Dismissed

Dheeraj Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Mar 2022WRIC/30151/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking 4% developed abadi land benefits under the Gajraj judgment was dismissed. The Court held that since petitioners were not parties to Gajraj, and subsequent Supreme Court rulings limited that precedent, they are not entitled to the relief.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners are denied the 4% developed abadi land benefits claimed under the Gajraj judgment.

Dheeraj Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court Serial No.16

¶2

**HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD *****

¶3

WRIT - C No. - 30151 of 2021

¶4

Dheeraj Singh and others .....Petitioners

¶5

Through :- Mr. Gautam Kumar Upadhyaya, Advocate for Maruti Kumar Tripathi, Advocate

¶6

v/s

¶7

State of U.P. and others

¶8

State of U.P. and others .....Respondents Through :- Mr. Ajay Prakash Paul, State Law Officer for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Ms. Eshita Sand, Advocate for Ms. Anjali Upadhya, Advocate for respondent No.3

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, JUDGE

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The land of the petitioners was acquired for planned industrial development in Greater Noida vide notification dated April 10, 2006 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquisition attained finality and even the compensation as determined by the Collector was paid.

¶12

The grievance raised in the present writ petition is that the petitioners are entitled for 4% developed abadi land in terms of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Gajraj and others v. State of U.P. and others, (2011)11 ADJ 1.

¶13

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present petitioners were not party before the Full Bench in Gajraj's case (supra) and hence, the benefits, which were given in the aforesaid judgment, will not accrue to the petitioners.

¶14

The fact that the petitioners were not party before the Full Bench in Gajraj's case (supra) is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶15

2 WRIC No. 30151 of 2021

¶16

Once it is not disputed that the petitioners were not party before the Full Bench in Gajraj's case (supra), no benefits granted therein shall accrue to the petitioners, as that case was decided in peculiar facts and circumstances.

¶17

Further, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi v. 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 Hon'ble the Supreme Court in paragraph 48 of the judgment in Khatoon and others v. State of U.P. and others, (2018)14 SCC 346 .

¶18

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

¶19

The writ petition lacks merit, hence dismissed.

¶20

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

¶21

Allahabad 03.03.2022 Rakesh/Shiraz

¶22

Whether the order is speaking : Yes Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No

Dheeraj Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheeraj Singh and 2 Others 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

Syed Ahmad Hasan Vs State of U.P. through Its Collector U.P. and 5 Others

Aijaz Ahmad Makrani Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Nar Singh Vs the State of U.P. and Others

Nar Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

M/S Indus Mines and Minerals, through Its Partner Vikas Parmani Vs State of U P and 4 Others