# Smt. Madhuri Srivastava v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 2052
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-10
- **Bench:** V. K. Shukla, Prabhat Chandra Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-madhuri-srivastava-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43920
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

C.S.C., Ramendra P. Singh
5 All. Smt. Madhuri Srivastava Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

2053
LAND ACQUISITION - NOIDA Authority - Rehabilitation policy - Distinction between 'Pushtaini
Kastakar' and 'Gair-Pushtaini Kastakar' - Validity of classification.
Challenge to policy of NOIDA Authority granting additional benefits such as rehabilitation bonus and allotment
of abadi land to original tenure holders whose names were recorded in revenue records prior to constitution of
the Authority - Whether classification between original residents and subsequent purchasers is
discriminatory.

Issue - whether the policy of the NOIDA Authority to provide higher compensation, a 15% rehabilitation
bonus, and 10% alternative land specifically to Pushtaini Kastakars (original residents recorded before April
17, 1976) while denying the same to Non-Pushtaini Kastakars was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India

Held:- The Court held that Article 14 permits classification if it is based on an intelligible differentia with a
rational nexus to the object sought. The distinction between original residents (sons of the soil/ Pushtaini
Kastakar) and those who purchased land after the Authority's constitution was deemed reasonable.

LAND ACQUISITION - Agreement regarding compensation - Acceptance of compensation -
Claim for higher benefits not maintainable.
Where landholders entered into agreement and accepted compensation under the agreed scheme, they
cannot subsequently claim enhancement or additional benefits contrary to the terms of the agreement.

IN Result: Writ petition dismissed

List of Cases cited:
Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India(2010) 10 SCC 664
N.D. Jayal vs. Union of India(2004) 9 SCC 362
Vijay Gyan Dharmarth Sansthan and another vs. Union of India and others2011 (6) ADJ 7
Rajiv Sarin and another vs. State of Uttarakhand and othersAIR 2011 SC 3081
Hari Ram vs. State of Haryana(2010) 3 SCC 621
Deepak Sibal vs. Punjab University and anotherAIR 1989 SC 903
M.P. Oil Extraction vs. State of M.P.**AIR 1998 SC 145

## Text

2052 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
students under the management quota were made by the petitioner on the basis of the merit list of
the common entrance test. In relation to the nine students belonging to other communities, who
were admitted under the management quota, specific stand of the petitioner is that even those
students were selected on basis of their interse merit in the common entrance test. It has been
specifically averred that all of them had passed common entrance test and the merit at such
entrance test was the criteria for making such admissions. There is no denial to the same in the
counter affidavit which has been filed, though at the time of hearing, a suggestion is sought to be
made before the Court that there is no material on record to establish that such admissions were
made strictly in accordance with their interse merit. It is noticeable that in the counter affidavit, the
only stand of the respondent University was that the petitioner institution was not entitled to make
admission of non-minority students under the minority quota and there was no plea that any more
meritorious student of non-minority community seeking admission to the petitioner institution was
denied such admission. In the absence of any such plea being raised in the pleadings, this Court
refuses to go into such question nor considers it proper to nonsuit the petitioner on such ground.

18. As a consequence and in view of the discussion made above, the admission of the nine
students of non-minority community under the management quota is not found to be in breach of
any provision of law and accordingly, this Court directs the respondent-University to treat such
admission to be legal and valid and declare their results forthwith. Accordingly, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed.

19. No order as to costs.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE V. K. SHUKLA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.

Writ - C No. - 61449 Of 2009
&
Connected With Other Cases

Smt. Madhuri Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ranjit Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ramendra P. Singh
5 All. Smt. Madhuri Srivastava Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

2053
LAND ACQUISITION - NOIDA Authority - Rehabilitation policy - Distinction between 'Pushtaini
Kastakar' and 'Gair-Pushtaini Kastakar' - Validity of classification.
Challenge to policy of NOIDA Authority granting additional benefits such as rehabilitation bonus and allotment
of abadi land to original tenure holders whose names were recorded in revenue records prior to constitution of
the Authority - Whether classification between original residents and subsequent purchasers is
discriminatory.

Issue - whether the policy of the NOIDA Authority to provide higher compensation, a 15% rehabilitation
bonus, and 10% alternative land specifically to Pushtaini Kastakars (original residents recorded before April
17, 1976) while denying the same to Non-Pushtaini Kastakars was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India

Held:- The Court held that Article 14 permits classification if it is based on an intelligible differentia with a
rational nexus to the object sought. The distinction between original residents (sons of the soil/ Pushtaini
Kastakar) and those who purchased land after the Authority's constitution was deemed reasonable.

