Dismissed

Jag Ram v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2021WRIC/12928/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought 10% additional compensation for land acquired in Greater Noida, relying on a Full Bench judgment. This Court dismissed the petition, holding that the acquisition was not the subject matter of the earlier precedent, which was limited to peculiar facts. The Supreme Court had also clarified that those directions were not a precedent for future cases. Petition dismissed for lack of m

What the court decided

AI extract

Jag Ram Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Additional Cause List Serial No. 344

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12928 of 2020

¶4

Petitioner :- Jag Ram Respondent :- State of U.P. and others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Mr. Dinesh Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Mr. A.P. Paul, Standing Counsel and Mr. Ramendra Pratap Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 4.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal,Chief Justice Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

¶7

The land of the petitioner was acquired for planned industrial development in Greater Noida under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The acquisition attained finality and even the compensation as determined by the Collector was paid. It is not disputed by learned counsel for petitioner that no objections were filed seeking enhancement of the compensation by the petitioner. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to pay additional compensation of 10 per cent to the petitioner in terms of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Gajraj and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (2011) 11 ADJ 1.

¶8

2. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, by which land of the petitioner was acquired, was not the subject matter of consideration before the Full Bench in Gajraj's case (supra) . Hence, the benefits, which were given in the aforesaid judgment, will not accrue to the petitioner.

¶9

The fact that the notification in question was not subject matter of consideration before the Full Bench in Gajraj's case (supra) is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶10

Once it is not in dispute that the acquisition in question was not

¶11

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 petitioner, as that case was decided in peculiar facts and circumstances.

¶12

Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Savitri Devi Vs. 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 H on'ble Supreme Court in para 48 of the judgment in Khatoon and others Vs. State of

¶13

U.P. and others (2018) 14 SCC 346 .

¶14

For the foregoing reasons, in our considered opinion, the petitioner does not deserve the relief, as prayed for.

¶15

The writ petition lacks merits, hence dismissed .

¶16

Date :- 15.12.2021 Rahul Dwivedi/Shiraz

¶17

(Piyush Agrawal, J.) (Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)

Jag Ram v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jag Ram v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subesh Singh @ Sube Singh and Another Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Shyoraj Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Udai Veer and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Natthu Singh and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Om Prakash and Another Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Pishori Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others