Court dismissed a writ petition challenging rejection of claims for additional compensation and 10% developed abadi land. Holding that benefits mandated in Gajraj apply only to specific villages challenged before the Full Bench.
Impugned orders rejecting the petitioners' claim for additional land and compensation were upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 438 of 2018 Petitioner :- Om Prakash And 9 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.
The petitioners who claim to be recorded tenure holders of Khata No.67 Plot Nos.320, 321, 322 and 323 in village Hazipur, Tehsil Dadri in District Gautam Budh Nagar have filed this petition to assail the orders dated 25 April 2016 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA on the representation filed by the petitioners pursuant to the directions issued by the Court on 4 March 2016 and 15 March 2016 in the earlier Writ Petition No.10446 of 20161 and Writ Petition No.11943 of 20162 filed by the petitioners. The representation filed by the petitioners have been rejected by detailed orders dated 25 April 2016 holding that the benefit of providing 10% additional land and 64.7% additional compensation would not be available to the petitioners.
It is stated in the order that the aforesaid plots were included in the notification dated 28 November 2001 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 18943 and the declaration made on 21 February 2002. Possession of the plots was given to the Authority on 23 March 2002 and the award was made on 30 September 2009. It has also been stated that the notification by which the land of the petitioners was acquired was not included in the petitions decided by the Full Bench in
Gajraj and Others v. State of U.P. and Others4 .
1 Gyan Chand Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2 Om Prakash & 9 Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
3 the Act
4 2011 (11) ADJ 1
2
Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the benefit of 10% developed land and 64.70% additional compensation would be available to the petitioners even if the acquisition was not included in Gajraj and in any view of the matter the benefit would be available in view of the decision taken by the NOIDA Board in its meeting held on 9 June 2016 at Supplementary Agenda No. 11.
Learned counsel appearing for the State-respondent and Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel appearing for NOIDA have submitted that the benefit granted by the Full Bench in Gajraj would not be available to the petitioners and in support of this submission, learned counsel for NOIDA has placed reliance upon a Division Bench of this Court rendered on 13 January 2017 in Writ Petition No. 1530 of 20175 . Learned counsel has also contended that the Board resolution dated 9 June 2016 would not help the petitioners.
The issue that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the benefit of the directions issued in Gajraj for providing additional compensation and land should be given to such tenure-holders also whose lands were not acquired by the notifications under challenge in Gajraj and whether the petitioners can claim the relief on the basis of the Board resolution.
One of the plea that was raised before the Full Bench in Gajraj was that the State Government was not justified in dispensing with the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act by invoking the provisions of sub-
5 Narendra Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and Others
3
sections (1) and (4) of Section 17 of the Act. The Full Bench held that the State was not justified in dispensing with the enquiry contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act. Three sets of directions were then issued. Some of the writ petitions that had been filed with unexplained delay and laches were dismissed. The notifications issued in respect of villages where no development had taken place were also quashed. However, in respect of some villages where substantial development had taken place, instead of quashing the acquisition proceedings even after accepting the plea that the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act were wrongly invoked, the Full Bench enhanced the compensation by 64.7% as well as issued directions for allotment of developed abadi plot. The operative portion of the directions issued by the Full Bench in respect of petitions where relief for additional compensation and allotment of developed abadi plot was granted, as contained in paragraph 482 (3) and (4) is as follows:-
“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 compensation may be paid the compensation as well as additional compensation as ordered above. The payment of additional compensation shall be without
4
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.”
It is, therefore, clear that the Full Bench in Gajraj , instead of quashing the acquisition proceedings under challenge before it in regard to certain villages in which extensive development had taken place, even after holding that providing of opportunity to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act had wrongly been denied to the tenure-holders, protected the acquisition proceedings by directing for payment of additional compensation . This benefit was restricted to the tenure holders who had challenged the acquisition proceedings before the Full Bench.
5
However, the Full Bench in paragraph 482(4) also directed that the Authority may take a decision as to whether the benefit of additional compensation and allotment of 10% abadi plot be given to those tenureholders whose petitions to challenge the acquisition proceedings had earlier been dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court and to those who had not filed writ petitions to challenge the notification in issue before the Full Bench.
