).
(Para 93, 96)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,902 of 148,946. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39902 for what follows._

12 All. Ravindra Kumar Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
653
14. Similar view has been taken in
Smt. Shivanit Chaurasia & Another vs.
State of U.P. & Another reported in 2024
AIR(All) 180. The relevant paragraph '7' is
quoted below:-

"7. From an overview of
the judgments cited above, it is
clear that the Collector (Stamp)
cannot recall and/or review his own
order as no such power has been
conferred under Section 47-A of
the Act. A quasi-judicial authority
is limited in its functionality in as
much as it has to act within the four
corners of the statute from which it
derives its authority. If the statute
does not provide for a particular
act, the same cannot be undertaken
by that authority. Any such action
taken de hors the legislative intent
would amount to an overreach and
beyond the power of the said
authority".

15. It is well settled law that quasi
judicial authority has no right or authority
to review its own order unless it is
expressly conferred by the Statute itself. In
the present case, there is no provision of
review under the Forest Act. The orders
impugned dated 6.2.2023, 13.2.2023 and
22.2.2023 that are passed by respondent
no.2 reviewing its own order is without
jurisdiction. The impugned orders are liable
to be set aside.

16. The writ petition succeeds and
is allowed. The impugned orders dated
6.2.203, 13.2.2-23 and 22.2.2023 passed by
respondent no.2 are quashed and set aside.

17. However, it is open for the
State respondents to challenge the order
dated 7.12.2022 passed by respondent no.2
before the appropriate forum under Section
17 of Forest Act. If any appeal is filed by
the State respondent under Section 17 of
the Forest Act within a period of two
months from date, the same shall be
decided on merits without raising any
objection regarding limitation.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 653
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Writ -C No. 11305 of 2018
With
Writ-C Nos. 24819 of 2020, 304 of 2021 &
19485 of 2021

Ravindra Kumar Verma & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Manoj Kumar Gupta, Gajendra Yadav, Manish
Mani Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Atul Kumar Dwivedi, Manish Kumar

Civil Law - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 4, 6, 9,
117(1) & 117(6) - U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 -Rule 26 -
U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Sections
28, 32 & 33 - Petitioners houses and
adjacent lands stood on land recorded as
Abadi in Category 6(2) under Para A-124
of Uttar Pradesh Lands Records Manual
since time of their forefathers - Presumed
that houses and adjacent lands were
settled with respective occupiers of land
in terms of Section 9, and consequently,
occupiers became owners of said land -
Petitioners asserted that resumption of
land, virtually amounts to acquiring land
654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of petitioners by administrative order -
Petitioners
contended
that
St.
Government has no power to resume land
and can be acquired as per relevant laws
after paying proper compensation. (Para
2, 4)

Held,
no
document
produced
by
petitioners which shows that property in
question for which they are seeking
benefit u/s 9 was lawfully held by them or
their predecessors-in-interest and also
certain buildings were existing on date of
vesting - Copies of Parivar Register filed
for some of petitioners cannot be relied
upon as Parivar Register came to be
maintained after coming into operation of
U.P. Panchayat Raj Maintenance of Parivar
Register Rules, 1970. (Para 75)

From revenue records it was clear that
said land has been recorded as Sarvajanik
Abadi since 1359 Fasli under Category
6(2) i.e. a Government land, also clear by
Section 4 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, i.e after
abolition of Zamindari, falls within area of
eSt. covered by notification u/s 4 and
vested in St. free from all encumbrances.
(Para 81)

Petitioners are simply encroachers over
Government Abadi land and their status
was no more than that of an encroacher -
Benefit of Section 9 can be claimed only in
respect of such buildings as were in
existence on date of vesting and any
building, constructed later on, cannot be
held to be settled with its owner, occupier
etc. - Being owner and rightful title-holder
of land, St. Government has power to
resume land in terms of section 117(6).
(Para 93, 96)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Committee of Management, Durga Narayan
College and Aditya Kumari School & anr. Vs St.
of U.P. & ors. reported in 2018 (140) RD 510

2. U.P. St. Sugar Corporation Ltd. Vs Deputy
Director of Consolidation & ors. 2000 (2) SCC
572

3. Budhan Singh Vs Nabi Bux, AIR 1970 SC
1880, (Para 11)

4. Sheo Amber Singh Vs Allahabad Bank Ltd.
Allahabad, 1962 (2) SCR 441

5. Pheku Chamar & ors. Vs Chandra & ors., AIR
1953 All 406, (Para 10)

6. St. of U.P. Vs Ram Shri & ors., AIR 1976 All
121, (Para 22), First Appeal No. 392 of 1964
decided on 23.05.1975

7. Maharaj Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., AIR 1976
SC 2602

8. Fruit and Vegetables Merchants Union Vs
Delhi Improvement Trust, 1957 SCR 1, (Para 19)

9. Rajendra Tyagi & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2016 131 RD 243, (Para 9)

10. Committee of Management, Imambara
Qadeem & ors. Vs U.O.I.& ors., 2022 157 RD204

11. Durga Narain College and Adity Kumari
School Vs St. of U.P., 2018 (140) RD 510

12. U.P. St. Sugar Corp. Ltd. Vs Deputy Director
of Consolidation & ors., 2000(2) SCC 572

13. Basti Ram Vs Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad &
ors., 1999 (90) RD 636

14. Sudesh Pal & ors. Vs St. of UP & ors.,
Second Appeal No. 487 of 2013 reported in
2013 (5) ALJ 690

15. Chandrajit Vs Baliram (dead) & ors., Second
Appeal No. 251 of 2019 (Neutral Citation 2019:
AHC: 193076)

16. Phool Singh & anr. Vs Board of Revenue
through Member Judicial, Writ Petition No.
26078 (MS) of 2017 (Neutral Citation 2019:
AHC- Lucknow-28181)
12 All. Ravindra Kumar Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
655
17. Masroor Ahmed & ors. Vs Deputy Director of
Consolidation & ors., Writ-B No. 55259 of 2017
(Neutral citation 2017: AHC: 179434)

18. Bharat & anr. Vs Chaudhary Khazan Singh &
anr., AIR 1958 Allahabad 332

19. Krishena Kumar Vs U.O.I., 1990 (4) SCC
481, (Para 19 and 20)

20. Islamic Academy of Education Vs St. of
Karn., 2002 (8) SCC 481

21. Padma Sundara Rao Vs St. of T.N., 2002 (3)
SCC 533

22. Haryana St. Financial Corporation Vs
Jagdamba Oil Mills, 2002 (3) SCC 496

23. Sanjay Singh Vs Uttar Pradesh Public Service
Commission, Allahabad; (2007) 3 SCC 720

24. Royal Medical Trust & ors. Vs U.O.I., (2015)
10 SCC 19

25. Quinn Vs Leathem 1901 AC 495: (1900-03)
ALL ER Rep 1 (HL)

26. U.O.I.& ors. Vs Dhanwanti Devi & ors.,
(1996) 6 SCC 44

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

1. We have heard Sri R. S. Pande,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Ankit Pande alongwith Shri Manish Mani
Sharma, Shri Mohammad Yusuf Siddiqui,
Ms. Pooja Devi, Shri Virendra Bhatt, Shri
Gajendra Yadav and Shri Manoj Kumar
Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in all these writ petitions
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Sri Atul Kumar Dwivedi,
learned counsel for the N.T.P.C. and Sri
Manish Mishra, learned Additional Chief
Standing
Counsel
for
the
State
Respondents.
2. All the four writ petitions have
been taken up together as they chellenge a
common order of Resumption passed by
the Commisioner Faizabad Division, dated
21.02.2013 and related to land recorded as
Category 6(2) Abadi and Para A-124 of the
Uttar Pradesh Land Records Manual in
three
villages
of
Salahpur
Rajor,
Hussainpur and Hasanpur Sudhana in
Tehsil- Tanda, District- Ambedkar Nagar.
The said land has been resumed for the
purpose of setting up second unit of 660
Megawatts of Tanda Thermal Power Plant
by National Thermal Power Corporation
(hereinafter referred to as NTPC).

3. For the convenience of
exposition, this judgment is divided into the
following parts:

Sl
No.
Particulars
I.
Case of Petitioners in Nutshell
II.
Details of the Writ Petitions
III.
Counter Affidavits of State
Government
and
National
Thermal Power Corporation
(NTPC)
IV.
Submissions of the Parties
V.
Statutory Provisions
VI.
Earlier Pronouncements
VII.
Points for determination-

A. What was vested in State of
U.P. under Section 4(1) of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act of 1950?