LAND ACQUISITION - Agreement regarding compensation - Acceptance of compensation -
Claim for higher benefits not maintainable.
Where landholders entered into agreement and accepted compensation under the agreed scheme, they
cannot subsequently claim enhancement or additional benefits contrary to the terms of the agreement.

IN Result: Writ petition dismissed

List of Cases cited:
Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India(2010) 10 SCC 664
N.D. Jayal vs. Union of India(2004) 9 SCC 362
Vijay Gyan Dharmarth Sansthan and another vs. Union of India and others2011 (6) ADJ 7
Rajiv Sarin and another vs. State of Uttarakhand and othersAIR 2011 SC 3081
Hari Ram vs. State of Haryana(2010) 3 SCC 621
Deepak Sibal vs. Punjab University and anotherAIR 1989 SC 903
M.P. Oil Extraction vs. State of M.P.**AIR 1998 SC 145

(Delivered by Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.)

1. In all the abovemetioned writ petitions in question, as common question of law has been
engaging the attention of this Court, the Writ Petitions in question are being decided collectively
and Writ Petition No.61449 of 2009 is being treated to be leading writ petition.

2. By means of Writ Petition No.616449 of 2009, Smt. Madhuri Srivastava w/o Late Dr.
R.N. Srivastava is before this Court for following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the part of
decision of the Board of Directors of Noida dated 07.01.1998 (Annexure-4) and approval of State
Government dated 02.03.2009 (Annexure-6) by which the persons whose land was acquired and
who were 'Gair Pushtaini' have been denied the additional compensation of Rs.310/- per sq. yard,
15% (Rs.57/- per sq. yard) rehabilitation bonus, on the compensation amount and 10% area of
acquired land of the petitioner may be given to her.
2054 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature as the Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper under the circumstances of this case.

(iii) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.

3. Brief background of the case as is emanating, in the present case, is that under U.P.
Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, NOIDA Authority was constituted under Section 3 by the
State Government by means of notification issued in the said direction. After constitution of the
aforementioned NOIDA Authority, various projects were being undertaken by the NOIDA
Authority from time to time and this much is reflected from the record that petitioner on 10th
September, 1998 purchased plot no.875 Mijmul Area 2 Acre by way of sale deed. Mutation
proceedings were also undertaken and in January, 1999 Khatauni was issued by the Revenue
Authorities in the name of petitioner. Subsequent to the same, proceedings under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act has been undertaken after dispensing Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition
Act vide a notification dated 12th April, 2005 and in the said Notification in question, land of
petitioner i.e. Plot No.875 Mijmul Area 2 Acre was also mentioned. Subsequent thereto,
notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 27th July, 2006 and
possession of the said land has been taken by the State Government on 16.10.2006.

4. Petitioner submits that thereafter compensation in question was determined as per the
Karar Niymawali 1997 and as far as petitioner and other similarly situated incumbents are
concerned, petitioner has not at all been paid the compensation as other tenure holders are being
paid as Pustaini Kastakar have been given @ Rs.421.30 per square yard and Non Pushtaini
Kastakar have been given compensation @ Rs.366.35 per square yard. Petitioner's grievance is that
she has been paid Rs.366.35 per square yard and Pushtaini Kastakar have been made compensation
@ Rs.421.30 per square yard and Rs.310 as ex-gratia in the year 2009, in view of this, petitioner's
submission is that inter-se tenure holders discrimination has been practised by the Authorities and
accordingly, this Court should intervene in the matter and extend the relief in question as has been
asked for. Petitioner has also proceeded to make a mention before this Court that NOIDA Authority
themselves have waived off the difference between Pushtaini Kastakar and Non Pushtaini Kastakar
and mention has also been made that even by way of judicial verdict, the said disparity has been
sought to be addressed.

