Dismissed

Rakesh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2018WRIC/23682/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking allotment of 4% developed land from acquired land. The court held that the petitioner, who did not file a writ petition before the Full Bench, was not entitled to the benefit of the earlier decision granting 10% developed land, distinguishing it based on Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.

Rakesh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23682 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Rakesh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suneel Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhya

¶4

Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the followng relief:

¶6

"Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allot 4% remaining area of the acquired land as developed plot in respect of the petitioner's acquired land of Khata No. 62, Khasra No. 122, 167 area 1.7522 hectare, situated at village Khairpur Gurjar Tehsil Gadri Ditrict Gautam Budh Nagar."

¶7

Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that the controversy involved in the writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court dated 15.02.2018 passed in the case of Smt. Khatoon and others Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2018 (2) SCALE 501 :MANU/SC/0124/2018.

¶8

The petitioner is claiming developed land

¶9

equivalent to 10% of his acquired land on the basis of Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Gajraj and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (11) ADJ 1.

¶10

The aforesaid decision of the Full Bench apart from other reliefs directs that the land holders shall be entitled to 10% of the acquired land as developed land in addition to the compensation.

¶11

The matter once again came up for consideration before the High Court as to whether any such relief is admissible to the tenure holders. The Division Bench of this court in the case of Mange Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ Petition No.7521 of 2016 vide judgement and order dated 01.08.2016 held that refusal to grant additional developed land to the tenure holders is neither arbitrary nor discretionary.

¶12

One of the petitioners of the aforementioned connected writ petition namely Smt. Khatoon and others had challenged the aforesaid decision before the Supreme Court and the matter was decided on 15.02.2018. The Apex Court therein clarified that the advantage of the decision of the Gajraj's Case ( supra) would be available only to the persons, who were before the High Court and not to the non-petitioners.

¶13

Thus, a distinction was made with regard to the admissibility of the benefit awarded by the Gajraj's Case between the land owners, who filed the writ petitions and the land owners or the persons who did not file the writ petition. The benefit of the said decision was confined to the land owner, who filed the writ petition.

¶14

The present petitioner is not the person, who had filed the writ petitions, which were decided by the Full Bench of this Court and as such he is not entitled to the benefit of 10% developed Abadi land as per the Full Bench decision. A writ petition, being Writ -C No. 16647 of 2018, Suresh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, was also filed by the similarly situated persons seeking the same relief and the Division Bench of this Court, after taking into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt Khatoon (supra) , dismissed the said writ petition on 10.7.2018.

¶15

In view of the above, the present writ petition , being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 18.7.2018 MLK

Rakesh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S B.N. Traders Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nishkam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and Another

D.K Chaturvedi Vs Additional District Megistrate and Another

Shabnam Zaheer Vs Union of India Ministry of Road Transport and 3 Others

Smt. Parwati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others