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

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 103
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-12
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 7517 of 2020
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satish-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47662
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Sri
Ramendra
Pratap
Singh,
Anjali
Upadhya, Sri A.K. Ray, C.S.C., Sri Hare
Ram Tripathi, S.C.

A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections
4(1), 6(1), 11(2) & 17 - Acquisition for
planned industrial development - Benefit
of Additional compensation of 64.70% -
Entitlement - Claim prior Gajraj's decision
and post Gajraj decision, how far affect
entitlement
-
Held,
the
benefit
of
additional compensation to the tune of
64.70% of the awarded compensation
besides allotment of 10% Abadi land to
the oustees, is confined to landholders
who were before the Court in Gajraj and
not those who staked their claim post
decision in Gajraj - The benefit cannot be
extended to the fence-sitters, who now
raise claims for additional compensation -
Ashok Kumar's case and Savitri Devi's
case relied upon. (Para 11 and 14)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

10 All. Satish Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
103
the applicant has not travelled abroad for
the period sanctioned by the court; and
provided further that, in the meantime, the
order of the court is not cancelled or
modified;

(c) any passport issued in terms
of a(i) above can be further renewed only
on the basis of a fresh court order
specifying a further period of validity of the
passport or specifying a period for travel
abroad;

(d) the said citizen shall give an
undertaking in writing to the passport
issuing authority that he shall, if required
by the court concerned, appear before it at
any time during the continuance in force of
the passport so issued".

5. In the present case, however,
personal liberty of the petitioner is the
subject matter of consideration in the
aforesaid writ petition wherein the arrest of
the petitioner has been stayed pending
investigation. The issuance of passport is a
part and parcel of personal liberty protected
under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India.

6. The petitioner is at liberty to make an
application in the pending writ petition and in
case any such application is made the same
may be dealt with in accordance with law.
However, the writ petition cannot be
entertained as an independent cause for the
relief sought herein particularly when the
legality of Section 6(2)(f) remains intact in
view of the judgment rendered by Delhi High
Court in Writ Petition(c) 1524 of 2015;
Prashant Bhushan versus Union of India
and another which we are in agreement with.

7. The writ petition is accordingly
disposed of with the liberty open to the
petitioner.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 103
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ-C No. 7517 of 2020

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Uma Nath Pandey, Sri D.K. Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri
Ramendra
Pratap
Singh,
Anjali
Upadhya, Sri A.K. Ray, C.S.C., Sri Hare
Ram Tripathi, S.C.

A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections
4(1), 6(1), 11(2) & 17 - Acquisition for
planned industrial development - Benefit
of Additional compensation of 64.70% -
Entitlement - Claim prior Gajraj's decision
and post Gajraj decision, how far affect
entitlement
-
Held,
the
benefit
of
additional compensation to the tune of
64.70% of the awarded compensation
besides allotment of 10% Abadi land to
the oustees, is confined to landholders
who were before the Court in Gajraj and
not those who staked their claim post
decision in Gajraj - The benefit cannot be
extended to the fence-sitters, who now
raise claims for additional compensation -
Ashok Kumar's case and Savitri Devi's
case relied upon. (Para 11 and 14)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Gajraj & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2011 (11)
ADJ 1 (FB)
2. Savitri Devi Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; (2015) 7
SCC 21
104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. Writ C No. 14113 of 2017; Runwell India Pvt.
Ltd. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided on 31.05.2022
4. Writ C No. 32969 of 2021; Ashok Kumar &
ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided on 03.03.2022
5. Writ C No. 7938 of 2012; Jai Pal & ors. Vs St.
of U.P. & ors. decided on 21.05.2014
6. Khatoon & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (2018)
14 SCC 346
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.
&
Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

ORDER

1. The petitioner challenges the order
dated 30.10.2019 passed by the Chief
Executive
Officer,
NOIDA,
refusing
additional compensation for his acquired
land, claimed on the basis of a right
hereinafter detailed.

2. The petitioner's land comprising
Khasra No. 545 admeasuring 7-14-15
situate in village Tugalpur, Pargana Dadari,
Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Buddh Nagar
was proposed to be acquired by the State
Government vide notification issued under
Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ''the
Act')
dated
September
9,
1997.
A
declaration under Section 6 read with
Section 17 (1) of the Act dated October 9,
1998 followed. The acquired land of
Khasra No. 545 (supra) shall hereinafter be
referred to as ''the land in dispute'.

3. The land in dispute was acquired
according to the notification under Section
4(1) and the declaration under Section 6(1)
for the purpose of "planned industrial
development" for Greater Noida Industrial
Development Authority. Besides the land
in dispute, lands of other tenure holders of
village Tugalpur were also acquired.
Award in respect of the acquired land in the
village including the land in dispute was
pronounced on March 31st, 2010 under
Section
11(2)
of
the
Act.
After
pronouncement of the award, compensation
for individual tenure holders has been
drawn up in Form 11, which includes
compensation for the land in dispute.