5. The claim in question has been resisted by submitting that there is a great distinction in
between the Pushtaini Kastakar and Non Pushtaini Kastakar and mention has been sought to be
made that the Authority found that on account of development of industrial area, the original
resident of the area, which formed part of NOIDA Authority, have been facing hardship on account
of acquisition of their land, as a result whereof their existing place of living and agricultural land
was being taken away and as they were likely to be rendered landless and would have to face
irreparable hardship, in view of this, such a beneficiary provision has been made by describing
them as Pushtaini Kastakar.
5 All. Smt. Madhuri Srivastava Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

2055
6. It has been stated that in order to tackle the situation, the respondent NOIDA Authority
resolved to make provision for allotment of land equivalent to 10% of their acquired holding
subject to minimum of 40 sq. mts and maximum of 2500 sq. mts. so that such original residents of
the area could be provided with alternative site as also for future expansion for their living etc.
Similarly, additional 15% compensation in the name of rehabilitation bonus was also decided to be
paid to them so that they could make provisions for their alternative livelihood. Additional 15%
amount of compensation known as rehabilitation bonus is provided to those farmers whose name
was recorded in revenue records as on 17.04.1976 i.e. the date of constitution of NOIDA Authority
and this amount did not form part of compensation. The original residents whose land got acquired
form separate category and class of persons altogether and the decision of the Board to provide
10% alternative land and 15% rehabilitation amount was meant only for such original residents i.e.
sons of soil of the area, and tiller of the land, and such benefit was not applicable to other persons
whose land situated in Noida area but were not the original residents of it. The policy of the
respondent NOIDA Authority to provide alternative land to the original residents is based on
reasonable classification and has direct nexus with the object sought to be achieved i.e. proper
rehabilitation of original residents-sons of soil of the area who are likely to become landless due to
acquisition of their land. The aforesaid policy of the respondent NOIDA cannot be made applicable
to those who are not original residents of the area, as they are not to suffer similar hardships as
would be cause to the original residents and, therefore, such non-original residents are not entitled
to the benefits available to the original residents. Action of the respondent Authority is absolute
just, legal and valid and is not discriminatory in any way. The policy of the respondent NOIDA
Authority is based on valid, legal sustainable ground and the challenge made to it by the petitioner
is liable to be fall.

7. After pleadings have been exchanged, the present writ petition has been taken up for
final hearing and disposal with the consent of parties.

8. Shri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate appearing with Shri Ranjeet Saxena, Advocate
submitted that such an activity/policy of NOIDA Authority are clearly discriminatory on the face of
it, inasmuch as, same has the tendency of creating class out of class amongst tenure holders without
there being any valid distinction or justification for the same and the petitioner cannot be denied the
benefit of further benefits in reference to the land that has been acquired and such artificial
distinction is unsustainable and as such, Writ Petition in question deserves to be allowed.

8. The claim in question has been resisted by Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate
assisted by Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh, Advocate by submitting that a policy decision has been
taken to rehabilitate the original tenure holders, whose land has been taken away and who has been
displaced, and in view of this, to say that the policy decision suffers from any arbitrariness, cannot
be accepted, inasmuch as, here the classification in question has been carried out to rehabilitate
residents, who have been uprooted from the said land in question that was there source of
livelihood and Article 14 permits classification once it has direct nexus with the objects that is
sought to be achieved and here, in the present case, the object that is sought to be achieved is
proper rehabilitation of original residents that are sons of soil in their area, who were likely to
2056 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
become landless after acquisition of their land and as such, in the facts of the case, no interference
is required.

9. After respective arguments have been advanced, the factual situation that is so emerging
is that NOIDA Authority has been in the process of acquiring land and the said acquisition of land
certainly had the impact of uprooting various tenure holders, who were the original tenure holders,
and their livelihood was based on agriculture and their names were recorded in the revenue records
before the Authority was constituted i.e. on 17.04.1976. In order to see and ensure that the original
tenure holders, whose land has been acquired, qua them decision was taken by the Authority.

10. The Authority in its 92nd Authority meeting held on 07.01.1998 decided to provide
15% rehabilitation bonus and 10% abadi land (undeveloped) to the tenure holders whose name
were recorded in revenue records and were residing in the village, they were called the original
tenure holder (pushtaini). In the meeting it was further decided those tenure holders who purchased
the land after the constitution of the authority and were residing in the village before the
constitution of the authority will also be entitled for the benefit. The extract of the Authority 92nd
Meeting is being quoted below:

" संर्ालक मण्डल द्वारा सम्यक् डवर्ार डवमशग के कम में डिम्नािुसार डिणगय डलया गया

(1) िोएिा प्राडिकरण में भी ग्रेर्र िोएिा मािल अपिाया जाये।

(2) एम मुश्त प्रडतकार के डििागरण में काश्तकारों द्वारा अन्य ग्रामों में प्राप्त वास्तडवक प्रडतकर को दृडष्टगत रिते
हए िोएिा के रू0 225.00 प्रडत वगग गज एक मुश्त प्रडतकर दर को अिुमोडदत डकया गया है। उक्त दर में प्रडतवषग उपभोक्ता मूल्
सूर्कांक की वास्तडवक दर को जोड़ते हए आगामी वषग में प्रडतकर दर डििाररत की जाती रहेगी। इस प्रकार एक मुश्त दर अपररवडतगत
होगी।

0 (3) िोएिा प्राडिकरण की स्थापिा से पूवग राजस्व अडभलेिों में दजग िातेदारों को 15 प्रडतशत अडतररक्त
पुिवागस बोिस देय होगा। िोएिा प्राडिकरण की स्थापिा के बाद डजन्होंिे भूडम िरीदी है. उन्हें यह प्रडतकर देय िहीं होगा मगर ऐसे
िातेदार डजन्हें बंर्वारे के आिार पर बाद में िातेदार दजग डकया है. को भी पुिवागस बोिस देय होगा।

(4) ग्राम की आबादी की सीमा से लगी भूडम में कुछ स्थाि आबादी के डवकास के डलये जारडक्षत की जाये।
आबादी के डलये आरडक्षत की जािे वाली भूडम अडिग्रडहत की गयी कुल भूडम का 10 प्रडतशत अडवकडसत क्षेत्रफल होगा। केवल
परम्परागत कृडष पर आिाररत पररवार जो िोएिा की स्थापिा के पूवग गांव के डिवासी थे ही भूडम पािे के डलये अहं मािे जायेगें।

(5) डदिांक 1 अप्रैल 1997 को जािार मािते हए ररफरेन्स स्तर पर समझौता दाखिल पर लागू डकया जाये।
मुभावजा डििागरण का डसद्धान्त उसी भूडम पर लागे होगा डजसका अडभडिणगय डदिाक 1.4.1997 को या उसके बाद डकया गया है।
आपसी सहमडत के आिार पर अडमडिणगय घोडषत डकये जािे के सम्बन्ध में राजस्व अिुभाग द्वारा जारी अडिसूर्िा सं० 2382/10भी-24(3)/85-24-रेवेन्यू 3 डदिांक 16.9.1997 उिर प्रदेश भूडम अजगि डियम 1997 के अिुसार लखम्बत प्रस्तावों में डजलाडिकारी के समक्ष भी
प्राडिकरण एवं काश्तकारों द्वारा समझौता डकया जा सकेगा।"

11. The Authority in its 96th Meeting held on 08.03.1999 further decided that the
maximum allotment area of the acquired land will be 2500 sq. mt. And minimum will be 40 sq. mt.
and the other benefits would be the same as per 92nd Authority Meeting qua the tenure holders
5 All. Smt. Madhuri Srivastava Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

2057
whose livelihood was based on agriculture and were the resident of the village and their names
were recorded in the revenue records before the authority was constituted i.e. on 17.04.1976.

संख्या- जावसीय भवि/फ्लैर् के डिरस्तीकरण के उपरान्त पुिगस्थापि की दशा में डलए जािे वाले पुिगस्थापि शुल्क
के सम्बन्ध में।

संर्ालक मण्डल द्वारा डवर्ारोपरान्त बावसीय भवि / फ्लैर् के डिरस्तीकरण उपरान्त पुिग स्थापि की दशा में डलए
जािे वाले पुिगस्थापि शुल्क में एक रूपता लािे के डलए डिम्नडलखित डिणगय डलया गया

यडद मवि/फ्लैर् का डिरस्तीकरण पूणग भुगताि ि करिे पर पट्टा प्रलेि डिष्पाडदत कर कब्जा ग्रहण ि करिे पर
तथा डकसी अन्य कारणों के फलस्वरूप डकया जाता है तो ऐसी खस्थडत में भवि/फ्लैर् का पुिगस्थापि डकए जािे पर पुिगस्थापि शुल्क
भवि / फ्लैर् की कुल जआंवडर्त कीमत का 5 प्रडतशत ििराडश (पट्टा प्रलेि डिष्पाडदत ि करिे की अथगदण्ड हए) डलया जाए।

संख्या- साफ्टवेयर र्ैक्नोलोजी पाकग (भारत सरकार का संस्थाि) को डिगगत ऋण पर देय दण्डात्मक ब्याज रूपये
2,65.974/ की के सम्बन्ध में।