The decision rendered by the Full Bench in Gajraj was assailed before the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Others6 . The portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court relevant to the controversy involved in this petition, is as follows:-
“46. Thus, we have a scenario where, on the one hand, invocation of urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Act and dispensing with the right to file objection under Section 5-A of the Act, is found to be illegal. On the other hand, we have a situation where because of delay in challenging these acquisitions by the landowners, developments have taken in these villages and in most of the cases, third party rights have been created . Faced with this situation, the High Court going by the spirit behind the judgment of this Court in Bondu Ramaswamy and Others (2010) 7 SCC 129 came out with the solution which is equitable to both sides. We are, thus, of the view that the High Court considered the ground realities of the matter and arrived at a more practical and workable solution by adequately compensating the landowners in the form of compensation as well as allotment of developed abadi land at a higher rate i.e. 10% of the land acquired of each of the landowners against the eligibility and to the policy to the extent of 5% and 6% of Noida and Greater Noida land respectively .
6 (2015) 7 SCC 21
6
(emphasis supplied)
What has, however, been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners is that irrespective of whether notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act was under challenge before the Full Bench or not, the petitioners should be granted the same benefit regarding the additional compensation and developed abadi plot as was granted by the Full Bench in Gajraj .
This submission of learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. Firstly, as noted above, the Full Bench in Gajraj had granted relief to the petitioners and to such persons also who had not filed petitions to challenge the acquisition or whose petitions had earlier been dismissed by Division Benches of the High Court in view of the peculiar facts of the case narrated above that extensive development had taken place after acquisition and the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi also clarified that the directions issued by the Full Bench shall not be treated as a precedent in future cases. In the present case, the acquisition made in 2001 was not under challenge before the Full Bench and it has been assailed after a lapse of almost sixteen years.
A Division Bench of this Court in Writ -C No. 18243 of 20167
7 Vishambhar Dayal v. State of U.P. & 3 Ors., decided on 3 August 2016
7
connected with two other writ petitions also observed that since the land of the petitioner was acquired by means of a notification which was not the subject matter before the Full Bench, the relief for payment of additional 64.70% compensation and 10% additional abadi land cannot be claimed. This judgment was followed by another Division Bench in Writ-C No. 1530 of 2017 decided on 13 January 2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has, however, placed reliance upon the supplementary Agenda No. 11. A perusal of the said resolution indicates that the Board had resolved that because it did not have sufficient land, the benefit of the decision rendered in Gajraj to provide 10% additional land could be granted by giving compensation instead of providing of land. This resolution, in our opinion, would not come to the aid of the petitioners, they are not entitled to 10% land.
Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 08.1.2018 GS
(Dilip Gupta, J.)
(Jayant Banerji,J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether tenure-holders whose land was not under challenge before the Full Bench in Gajraj can claim additional compensation and developed abadi plot.
Whether a Board resolution resolving to grant compensation instead of land entitles petitioners to 10% land development benefit.
Whether the Full Bench directions in Gajraj apply as precedent to acquisitions not subject to the same challenge.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gajraj and Others v. State of U.P. and OthersDistinguished¶6
Gajraj and Others v. State of U.P. and Others, 2011 (11) ADJ 1
Savitri Devi Vs. State of U.P. & OthersDistinguished¶31
Savitri Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Others, (2015) 7 SCC 21 · Who else cites this
Unspecified Division Bench JudgmentReferred¶14
Writ Petition No. 1530 of 2017
Vishambhar Dayal v. State of U.P.Referred
Writ -C No. 18243 of 2016, Vishambhar Dayal v. State of U.P. & 3 Ors.
Gyan Chand Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.Referred
Gyan Chand Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Unspecified Writ PetitionReferred
Writ Petition No.10446 of 2016
Unspecified Writ PetitionReferred
Writ Petition No.11943 of 2016
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Om Prakash And 9 Others
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Dilip Gupta
Jayant Banerji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