4. Number of notifications relating to
different villages within the development
area
of
Greater
Noida
Industrial
Development Authority and the New Okhla
Industrial Development Authority were
challenged before this Court. One of the
challenge that was laid by the landholders
related to village Patwari. Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No.17068 of 2009, Har Karan
Singh vs. State of U.P. and others was
filed relating to the subject acquisition in
village Patwari. The writ petition aforesaid,
along with connected writ petitions, also
relating to the same village, were allowed
and the acquisition notifications quashed.

5. Later on, a Division Bench of this
Court, hearing a challenge to the same
notifications dated March 12, 2008 and
June 30, 2008 that was in issue in Har
Karan Singh's case (supra) in Writ
Petition No. 37443 of 2011, Gajraj and
others vs. State of U.P. and others along
with
similar
petitions,
doubted
the
correctness of the judgment in Har Karan
Singh's case. A reference was made for the
constitution of a Larger Bench.

6. Shorn of unnecessary detail, the
Full Bench that was constituted pursuant to
the reference, proceeded to decide a large
bunch of writ petitions challenging the land
acquisition notifications relating to various
villages falling in the development area of
Greater Noida and Noida vide judgment in
Gajraj and others vs. State of U.P. and
10 All. Satish Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
105
others, 2011 (11) ADJ 1 (FB). In Gajraj's
case (supra) the following directions were
issued :

"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
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 v. 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 v. 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
106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

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."

7. Some of the land owners,
aggrieved by the judgment of the Full
Bench of this Court in Gajraj, petitioned
the Supreme Court seeking Special Leave
to Appeal. Leave was granted and Civil
Appeal No. 4506 of 2015, Savitri Devi
vs. State of U.P. and others along with
connected matters was decided by the
Supreme Court vide judgment and order
dated May 14, 2015, reported as (2015) 7
SCC 21. In Savitri Devi (supra) the
following orders were passed by their
Lordships:

"48. To sum up, the following
benefits are accorded to the landowners:

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
landowners;

48.3. Compensation which is
increased @ 64.7% is payable immediately
without taking away the rights of the
landowners to claim higher compensation
10 All. Satish Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
107
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.

50. Keeping in view all these
peculiar circumstances, we are of the
opinion that these are not the cases where
this Court should interfere under Article
136 of the Constitution. However, we make
it clear that directions of the High Court are
given
in
the
aforesaid
unique
and
peculiar/specific
background
and,
therefore, it would not form precedent for
future cases."

 (Emphasis by Court)

8. In between the decision of the Full
Bench of this Court in Gajraj and the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Savitri
Devi as well as post Savitri Devi, there
was lot of turmoil about the rights of
parties
relating
to
the
additional
compensation of 64.70% and allotment of
10% land to the ousted landholders. The
Greater Noida Board and the Noida Board
adopted
resolutions
determining
the
entitlement of parties in terms of the
decision of the Full Bench in Gajraj and
later reviewed those decisions after the
decision in Savitri Devi.

9. The issue that arose before the
Authority related to demand for additional
compensation and allotment of 10%
developed land proportionate to the area of
landholders acquired, put forward by those,
whose writ petitions were not before the
Full Bench in Gajraj or whose writ
petitions had been dismissed upholding the
notifications. This demand came because of
the directions appearing in sub-paragraph 4
of para 482 in the judgment in Gajraj.
Later on, this part of the direction was
modified by their Lordships of the Supreme
Court, making it clear that the directions of
this Court in Gajraj were issued in the
peculiar and specific background of the
case and would not serve as precedent for
other cases.

10. In between the judgment of the
Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj and the
modifications of the directions there by the
Supreme Court in Savitri Devi, there was
again a lot of turmoil arising out of claims
made by landholders whose notifications
were either not under challenge in Gajraj or
their challenge had failed already. All such
persons or most of them have from time to
time come forward with the demand for
additional compensation of 64.70 %
besides allotment of 10% developed land
by the Authority concerned. About these
claims, resolutions were adopted by the
Greater Noida and the Noida, but the State
Government intervened. A detail about the
developments in the Board resolutions of
the Greater Noida and the Noida, besides
orders of the State Government, find
eloquent mention in the decision of this
Court in Runwell India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State
of U.P. and others, Writ - C No. - 14113
of 2017 decided on May 31, 2022 and
need not be recapitulated.

11. It is pellucid from the directions
issued by the Full Bench in Gajraj as
modified by the Supreme Court in Savitri
Devi
that
the
benefit
of
additional
compensation to the tune of 64.70% of the
awarded compensation besides allotment of
10% Abadi land to the oustees, is confined
to landholders who were before the Court
in Gajraj and not those who staked their
claim post decision in Gajraj playing the
proverbial fence sitter. This issue fell for
consideration before a Division Bench of
this Court in Ashok Kumar and others vs.
State of U.P. and others, Writ - C No.
108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
32969 of 2021 decided on March 3, 2022,
where it has been held:

"5. After hearing the learned
counsel for the parties, we do not find that
any case is made out for issuing directions,
as prayed for by the petitioners. Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Savitri Devi
v. State of U.P. (2015)7 SCC 21, in
paragraph 50 has specifically held that the
directions issued by this Court in Gajraj's
case (supra) will not be a precedent for
future as the judgment was delivered in
peculiar facts and circumstances of that
case. Referring to Savitri Devi's case
(supra) the same view has again been
expressed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
paragraph 48 of the judgment in Khatoon
and others v. State of U.P. and others
(2018)14 SCC 346. Further, a perusal of
the judgments sought to be relied by the
learned counsel for the petitioners suggest
that those were passed on the concession
given by the learned counsel for the State
that the issues raised are squarely covered
by the Full Bench judgment in Gajraj's case
(supra). This Court has not decided the
issues on merits.

6. Once it is not in dispute
that the acquisition in question was not the
subject matter of consideration before the
Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj's case
(supra), no benefits granted therein shall
accrue to the petitioners."

12. The writ petitioner here had not
challenged
the
notification
dated
September 9, 1997 issued under Section
4(1) of the Act relating to the land in
dispute or the declaration under Section
6(1) dated October 9, 1998 through a writ
petition
that
was
subject
matter
of
consideration before the Full Bench in
Gajraj. The petitioner has come with a
mammoth delay to claim the benefit of the
directions
for
payment
of
additional
compensation of 64.70%, going by the
directions in Gajraj. Interestingly, the
petitioner has pleaded his right on the basis
of the decision of the Full Bench in Gajraj
but has not said, as much as by a whisper,
about the modification of the relevant
directions
for
payment
of
additional
compensation by the Supreme Court in
Savitri Devi's case (supra). The petitioner
asserts that in a writ petition filed much
later after the decision in Gajraj, a
Division Bench of this Court in Jai Pal
and others vs. State of U.P. and others,
Writ - C No. 7938 of 2012 decided on
21.05.2014, has extended the benefit of
64.70% of additional compensation to the
ousted landholders, following the directions
in Gajraj, though the petitioners there had
not challenged the acquisition through a
writ petition that was before the Full Bench
in Gajraj. Referring to Savitri Devi's case
(supra) the same view has again been
expressed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Paragraph 48 of the judgement in Khatoon
and others vs. State of U.P. and others,
(2018) 14 SCC 346.

13. It is also pointed out that the writ
petitioners in Jai Pal (supra) had entered
into
an
agreement
for
payment
of
compensation
under
the
U.P.
Land
Acquisition
(Determination
of
Compensation
&
Declaration
of
Compensation and Declaration of Award
by Agreement) Rules, 1997. They had
received compensation in terms of the said
rules. Yet, going by the directions in the
Gajraj's case (supra), they were ordered to
be paid additional compensation.

14. The submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner's case stands on a better footing
and
he
is
entitled
to
additional
10 All. Ramesh Chandra Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
109
compensation on the same principles.
These issues have already been examined
by the Division Bench in Runwell India
Pvt. Ltd. and the Division Bench of this
Court in Ashok Kumar (supra), where the
ratio was clear and unmistakable. It is to
this effect: any claim for additional
compensation based on the directions in the
Full Bench directions in Gajraj which
have been issued in the special facts of the
case and confined to the landholders who
were before the Court in Gajraj cannot be
entertained. The benefit cannot be extended
to the fence-sitters, who now raise claims
for additional compensation. This is the
clear purport of the directions of the
Supreme Court in Savitri Devi modifying
the relative directions in Gajraj.

15. It is for this reason that the
petitioner's
claim
for
additional
compensation, for his lands acquired long
ago, canvassed by petitioning the Greater
Noida Industrial Development Authority,
was turned down by means of the order
dated October 30, 2019 that he has
impugned in this petition.

16. For all the reasons indicated
hereinabove, we do not find any infirmity
in the order impugned passed by the Chief
Executive Officer, Greater Noida Industrial
Development Authority.

17. The writ petition fails and is
hereby, dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 109
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.
Writ-C No. 9330 of 2016
connected with
Writ C No. 9388 of 2016

Ramesh Chandra Rai ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Amit Dwivedi, Umesh Chandra Tripathi,
Vinod Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi

A. United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 -
Section 34(3) - UP Excise (Settlement of
License for Model Shop of Foreign Liquor)
Rules, 2003 - Rule 17 - Cancellation of
licence - Show cause notice issued -
Liquor not seized from the licenced
premises
- Seizure memo
does not
mention that the petitioners were in
'conscious possession' of the said liquor
crates - Effect - Held, cancellation of the
license and the consequent seizure was
clearly de hors the Rules. (Para 17 and
18)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Patel Jethabhai Chatur Vs St. of Guj.; (1976)
4 SCC 522
2. St. of Pun. Vs Balbir Singh; (1994) 3 SCC 299
3. Sanjay Dutt Vs St. Through C.B.I., Bombay
(II); (1994) 5 SCC 410
4. Writ C No. 5098 of 2017; Ajay Pratap Singh
Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided on 6.7.2022
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Both the petitions involve the
interpretation of provisions of law which is
similar, as such, they are being decided by
means of the common judgment.

2. Facts of Writ - C No.9330 of 2016: