Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2022WRIC/3119/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought allotment of 10% abadi plot and 4% developed land based on a previous Full Bench judgment. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that benefits do not accrue to non-parties to the earlier decision which was limited to its peculiar facts.

What did the court decide?

Direction to allot 10% abadi plot and 4% developed land to petitioners was not granted.

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

¶1

Chief Justice's Court Serial No. 9

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT - C No. - 3119 of 2022

¶4

Ramveer and others

¶5

.....Petitioners

¶6

Through :- Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Ganga Dhar Shukla, Advocate

¶7

v/s

¶8

State of U.P. and others

¶9

.....Respondent

¶10

Through :- Mr. Jagdish Pathak, Standing Counsel

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, JUDGE

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The land of the petitioners was acquired for planned industrial development in Greater Noida vide Notification dated September 29, 2005 issued under Section 4 of 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. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to allot the abadi plot to the extent of 10% and developed land to the extent of 4% to the petitioners 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 .

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

Once it is not disputed that were not the party before the Full Bench in

¶17

2 WRIC No. 3119 of 2022

¶18

Gajraj's case (supra) , no benefits granted therein shall accrue to the petitioners, as that case was decided in peculiar facts and circumstances.

¶19

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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 48 of the judgment in Khatoon and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (2018) 14 SCC 346 .

¶20

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

¶21

The writ petition lacks merits, hence dismissed.

¶22

(Prakash Padia, J.) (Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)

¶23

Allahabad 18.02.2022 P.Sri./Manish Himwan

¶24

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramveer 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Prasad Gupta Vs State of Up and 3 Others

Smt.Komal Keshwani Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Ram Sanehi Patel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Priyanka and Another Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Guru Prasad and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kunvar Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others