B. Effect of further vesting in
the Gaon Sabha in terms of
section 117(1) of the U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Act of 1950 and
resumption of the land by the
State
Government
under
section 117(6);
656 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
C. To what extent benefit can
be availed under section 9 of
Act 1950;

D. Meaning of word "held"
given in Section 9 of the Act
1950;

E. To Whom Burden of Proof
Lies for seeking Benefit of
section 9 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act;

F. Relevance of Khasra (P-A-3)
and
Khatauni
(P-A-11)
prepared under Section 28 and
Section 32, 33 of the Land
Revenue
Act,
1901
and
Paragraphs A-60 to A-102 and
A-121 to A-160 of the UP
Land
Records
Manual
respectively;

G.
Validity
of
order
of
Resumption, dated 21.01.2013
passed under Section 117 (6) of
the
Act,
1950,
by
Commissioner
Faizabad
Division,
over
the
Land
recorded
as
Abadi
under
Category 6(2) of Paragraph A124 of the Uttar Pradesh Land
Records Manual

H. Government cannot and
does not acquire its own land,
only resumption can be done in
terms of section 117(6) of the
Act, 1950 because right, title
and ownership still continues
with the State.
VIII.
Applicability of Durga Narain
College and Adity Kumari
School v. State of U.P., 2018
(140) RD 510 in the present
case
IX.
Doctrine of Precedents and
their binding efficacy
X.
Conclusion

I. Case of Petitioners in Nutshell

4. In a nutshell, the case of the
petitioners is that their houses and adjacent
lands had stood on the land recorded as
Abadi in Category 6(2) under Para A-124
of the Uttar Pradesh Lands Records Manual
since
the
time
of
their
forefathers.
Therefore, it would be presumed that the
houses and adjacent lands were settled with
the respective occupiers of the land in
terms of section 9 of the Act, 1950. The
assertion of the Petitioners is that the
resumption of land, virtually amounts to
acquiring the land of the petitioners by an
administrative order. A further assertion is
that once houses of the petitioners are
standing thereon since the time of their
forefathers, it would be deemed that the
houses and appurtenant land had been settled
with the respective occupiers in terms of
Section 9 of the Act, 1950, and consequently,
the occupiers had become owners of said
land. Hence, the Commissioner Faizabad
Division, has no power to resume the land
regardless of whether said land has been
consistently recorded as Abadi in Category
6(2) of Para A-124 of the Uttar Pradesh
Lands Records Manual. An argument has
also been raised by the Counsel of the
Petitioners that the State Government has no
power to resume the land. It can only be
acquired by the State Government as per
existing relevant provisions and laws after
paying proper compensation.

II. Details of the Writ Petitions

5. The Writ Petition No.11305
(MB) of 2018 has been filed by Ravindra
12 All. Ravindra Kumar Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
657
Kumar Verma and four others praying
for quashing of the order dated 21.02.2013
contained in Annexure-2 to the petition
passed by the Commissioner Faizabad
Division. It is the contention of the
petitioners
that their predecessors
in
interest had filed Writ Petition No.28923
(LA) of 2016, praying for mandamus to be
issued to the respondents to pay fair and
proper compensation to the petitioners
within
a
specified
time
frame
for
acquisition of their land and houses in
terms of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency and Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013
(hereafter referred to as the 'Act of 2013'),
and other consequential prayers. The said
petition was dismissed on 09.01.2018 with
the observation that the petitioners have
remedy to claim compensation under the
1894 Act and since the acquisition
proceedings have not been challenged the
question of making a direction for payment
of compensation under the New Act of
2013 did not arise. After such order was
passed, the petitioners came to know that
the land on which their houses were
standing was resumed under Section 117(6)
of the Act, 1950 by an order passed by the
Commissioner Faizabad Division dated
21.02.2013. The Commissioner Faizabad
Division by the impugned Notification
resumed the land of several plots recorded
under category 6(2) of Para A-124 of the
U.P. Land Records Manual relating to
village Salahpur Rajor, Tehsil Tanda
Ambedkar Nagar, and the Abadi land of the
petitioners is mentioned in the order as
Gata Nos. 86, 87, 206, 275, 276, 277, 332,
364, 370, 390 and 391; which related to
village Abadi had the houses of the
petitioners are standing thereon since the
time of their forefathers. It has been
mentioned in the petition that initially a
notification under Section 4 read with
Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act
1894 was issued on 07.09.2009 and the
declaration and Section 6 was published on
14.07.2010, acquiring certain land, for the
establishment of a power station by the
National Thermal
Power
Corporation,
Tanda
Ambedkar
Nagar
(arrayed
as
respondents Nos.5 and 6). Later on, the
impugned order has been issued by the
Commissioner
on
21.02.2013,
under
Section 117(6) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act,
intending to resume Abadi land of the
Village Salahpur Rajor. It has also been
averred that the land situated in the village
of the petitioners was vested in the the
Gaon
Sabha
Salahpur
Rajor
by
a
notification issued under Section 117(1) of
the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act on 05.09.1986,
and resumption has been made without
amending or cancelling the said order. It
has also been stated that on 29.03.2015, a
Government Order was issued by the State
to give compensation under, the New Act
of 2013, in pursuance of which a Highlevel meeting was held on 07.08.2015,
where it was decided that only One Time
Settlement amount will be given to the
petitioners and no other amount shall be
given in relation to land which was being
resumed. It has also been stated that the
petitioners
have
not
received
any
compensation till date. Hence the instant
petition
has
been
filed
praying
for
compensation in terms of the New Act of
2013. It appears that no interim order was
granted in the said writ petition and it
remained pending.