डवर्ारोपरान्त संर्ालक मण्डल द्वारा यह मत व्यक्त डकया गया डक साफ्टवेयर र्ैक्नोलोजी पाकग भारत सरकार के
इलक्टरोडिक डवभाग का संस्थाि है तथा इसकी स्थापिा से िोएिा क्षेत्र के डवकास एवं गौरव में वृखद्ध हई है। संस्था द्वारा ऋण की आगामी
डकश्तों को ब्याज के साथ सरप्र पर भुगताि भी डकया है। अतः संर्ालक मण्डल द्वारा संस्था को ऋण पर डदिांक 10.10.94 से 12.1.96
की अवडि में देय दण्डात्मक ब्याज 2.65.974/- को िाफ डकये जािे की स्वीकृडत प्रदाि की गई।

संख्या-10 िोएिा क्षेत्र के गांवों की जावादी के डवस्तार के डलए डवकय योग्य क्षेत्रफल की जावंडर्त डकये जािे
डवषयक।

डवर्ारोपरान्त संर्ालक मण्डल द्वारा िोएिा क्षेत्र के गांवों की आवादी के डवस्तार के डलए डवकय योग्य क्षेत्रफल को
आवंडर्त डकए जािे वाले डवषय की स्वीकृडत ग्रेर्र िोएिा के पैर्ूि (Pattern) पर प्रदाि की गई तथा डिदेश डदए डक इस प्रकरण को
शासि को सूर्िाथग एवं जावश्यक कायगवाही हेतु प्रेडषत डकया जाए।

संख्या-11 एम्यूजमेंर् पाकग की स्थापिा के सम्बन्ध में।

संर्ालक मण्डल द्वारा उक्त प्रस्ताव व डवर्ार डवमशग डकया गया तथा िोएिा क्षेत्र में सैक्टर 38 में 140 एकि भूडम
पर एम्यूजमेंर् पाकग की स्थापिा हेतु पररयोजिा ख्याडत प्राप्त फमग/कम्पिी प्राडिकरण के साथ संयुक्त उपक्रम के रूप में िोएिा
प्राडिकरण द्वारा अपिी 92वीं बोिग बैठक में डदिांक 7:198 को यह डिणगय डलया गया डक ग्राम की आबादी की सीमा से लगी भूडम में
कुछ त्ाि बाबादी के डवकास के डलए आरडक्षत की जावे। आबादी के डलए बावडर्त की जािे वाली भूडम अडिग्रडहत की गयी कुल भूडम
का 10% अडवकडसत श्रेत्रफल होगा। केवल परम्परागत कृडष पर आिाररत ग्रामवासी जो डक िोएिा की स्थापिा पूवग गांव के डिवासी थे
ही भूडम पािे के डलए िई मािे जायगें। इस डबन्दु के संबंि में प्रडकया अलग से डकये जािे का डिणगय डलया गया था। इसी कम में प्रस्ताव
प्रस्तुत डकया जा रहा है। ग्रामवासी व जि प्रडतडिडियों से जाम सहमडत के पश्चात यडद इसमें पररवतगि की कोई आवश्यकता पड़ती है तो
बोिग अवगत कराया जायेगा।

(क) गांव की जाबादी के सडन्नकर् खस्थत भूडम को डवकास के डलए अडिग्रहण के उपरांत डर्खन्हत डकया जायेगा
तथा ऐसी भूडम का क्षेत्रफल अडिग्रडहत की गयी भूडम के डवकय योग्य क्षेत्रफल का 10% होगा। इस भूडम पर डवकास कायग कराकर उस
पर होिे वाले वास्तडवक व्यय को जोड़कर डबिा लाभ हाडि के आिार पर आवंर्ि दर डिवाररत की जायेगी तथा केबल मूल काश्तकारों
को > Duryodhan: ही इस श्रेणी में रिा जायेगा ऐसी भूडम को डदखन्त डकये जािे का कायग डियोजि डवभाग द्वारा डकया जायेगा।
2058 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(ि) ग्राम की मूल बाबादी जो प्राडिकरण की स्थापिा डदिांक 17.476 से पूवग की है बौर आबादी में दजग होते हए
इसका प्रयोग बाबादी हेतु डकया जा रहा है तथा वह आबादी जो अडिग्रहीत की जा रही भूडम की िारा 4/17 के पूवग की है और मूल
बाबादी से दूर है, उसे उसी अिुपात में डवकास क्षेत्र में व्यविाि जािे पर उसे हर्ाकर ग्राम की आबादी के ही डिकर् प्रस्ताडवत आबादी
के साथ समायोजि डकया जािा प्रस्ताडवत है।

[ग] बाबादी के डलए भूडम आवंर्ि की न्यूितम सीमा 40 वगग मीर्र तथा मडिकतम सीमा एक िातेदार के पास
12.5 एकड़ भूडम के िािार पर 2500 वगग मीर्र प्रस्ताडवत है।

