Allowed

Ved Prakash v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2023CMRA/157/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil miscellaneous review application, dismissing the petitioner's challenge to the compensation rate fixed by the Development Authority in lieu of 5% abadi plot, relying on the Full Bench decision in Gajraj & ors. and subsequent appellate rulings.

What did the court decide?

The review application was allowed and the earlier order dismissing the writ petition was affirmed.

Ved Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 157 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Ved Prakash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Harendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

It is pointed out that the order dated 19.09.2022 has wrongly been transcribed on the basis of the decision of this Court in Runwell India Pvt. Ltd vs. State of UP & ors in Writ-C No.14113 of 2017 where as the issue raised in the writ petition was with regard to 5% abadi plot in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj & ors vs. State of UP & ors; 2011 (11) ADJ 1 (FB) or to pay compensation of Rs.44,000/- per sq. metre in place of Rs.22,000/- per sq. metre, in lieu of 5% of abadi.

¶6

The prayer made in the writ petition is for quashing of the resolution of 191st Borad meeting dated 21.12.2016 and to pay compensation to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.44,000/- per sq. metre for the acquired land.

¶7

Looking to the above fact, while reviewing the judgment and order dated 19.09.2022, we may note that the issue raised herein has been determined by this Court in Writ-C No.2002 of 2023 (Smt. Kamlesh Devi & ors vs. State of U.P. & ors), which reads as follows:-

¶8

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh learned counsel for the respondent-Development Authority and perused the record.

¶9

This is a wholly misconceived petition filed with the following reliefs:-

¶10

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the Nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 to grant compensation at the rate of 45,000 per square meter in lieu of 5% developed land.

¶11

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pass appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner dated 21.4.2022."

¶12

The petitioners herein are claiming compensation at a higher rate than that has been determined in 191st Board Meeting dated 21.12.2016 for the

¶13

benefits granted to the land owners by the Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj & ors vs State of U.P & ors reported in 2011 (11) ADJ 1 (FB) in terms of additional 5% of developed Abadi plot.

¶14

The Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj (supra) has issued the following directions:-

¶15

"3. (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 any prejudice to rights of land owners under section 18 of the Act, if any.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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 ;

¶18

(a) those land holders whose earlier writ petition challenging the notifications have been dismissed upholding the notifications; and

¶19

(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."

¶20

The Full Bench, thus, directed to allot developed Abadi plot to all the petitioners in Gajraj (supra) to the extent of 10% of their acquired land subject to maximum of 2500 square meters. However, in cases where allotment of abadi plot to the extent of 6% or 8% had already been made, it was kept open for the Authority either to make allotment of the balance of the area or compensate the land owners by payment of the amount equivalent to balance area as per average rate of allotment made of developed residential plots.

¶21

In compliance of this direction, the Development Authority in its 191st Board meeting dated 21.12.2016 had determined the rate at which compensation shall be payable to the land owners in lieu of 5% additional developed residential plots in terms of the Full Bench decision in Gajraj (supra).

¶22

The rate of compensation determined in lieu of 5% developed Abadi plot is Rs. 22,000/- per square meters on the basis of the Office order dated

¶23

26.8.2014 where the amount was fixed as Rs. 1100/- per square meters in respect of amount equivalent to their net area.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners though seeks to challenge the determination made by the Board of the rate of compensation under the direction of this Court in Gajraj (supra), but nothing could be brought before us to demonstrate that the amount determined by the Development Authority is not as per the average rate of allotment made of developed residential plots as per direction no. 3, in the judgment.

¶25

It is argued by Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh learned Advocate for the respondent-Development Authority that the developed residential plots which are being allotted to the tenure holders lie in Sector 145 and the average rate of allotment of the developed residential plots after necessary deductions is 22,000/- per square meters.

¶26

As nothing contrary could be brought before us to assail the determination made by the Development Authority, we do not find any good ground to entertain the writ petition.

¶27

It is further submitted before us by Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh learned Advocate for the respondent-Development Authority that the determination made by the Development Authority of the average rate of allotment of developed residential plots has been affirmed by the Apex Court in Contempt Petition (C) No. 852 of 2017 in C.A. No. 4537 of 2015 (Jagdish vs. Alok Tandon).

¶28

It may be noted that the Apex Court in the above noted contempt matter, made scrutiny of the rate fixed for compensation in lieu of land which was to be given to the land owners. It was noted in the order dated 24.7.2017 as under:-

¶29

"Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in lieu of the land which was to be given by the respondent, monetary compensation is offered. He further states that though the petitioners have no objection in taking the compensation in terms of money, it should be minimum of the circle rate prevailing in August, 2016 when the decision was taken not to give the land but to pay money in lieu thereof. As per him, the circle rate was Rs. 42,000/per square meter which is the minimum in that area. As against it, the petitioner is giving compensation at the rate of Rs.22,000/- per square meter. Let the respondent file an affidavit disclosing as to on what basis compensation of Rs. 22,000/- per square meter was offered.

¶30

Let the affidavit be filed within two weeks.

¶31

List after two weeks."

¶32

The contempt petition was finally disposed of as under:-

¶33

"After hearing of the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the respondent has, in all bona fides, complied with the directions contained in the judgment of this Court. No further orders are required to be passed in this contempt petition. The contempt petition stands disposed of."

¶34

For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶35

It is added by Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent development authority that the petitioners had filed an affidavit with the authority that they were agreeable to accept Rs.22,000/- per square meter in lieu of 5% of the developed land in the light of the decision of the Full Bench in Gajraj (supra) and they shall not challenge the determination made by the authority. "

¶36

For the reasons mentioned above, the instant writ petition, out of which the review application arises, is dismissed.

¶37

Accordingly, the review application is allowed.

¶38

Order Date :- 3.4.2023 P Kesari

¶39

Digitally signed by :- PRACHI KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ved Prakash v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ved Prakash v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Manohar Lal and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and Others

Smt. Anju Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vishwa Gaurav Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs Hari Singh and Another

Arun Tyagi and Another Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Neelam Kumari Gangele and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others