6. The Writ Petition No. Writ-C -
24819 of 2020 Ved Prakash and Another
versus State of U.P. & others, has been
filed challenging the notification dated
21.2.2013 issued by the Commissioner
Faizabad Division in so far as it related to
the petitioners building/house and land
658 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appurtenant thereto in Abadi Plot No.364
Ga, situated in village Salahpur Rajor,
Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar and also for
restraining
the
respondents
from
dispossessing
the
petitioners
and
demolishing their buildings in pursuance of
the impugned notification on the ground
that the house of the petitioners and the
land appurtenant thereto to stood settled in
favour of the petitioners under Section 9 of
the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as their house was
in existence much before the date of
vesting i.e. prior to 01.07.1952. It has been
alleged that Certificates have been issued
by the village Pradhan that the petitioners
were living in the village since the time of
their forefathers.

7. The Writ Petition No.19485
(MB) of 2021 filed by Shyam Lalli and 21
others, all residents of village Salahpur
Rajor and Hasanpur, Tehsil Tanda District
Ambedkar Nagar, praying for quashing of
resumption Notification dated 21.02.2013,
in so far as it related to their houses and
buildings, and lands, appurtenant thereto
situated on Plot Nos.119, 63, 58, in Village
Hasanpur and Plot Nos. 364 Ga, 332, 87
and 86 in village Salapur Rajor, and
praying for a mandamus to be issued to the
respondents not to demolish their houses. It
has been averred in the petition that the
petitioners were in use and occupation of
land of the said plots recorded as Abadi in
the two villages since the time of their
forefathers and such land on which the
houses were situated and other buildings
and the land appurtenant thereto should be
deemed as settled with them under Section
9 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and not vested
in the Gaon Sabha under Section 117(1) of
the Act.

8. An interim order was granted by
this Court on 16.12.2020 in this writ
petition the benefit of which was extended
in all other writ petitions as well.

9. The Writ Petition No. 304 (MB)
of 2021, which has been filed by Haseena
Khatoon along with 13 others praying for
quashing
of
the
Notification
dated
21.02.2013 issued by the Commissioner
Faizabad Division Under Section 117 (6) of
the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in so far as it
relates to the petitioners' houses and land
appurtenant thereto situated in village
Abadi Plot Nos. 50, 71, 69 Gha and 279
situated in village Husainpur Sudhana,
Tehsil Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar.
The petitioners have also prayed for a
mandamus to be issued to the respondents
not to demolish their houses and dispossess
them.

10. As all three writ petitions of
Ved Prakash, Shyam Lalli and Haseena
Khatun have been filed by the same
counsel, the pleadings are more or less the
same. It has been alleged that houses and
buildings which were constructed prior to
the aboltion of Zamindari had not been
vested in the State under Section 4 and
Section 6 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and
the same had been settled and vested with
the owners of such houses and buildings
along with land appurtenant thereto, under
Section 9 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act read
with Rule 26 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules,
1952. The Cousnel for the petitioners had
placed reliance upon judgements rendered
by
this
Court
in
Committee
of
Management, Durga Narayan College
and Aditya Kumari School and Another
Versus State of U.P. and Others reported
in 2018 (140) RD 510, and a judgement of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. State
Sugar Corporation Ltd. Vs. Deputy
Director of Consolidation and others 2000
(2) SCC 572.
12 All. Ravindra Kumar Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
659
III. Counter Affidavits of State
Government
and
National
Thermal
Power Corporation (NTPC)

11. In Writ Petition of Ravindra
Kumar Verma, the National Thermal Power
Corporation (hereinafter referred to as
"NTPC") was arrayed as a respondent.
However, in Writ Petitions filed on behalf
of Ved Prakash, Shyam Lalli and Haseena
Khatoon, NTPC was not arrayed as a
respondent and it filed application for
impleadment and application for vacation
of interim orders along with counter
affidavits
and
supplementary
counter
affidavits. The Court did not allow the
impleadment application but gave a right of
hearing as intervener to NTPC, who is
being represented by Sri Sudeep Seth,
learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri
Amit Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate.