(घ) ग्राम की यह आबादी जो िारा 4/17 की अडिग्रहण के पूवग की है डवकास क्षेत्र में आिे के कारण हर्ाये जािे
की दशा में तथा अन्यत्र भूडम आवंर्ि करिे पर पूवग आबादी के डलए कृषक द्व ॅारा डिमागण में डकये गये व्यय को डियमािुसार
Depriciation करते हए पररसम्पडियों के प्रडतकर के रूप में भुगताि डकया जािा प्रस्ताडवत है।

आबादी क डवस्तार डििागररत दर के अडतररक्त अवस्थापिा सुवेिायें व्यय, प्रशासडिक व्यय, ग्राम डवकास
दर प्रडत वगग मीर्र िर्े की दर को सखम्मडलत करते हए आवंर्ि के डलए मूल् डिवाररत डकया जािा प्रस्ताडवत है।

(छ) प्रस्ताडवत आवादी के डलए आरडक्षत भूडम िे भवि डिमागण के डलए सरल डबखडंग माईलाज लागू डकया जािा
प्रस्ताडवत है।

(ज) प्रस्ताडवत आबादी में भूिण्ड आवंर्ि की प्रडकया में लार्री िरा की पद्धडत अपिाई जायेगी।

(झ) आबादी के डलए भूडम आवंर्ि में पट्टा प्रलेिि में होिे वाला व्यय पट्टा िारक द्वारा वहि डकया जायेगा।

उक्त प्रस्ताव बोिग के डवर्ाराथग प्रस्तुत है।"

12. The Authority in its 101st, 102nd and 130th Meeting held on 13.07.2000, 30.09.2000
and 19.12.2005 retained the same decision. The Authority in its 146th Meeting held on 10.09.2007,
Meeting 154th held on 18.09.2008 and the Meeting 159th held on 20.02.2009 once again retained
the same benefits as decided by the authority in its 92nd 96th and 101st authority meeting. The
decision was modified to the extent that only those tenure holders (original resident) will be entitled
for 5% develop abadi land in which the possession or the award was passed after 01.04.1997.

13. There is no issue on this fact that the NOIDA Authority has the Authority to frame and
formulate such a policy and the issue that is being assailed before us is to the effect that the said
resolution passed by NOIDA Authority has the effect of creating class amongst class amongst
tenure holders without any lawful justification and without there being any direct nexus to the
object that is sought to be achieved.

13(A). In order to answer this issue we will have to examine as to what is the purport and
object of rehabilitation.

14. Displacement/Rehabilitation has always been a matter of concern whenever the matter
has travelled before the Court and such a concern has been expressed in the case of Narmada
Bachao Andolan Case 2010 (10) SCC 664, wherein Apex Court has proceeded to make a mention
that rehabilitation is not only about providing food, clothes or shelter, it is also about extending
5 All. Smt. Madhuri Srivastava Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

2059
support to re-root livelihood by ensuring necessary amenities of life and and rehabilitation of the
oustees is a logical corollary of Article 21. The oustees should be in a better position to live a
decent life and earn livelihood in the rehabilitated locations. The rehabilitation creates a sense of
confidence amongst the oustees and they will be in a better position to start their life by
accommodating themselves with the new environment. The said view in question has been
reiterated in the case of N.D. Jayal vs. Union of India 2004 (9) SCC 362 giving emphasis on
rehabilitation in reference of the oustees.

15. Rehabilitation is a social issue and once the State or its instrumentalities take a decision
to acquire the land compulsorily, then it is true that as far as the compensation is concerned, such
compensation in question is to be determined strictly in consonance with the parameters as are
provided for under the Land Acquisition Act and this is also equally true that under the Land
Acquisition Act no distinction whatsoever has been drawn between class of tenure holders in the
matter of awarding compensation. Section 11 of Land Acquisition Act provides for preparation of
award. Award is to be prepared in the manner prescribed. Section 11 of Land Acquisition Act
provides for as follows:

11. Enquiry and award by Collector:

(1) On the day so fixed, or any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned,
the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objections (if any) which any person interested has
stated pursuant to a notice given under section 9 to the measurements made under section 8, and
into the value of the land and [at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, subsection (1)], and into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation, and shall
make an award under his hand of-

(i) the true area of the land;

(ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and

(iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or
believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or
not they have respectively appeared before him:

Provided that no award shall be made by the Collector under this sub-section
without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate
Government may authorise in this behalf:

Provided further that it shall be competent for the appropriate Government to direct
that the Collector may make such award without such approval in such class of cases as the
appropriate Government may specify in this behalf.
2060 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if at any stage of the
proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared
before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the
form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without making further
enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement.

