Dismissed

Barkat Ali and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2018WRIC/103/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the rejection of a claim for enhanced compensation based on a Board resolution. The Court held that Article 14 does not mandate equal treatment where prior benefits were granted via error or illegality, dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking quashment of the impugned order dated 29 August 2016 was dismissed as there was no illegality therein.

Barkat Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No.39

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 103 of 2018

¶4

Petitioner :- Barkat Ali And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shishir Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.

¶6

This petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 29 August 2016 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, District Gautam Budh Nagar¹ by which the representation filed by the petitioner for enhancing the compenstion in view of the resolution of the Board taken in its 99^th Meeting on 12 August 2014 has been rejected.

¶7

It transpires from a perusal of the writ petition that a large tract of land was sought to be acquired and the petitioner in regard to his land executed a sale deed in favour of Greater Noida on 26 October 2013. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a representation that the petitioner should be provided 6% developed abadi land in terms of the aforesaid resolution of the Board. This claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the Chief Executive Officer of Greater Noida by order dated 29 August 2016 holding that the benefit of the decision taken by the Board in its 99^th Meeting would be available only in regard to sale deeds executed on 1 January 2014 or thereafter.

¶8

Though the petitioner has not enclosed a copy of the resolution of the Board, learned counsel for the petitioner does admit that the benefit

¶9

1 Greater Noida

¶10

¶11

conferred by the aforesaid resolution of the Board was to be granted in regard to the sale deeds that were executed on 1 January 2014 or thereafter. However, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the some documents, has stated that this benefit should be conferred upon the petitioner also as certain land owerns who had executed sale deeds prior to 1 January 2014 were conferred this benefit.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3. Sri B.B. Jauhari appears for respondent no.4.

¶13

Sri B.B. Jauhari, learned counsel appearing for Greater Noida submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order as the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the resolution of the Board.

¶14

Though specific details have not been provided by the petitioner in regard to such persons but even if some benefit was wrongly conferred on certain persons, it cannot be made a ground to confer the same benefit on the petitioner.

¶15

The Supreme Court has held that Article 14 of the Constitution does not perpetuate illegality and does not envisage negative equalities. In State of U.P. And Ors. v. Rajkumar Sharma And Ors.² the Supreme Court held as under:

¶16

“15. Even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly that does not confer any right on another person. Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and if the State committed the mistake it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake. [See Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P. (1996) 7 SCC 426; Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain (1997) 1 SCC 35; State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann

¶17

2 (2006) 3 SCC 330

¶18

¶19

(1997) 3 SCC 321; Faridabad C.T. Scan Centre v. D.G., Health Services (1997) 7 SCC 752; Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh (1999) 3 494; State of Punjab v. Dr. Rajeev Sarwal (1999) 9 SCC 240; Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi (2003) 3 SCC 548; Union of India v. International Trading Co. (2003) 5 SCC 437 and Kastha Niwarak Grihnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. President, Indore Development Authority (2006) 2 SCC 604.]

¶20

Reiterating that Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality, the Supreme Court in Kulwinder Pal Singh & Anr Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.³ observed that mere grant of benefit to some persons by illegality or mistake does not confer a right upon others to claim equality.

¶21

The petitioner could have been granted the benefit of 6% developed abadi land only in terms of the resolution of the Board and the resolution of the Board is in regard to sale deeds executed on 1 January 2014 or thereafter. This benefit, therefore, would not be available to the petitioner as the sale deed was executed by the petitioner on 26 October 2013.

¶22

There is, therefore, no illegality in the impugned order which may call for any interference by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶23

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶24

Date :-04.01.2018 SK

¶25

(Dilip Gupta, J.)

¶26

(Jayant Banerji, J.)

¶27

3 (2016) 6 SCC 532