12. Counter Affidavits have been
filed in all the four writ petitions by the
State Respondents, praying for vacation of
interim order dated 16.12.2020. In the
counter affidavit filed by the State
Respondent, the necessity for acquisition of
private land and resumption of Village
Abadi for expansion of the second stage of
the 1320 MW Thermal Power Station has
been mentioned. It has also been mentioned
that 271.949 hectares of private land of
different categories was acquired and
30.862 ha of Gram Samaj land, and 10.236
ha of Abadi land has been resumed. The
total land which was acquired/resumed
being 313.47 ha in Tehsil Tanda. In the
order dated 21.02.2013 Abadi land under
Category 6(2) was included from three
villages i.e. Salapur Rajor, Hasanpur and
Hussainpur Sudhana. The Abadi land was
evaluated at ₹3600 per square metre as per
Circle Rate prevalent in the year 2013 and
total compensation of ₹36.85,crore as
determined by the district administration
was deposited by the NTPC in the State
Treasury. A Committee for deciding on
compensation made a proposal which was
accepted by the State Cabinet. The
Government
directed
disbursal
of
compensation of ₹36.85 crores against
Abadi land to displaced persons as part of a
special welfare package. Out of the total
amount of ₹36.85 crores a sum of ₹23.20
crores has already been paid to the
displaced villagers. 12 plots recorded as
Abadi in village Salapur Rajor, total land
area measuring 2.560 ha, was resumed out
of which 1.847 ha has already been handed
over to NTPC. In Village Salapur Rajor, a
total of 123 properties were evaluated out
of which 99 property owners have
voluntarily vacated their land. On Gata No.
364Ga only 64 properties were located out
of which 48 properties have been vacated
after receipt of compensation. Besides
compensation being given at the rate of
₹3600 per square metre for land, which has
been resumed, an amount of ₹9 lakhs per
adult male member of a family having a
house on more than 200 m2 of land has also
been determined whereas a sum of ₹11.5
lakhs will be given to every adult male
member of a displaced family having land
more than 200 m2. Since the petitioners did
not give their consent for handing over
their land and house for the Project,
payment of price of land and compensation
to adult male members of their family
could also not be given.

13. In the affidavits filed by the
NTPC it was stated that for expansion of
NTPC Tanda Thermal Power Project
private land under different categories had
been acquired in three villages in Tehsil
Tanda earlier and later on Abadi land had
been
resumed
by
notification
dated
21.02.2013 and land had been handed over
660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to the NTPC Tanda. Being a beneficiary of
such order of resumption, it was a
necessary and proper party liable to be
impleaded as a Respondent. It was also
mentioned in such application that at
present, out of a total of 68 houses situated
in Plot No.364 Ga of village Salapur Rajor
48 house owners have taken compensation
and their houses have been dismantled.
Eight house owners have not taken
compensation. One house owner has taken
compensation, but his house could not be
dismantled. There are 11 more unmeasured
houses on the plot in question and the
village is situated in the middle of Tanda
Thermal Power Project and resumption has
been done to ensure safety of the people
living there and for sustainable operation of
the Power Plant.

14. The NTPC Tanda has brought
on record that in the village Salapur Rajor
out of 158 houses, 129 houses have been
dismantled for the second phase of NTPC
Tanda
Thermal
Power
Project
and
compensation to all such persons has also
been paid by NTPC. At the time of filing of
such affidavit in March 2021, only 29
houses remained to be evaluated. NTPC
has paid the amount towards compensation,
including One Time Settlement to all adult
male members of each family, whose house
has been dismantled. The land is being
utilised for construction of two Units of
660 MW, out of which one Unit has already
been commissioned and is in operation and
the second Unit is being constructed. Out
of the total power generated from Tanda
Power Plant 76.47% will be supplied to the
State of U.P. The villagers need to be
immediately evacuated to ensure their
safety and security. It has also been stated
that the petitioners have failed to place on
record any material to establish their
possession of Abadi plot No. 364 Ga in the
village before the date of vesting. It has
also been stated that in Writ Petition
No.24819 (M/B) of 2020, the petitioner
no.1 Ved Prakash is not entitled to file the
writ petition as in Regular Suit No. 433 of
1983, Ram and others versus Ram Kishore
and others, the Petitioner No.1 Ved Prakash
had filed a written statement and admitted
on affidavit that on the basis of a mutual
agreement, the said Ved Prakash has
abandoned his share in the village Salapur
Rajor in favour of his other family
members. Hence, in so far as Petitioner
No.1 is concerned, the petition is not
maintainable.