(3) The determination of compensation for any land under sub-section (2) shall not,
in any way affect the determination of compensation in respect of other lands in the same locality
or elsewhere in accordance with the other provisions of this Act.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908),
no agreement made under sub-section (2) shall be liable to registration under that Act.

11-A Period within which an award shall be made.

(1) The Collector shall make an award under section 11 within a period of two years
from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the
entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse: Provided that in a case where the
said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition
(Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984), the award shall be made within a period of two years from
such commencement. Explanation. -In computing the period of two years referred to in this
section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said
declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.

16. The exercise for preparation of award as provided for under sub-section (1) and subsection (2) of Section 11 is altogether different as in the first category of case Collector has to make
an enquiry keeping in view the objections qua the value of land whereas in second category of case
award can be passed on the basis of agreement.

17. The U.P. Land Acquisition Act (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of
Award by Agreement) Rules, 1977 provides for a fair and reasonable method of payment of
compensation. In order to avoid litigation and uncertainty delay in preparing the award and
payment of compensation, the Rules provide for an offer to be made by the acquiring body to the
Collector. The Collector after he is satisfied with the amount offered for compensation, will issue
notice and call for meeting with the land owners. If an agreement is reached in these meetings in
the prescribed form appended to the Rules, the compensation is to be paid to the land owners who
are parties to the agreement. The entire amount is paid to the farmers under the agreement without
any unreasonable delay.

18. In the present case this fact is not denied that the petitioners have entered into
agreement to receive compensation at the rate fixed for "gair pushtaini" farmers. A Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Preetam Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No.49110 of 2009 connected with bunch of writ petition, decided on 18.12.2009 in context of
5 All. Smt. Madhuri Srivastava Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

2061
provisions quoted above, has clearly taken the view that once incumbents have signed the
agreement and accepted compensation in terms of agreement, then such incumbents are not entitled
for higher compensation, and cannot claim enhancement of amount. We re-affirm the same view.

19. Much emphasis has been laid before us that a Full Bench of this Court, in its judgement
dated 14.05.2015 has concluded that there is no distinction between Pushtaini Kastakar and Non
Pushtaini Kastakar and as such, judgement of the Full Bench that has been so affirmed on 14th
May, 2015 should be followed in principle by this Court.

20. The judgement passed in Civil Misc. Review Application No.368519 of 2011 in Writ
Petition No.37443 of 2011 (Gajraj and others vs. State of U.P. and others) would go to show that at
no point of time before this Court, at the point of time when Full Bench has been decided, the issue
of Pushtaini or Gair Pushtaini was raised and this much is accepted position that the directives that
have been given therein were with regard to the farmers whose land was acquired. Before the Full
Bench at no point of time there has been any issue of Pushtaini and Gair Pushtaini and in the said
backdrop, a uniform decision was taken to provide the enhanced compensation and the said
judgement has been affirmed by the Apex Court also. Apex Court also in Civil Appeal No.4506 of
2015, Savitri Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, while affirming the Full Bench judgement has
mentioned that said directives have been given in peculiar characteristics and would not form
precedent for future case. Conclusion recorded is as follows:-

"Conclusion

43. 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."

21. The said judgement in question in no way would help the petitioner as the issue of
Pushtaini and non Pushtaini was not at all there. Judgements in the case of Vijay Gyan Dharmarth
Sansthan and another vs. Union of India (UOI) and others 2011 (6) ADJ-7, Rajiv Sarin and
another vs. State of Uttrakhand and others AIR 2011 SC 3081 and Hari Ram vs. State of Haryana
2010 (3) SCC 621 are contextually different and would not at all apply in the facts of case as
isolated observations in judgement cannot be treated as precedents dehors the facts and
circumstances in which the aforesaid observation was made. It is true that as of now, the NOIDA
Authorities have waived off the difference between Pushtaini Kastakars and Non Pushtaini
Kastakars. The said policy in question has been framed to operate prospectively and framing of
policy is in the realm of the Authority concerned and in case, the policy in question is arbitrary or
irrational, on limited grounds it is open to be challenged. Merely because the NOIDA Authority has
waived off the difference between Pushtaini Kastakar and Non Pushtaini Kastakar on 26.08.2014,
the same cannot be a ground to disapprove the resolution that has been so passed by NOIDA
Authority for the reason that it is well within the domain of the NOIDA Authority to pass such a
resolution.
2062 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
22. Article 14 of the Constitution of India mandates equality before law by providing that State
shall not deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of
India. The equality clause requires that all persons subjected to any legislation should be treated alike
under like circumstances and conditions. Equals have to be treated as equally and unequals be not treated
equally. Article 14 does not forbid classification. Principle underlying the guarantee of Article 14 is not
that same rules of law should be applicable to all persons within the territory of India irrespective of
differences or circumstances. It only means that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike
without any distinction. By the process of classification, the authority has the power to determine who
should be regarded as a class for the purposes of legislation and in relation to law enacted on the subject.
Before classification is held to be valid, it has to pass the test of fulfilling following conditions (I) that the
classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped
together from others and (II) the differentia must have rational nexus or relation to the object sought to be
achieved by legislation.