15. In the counter affidavit filed by
the State Respondents and the NTPC in all
four writ petitions similar averments have
been made regarding no documentary
evidence being available of the petitioners
houses standing on the village Abadi land
since before 01.07.1952. It has also been
stated that the land of Hasanpur Sudhana
has been utilised for construction of 660
MW Thermal Power Plant and the land
occupied by the petitioners houses is
situated in the middle of the area marked
for Ash Dyke-II of the said Power Plant.
Physical
identification
of
the
houses/structures standing on village Abadi
had been carried out in 2014 and 2015
itself and the petitioners contention that
they came to know about the land having
been resumed only in September 2020 has
been disputed as false.

16. In the Rejoinder Affidavit filed
by the petitioners copies of Parivar Register
of only some of the petitioners showing
that they were living in the village since
very long have been filed.

17. An application for vacation of
interim order has also been filed by NTPC,
12 All. Ravindra Kumar Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
661
where it has been stated that the petitioners
have not approached the court with clean
hands and have intentionally not disclosed
that identification of buildings/houses over
the plots in question had been carried out in
2014 and 2015, and that a large numbers of
villagers have already taken compensation
and
vacated
the
houses
and
have
misrepresented their case before the Court,
saying that they came to know of the
resumption order only in October 2020.
The land that has been resumed has been
handed over to the NTPC for the Second
Phase of expansion of the Tanda Thermal
Power Project and compensation has also
been paid by the NTPC yet intentionally, it
has not been arrayed as a Respondent,
although it is a necessary and proper party.
The claim of the petitioners regarding land
on which their houses stand having been
settled with them under Section 9 of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been disputed on
the ground that no documentary evidence
has been filed by the petitioners to show
that their houses existed prior to the date of
vesting. Resettlement and Rehabilitation
Policy was drafted by the NTPC as per
guidelines issued from time to time by the
State
Government
and
the
Central
Government and the same was approved by
the State Cabinet. Not only has the NTPC
provided
monetary
compensation
as
aforesaid,
resettlement
measures
like
training for self-employment, community
development, allotment of shops, and
welfare
activities
has
also
been
implemented for which an institutional
mechanism
has
been
created
for
monitoring. A copy of the Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Policy dated 12.01.2014
has been filed as C.A.-1 to the Counter
Affidavit. The petitioners and similarly
situated persons, who can at best be said to
be encroachers on village Abadi land, have
been given four benefits, the cost of the
land, the cost of the construction standing
thereon including trees, etc., and also ₹9
lakhs or ₹11.5 lakhs as the case may be for
each adult male member of the family of
Homestead
Oustees
(HSO)
as
on
21.02.2013, the date of the order of
resumption has also been given. The rate of
the compensation for the land was
determined by the State Government as per
the Circle Rate prevalent at the time for the
three villages concerned. Out of a total of
1238 HSO, 433 are similarly situated as the
petitioners who are encroachers on Abadi
land. Out of them 372 persons have already
entered into an agreement and have taken
the compensation amount. It has also been
stated that out of the 1238 HSOs, 793
persons have entered into agreement and
have
all
got
compensation.
The
compensation provided to Home Stead
Oustees on the basis of Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Policy in pursuance of the
resumption order 21.2.2013, is much more
than what the petitioners would have been
entitled
to
in
case
of
compulsory
acquisition. A comparative calculation chart
has been filed as Annexure to the Counter
Affidavit. It has also been stated that out of
116 houses situated in village Abadi of
Salapur Rajor,93 have been dismantled.

18. In another application filed for
vacation of interim order in April 2023, the
NTPC has mentioned that the land of
village Hussainpur Sudhana is situated in
the middle of Ash Dyke-II A and the
construction of the Lagoon has been
stopped due to interim order operating in
favour of the petitioner since 08.01.2021.
The project cost of construction of the Ash
Dyke is ₹139 crores, which has to be
completed in May 2019 but was delayed by
34 months, and it is causing huge loss to
the NTPC. Also, the presence of the
petitioners within the campus of the Tanda
662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Power Project is a big industrial hazard,
posing a threat to the petitioners as well as
Manpower engaged in the running of the
Power Plant and the public at large,
specially in the case of an industrial
accident and/or sabotage. The Power Plant
in question is a national asset built with
thousands of crores of rupees, and the
presence of the petitioners in the middle of
the Project poses a threat to the Power
Plant and its machinery as well. Copies of
photographs showing location of the houses
protected by interim order of the Court
have been filed as annexures to the
Affidavit filed in support of application for
vacation of interim order. It has also been
said that without the availability of Ash
Dyke-IIA in time, the operation of the
power plant will also not be feasible. In the
counter affidavit of the Respondents it has
been stated that in village Hasanpur, there
were a total of 37 houses which were being
affected by the resumption notification and
31 house owners have taken compensation
and their houses had been dismantled.

19. However, the interim order
granted earlier continued to be extended
from time to time and on 24 July 2023, all
four petitions were taken up together, and
this Court passed an order referring the
matter to Mediation and Conciliation
Centre so that the parties can take a chance
to get the issues resolved amicably. A
Direction was issued that one petitioner
representing all petitioners in each of the
four petitions should take part in the
mediation
proceedings
along
with
Additional District Magistrate, District
Ambedkar Nagar, and Head of the Police
Station NTPC Tanda, or any other officer
nominated by him should also participate.
The lawyers representing the parties would
also be allowed to participate in the
mediation process by the mediators if they
feel it to be necessary. The NTPC was
directed to bear the expenses of to and fro
journey to be undertaken by the petitioners
on each day of mediation and also for other
miscellaneous expenses incurred by them.
The matter was directed to be listed on
05.09.2023 along with the mediation report
before the Court. Status report of Mediation
and Conciliation Centre dated 04.09.2023
was submitted thereafter. There is another
Mediator's report January 2024, which was
also
placed
on
record.
From
such
Mediation Reports it is evident that the
mediation proceedings failed. The matter
continued to be listed on various dates
thereafter.

20. An application for disposal of
Stay Vacation Application on behalf of the
State Respondents has also been filed in
July 2024, where it has been stated that
various benefits have been given to the
petitioners / residents of the three villages
of which land has been resumed for the
Second Stage of NTPC Power Plant at
Tanda. More than 78% of the land and 82%
of the houses have been vacated in the
three villages. In respect of the three
villages, out of 445 land owners, 398 have
received compensation in lieu of the land.
Out of 708 property owners, 623 have
received compensation in lieu of property.
Out of a 389 houses, 320 have been
dismantled and only 69 houses/Hutments
are remaining. The Land in Hussainpur
Sudhna is required for completion of Ash
Dyke-IIA
which
is
presently
lying
incomplete. "Ash Dyke" is a huge pond
required for storage of ash generated after
coal is burnt in boilers. The bottom ash
(portion of ash that drops in hoppers after
coal
burning)
is
disposed/transported
through a pipeline in the form of a slurry to
the Ash Dyke in the pond. The ash is then
deposited in the Ash bed, and the water is
12 All. Ravindra Kumar Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
663
recycled for use. Hence, the bed of ash is a
marshy land mass having huge water
storage. The Ash Dyke is an essential
requirement of a Coal based Thermal
Power Plant and currently Ash Dyke IIB is
being operated and Ash Dyke IIA will be
required for continuous running of the
thermal Power Plant in the near future.
Village Hussainpur Sudhana is located
inside the site under construction for Ash
Dyke Lagoon IIA. Since the interim order
is operating, and habitation is situated
within the area required for construction of
Ash Dyke-IIA, it would be difficult to run
the Power Plant in the near future. Also,
there is a great risk to life, health, and
security of the petitioners as well as to the
security of the Power Plant. The State
Respondents have to deploy additional
security of CISF personnel. The petitions
that are pending before this Court with
interim orders relate to only 2.204 ha of
total 313.047 ha land acquired/resumed for
NTPC Tanda Stage-II i.e. approximately
0.7% of the total area. The total estimated
project completion cost in 2014-15 was
9,188.98 crores, but due to inordinate delay
because of Interim Order operating in
favour of the writ petitioners, the Project
cost has escalated to more than 101,016.10
crores in January 2024.

21. It has also been stated that the
additional
expenditure
incurred
in
completion of Stage-II shall be treated as
"Fixed Cost of Energy" and a proportionate
rise in price of Electricity will be passed on
to the consumers.

22. It has been stated that out of
123 houses of village Salapur Rajor 110
house owners have given their consent and
their houses have been dismantled and out
of ₹53.30 crores that has been determined
as compensation for the three villages
where land has been resumed, ₹48.39
crores has already been disbursed to the
claimants. It has also been stated that the
land of village Hasanpur has about 16
structures still standing over Abadi land
which has been resumed and the petitioners
are living in the middle of the Power Plant
and separate passage has been given to
them
for
ingress/
egress
severely
compromising the safety and security not
only of the Power Plant, but also of the
petitioners. The access road provided to the
villagers
is
passing
through
the
construction
area
of
the
Flu
Gas
Desulphurisation System, where movement
of heavy construction machinery like
cranes, trailers, and other equipment is
taking place all the time having a potential
of accident being caused to freely roaming
villagers. The Human habitation including
children, ladies, and cattle is situated
dangerously close to high risk machinery
and chemicals, as the Power Plant is in
operation and Transformers, live High
Voltage
wires,
Boilers,
Flue
Gas
Desulphurisation
System,
and
other
machinery along with hazardous substances
and chemicals, low density diesel, and
petroleum products, coal etc. is stored in
the Plant area. Also, the Power Plant has an
installed capacity of 1760 MW and caters
to the electricity requirement of North India
and is connected to the National Grid and
any malfunction in the same can lead to
Grid
failure
and
major
industrial
catastrophe and loss of life and property.

IV. Submissions of the Parties

23. Learned counsel for both sides
have argued the matter in detail. The
learned Senior Counsel Dr. Ram Surat
Pandey for the petitioners strenuously
argued his case mainly on the strength of
the decision rendered by this Court in the
664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case of Durga Narain College and Adity
Kumari School v. State of U.P.9. He
strongly assailed the order of the the
Commissioner
Faizabad
Division,
Faizabad, dated 21.02.2013, passed under
Section 117(6) of the Act, 1950 and urged
that authority has possessed of any
jurisdiction to pass the impugned order
dated 21.02.2013 which virtually amounts
to acquiring the land of the petitioners by
an administrative order. He further urged
that the property in dispute never vested in
the Gaon Sabha in terms of Section 117(1)
of the Act so as to be amenable to resumption
under Section 117(6) of the Act. Being a
building, the property in dispute had been
settled with the forefathers of the petitioners.
The Counsel for the Petitioners next contended
that once houses are standing on the said land
since the time of their forefathers and,
therefore, such land on which the houses were
situated and other buildings and the land
appurtenant thereto should be deemed as
settled with them under Section 9 of the Act,
1950 and not vested in the Gaon Sabha under
Section 117(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Gaon
Sabha cannot be divested of the same under
Section 117 (6) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act by
the State Government by issuance of the
impugned order of resumption. He further
urged that houses/ buildings which were
constructed prior to the abolition of Zamindari
had not been vested in the State under Sections
4 and 6 of the Act, 1950 and the same had
been settled and vested with the owners of
such houses and buildings along with land
appurtenant there to, under Section 9 of the
Act, 1950 read with Rule 26 of the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Rules 1952, irrespective of the said land
has consistently been recorded as Abadi in
Category 6(2) of Para A-124 of the Uttar
Pradesh Lands Records Manual.

24. The Counsel for the State
respondent and National Thermal Power
Corporation (NTPC) have vehemently
argued that no documentary evidence is
available to show the houses were standing
on the village Abadi land since before or
after
the
date
of
vesting,
i.e.,
on
01.07.1952. They further stated that these
houses were constructed much later after
abolition
of
Zamindari
Act,
1950.
Therefore, the benefit of section 9 of the
ZA Act cannot be extended to petitioners.
The benefit of section 9 can be given only
to those houses that were standing on the
date of vesting. They further contended that
the intention of the legislature is very clear
and provides for the settlement of lawfully
standing wells or buildings with the
existing owners or occupiers thereof on the
land in question on the date of vesting, i.e.,
1st of July 1952.

25. We have considered the
submissions of the learned Counsel for the
parties and have perused the records.

V. Statutory Provisions

26. "Section 4-Vesting of estate in
the State. --(1) As soon as may be after the
commencement of this Act, the State
Government may, by notification, declare
that, as from a date to be specified, all
estates situate in Uttar Pradesh shall vest
in the State and as from the beginning of
the date so specified (hereinafter called the
date of vesting), all such estates shall stand
transferred
to
and
vest,
except
as
hereinafter provided, in the State free from
all encumbrances.

(2) It shall be lawful for the
State Government, if it so considers
necessary to issue, from time to
time, the notification referred to in
sub-section (1) in respect only of
such area or areas as may be
12 All. Ravindra Kumar Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.