23. In Deepak Sibal Vs. Punjab University and another, AIR 1989 SC 903, it was observed by
the Apex Court that it is now well settled that Article 14 of the Constitution forbids class legislation, but
does not forbid reasonable classification. Whether a classification is a permissible classification or not, two
conditions must be satisfied, namely (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible
differentia, which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the
group, and (ii) that the differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the
status in question.

24. In the case of M.P. Oil Extraction Versus State of M.P. reported in AIR 1998 SC 145 it was
observed by the Apex Court that Article 14 has inbuilt flexibility and it also permits different treatment to
unequals as it only prohibits discrimination amongst the equals. Implicit in the concept of equality is the
concept that persons who are in fact unequally circumstanced cannot be treated on a par. Equally under
Article 14 is not indiscriminate. Paradoxical as it may seem, the concept of equality permits rational or
discriminating discrimination.

25. The larger issue is that once compensation in question has been awarded under the Land
Acquisition Act, are the State instrumentalities stopped in law in discharging their social obligation by
making scheme for rehabilitation of the oustees, whose land is being acquired.

26. The answer to this question would be 'No' for the simple reason that it is always open to the
Authorities, in addition to the compensation that is to be awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, to
award something in addition to a different class of tenure holders for specific objects that are sought to be
achieved.

27. In this backdrop, we are perusing the facts of the case and what we find, in the present case, is
that for the purposes of awarding additional compensation, other than the compensation that has already
been awarded, that is of providing additional compensation to Pushtaini Kastakars and also providing exgratia to the Pushtaini Kastakars.
5 All. Kumud Vishwakarma Vs Union Of India & Ors.

2063
28. Pushtaini Kastakars and Non Pushtaini Kastakars have been classified based on the situation
qua the incumbents who were original residents of the area, which formed part of the NOIDA Authority,
and on account of acquisition of their land as a result thereof, of their existing place of living agriculture
land was being taken away and they were likely to be rendered landless and would have to face irreparable
hardship, since their land itself was being acquired and the second class of incumbents were such, who
have shifted to Noida after the Authority in question has been constituted.

29. The NOIDA Authorities, in their wisdom, have proceeded to classify two category of tenure
holders based on original resident, whose land has been acquired and from the class of persons who have
shifted to Noida after the Authority in question has been constituted. Additional compensation and exgratia amount has been given as rehabilitation bonus to those farmers whose land has been recorded in the
revenue records as on 17.04.1976 i.e. the date of constitution of NOIDA Authority and it was not at all part
of the compensation but it was an additional compensatory amount so that they can rehabilitate
themselves.

30. In the present case, the classification that has been so made cannot be said to be arbitrary or
unreasonable, inasmuch as, on one hand there are such tenure holders, who have been the original
residents, whose land has been got recorded in the revenue records before the constitution of NOIDA
Authority and who has to be rehabilitated and on the other hand, there is another class of tenure holders,
who are not at all the original residents but have subsequently migrated after the constitution of NOIDA
Authority, in view of this, once such is the factual situation that is so emerging, then the classification in
question that has been so carried out, has to be accepted as reasonable classification having direct nexus
with the object sought to be achieved that is proper rehabilitation of original residents i.e. sons of soil of the
area, who are likely to become landless due to acquisition of their land, in view of this, the challenge that
has been so made on the basis of discrimination, cannot be accepted by us and has to be overruled.

31. Consequently, challenge made sans merit, and all the writ petitions are dismissed accordingly.

32. No order as to cost
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE V.K. SHUKLA, J.
THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No.- 6760 Of 2014

Kumud Vishwakarma ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents