Dismissed

Smt. Savitri Devi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2023WRIC/3751/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition by a fence-sitter petitioner seeking 10% developed abadi plot (max 2500 sq.mts) based on the Full Bench judgment in Gajraj. Relying on the Supreme Court rulings in Savitri Devi and Khatoon cases, the Court held the Gajraj judgment was fact-specific and not precedential for non-petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the prayer for allotment of developed abadi plots.

Smt. Savitri Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3751 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt. Savitri Devi And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ganga Dhar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhya

¶3

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

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶5

Ms. Anjali Upadhyay learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent development authority.

¶6

The petitioners herein are the fence sitter. They did not challenge the acquisition notification and was not party to the Full Bench judgment in Gajraj & ors vs State of U.P & ors reported in 2011 (11) ADJ 1 (FB) but are seeking benefit of the directions issued therein for allotment of developed Abadi Plot to the extent of 10% of their acquired land subject to maximum of 2500 sq.mts.

¶7

It is agreed by the counsel for the parties that the issue raised herein are squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 31.05.2022 passed by this Court in Writ C no.14113 of 2017 (Runwell India Pvt.Ltd v. State of U.P. and others).

¶8

For the reasons as stated in paragraphs '35' to '39' of the judgment and order dated 31.05.2022 quoted herein under; the prayer made in the present petition cannot be granted :-

¶9

"35. The grounds urged on behalf of petitioners for claiming 10% developed land subject to ceiling limit of 2,500 square meters, though appears to be attractive at the first flush, but are devoid of substance. The submission is that subsequent to the Full Bench judgement of this Court in Gajraj's case (supra), some of the land owners/tenure holders challenged the same before the Supreme Court. All the Civil Appeals/Special Leave Petitions were clubbed together and decided by a common judgement dated 14.02.2015, as Savitri Devi's case (supra), wherein, in paragraph no. 50, it has been held that in view of the peculiar circumstances, the order passed by the High Court would not form precedent for future cases. The observation made in paragraph no. 50 in Savitri Devi's case (supra) reads as under:-

¶10

50. Conclusion Keeping in view all these peculiar circumstances, we are of the opinion that these are not the cases where this Court should interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution. However, we make it clear that directions of the High Court are given in the aforesaid unique and peculiar/specific background and, therefore, it would not form precedent for future cases.

¶11

(emphasis supplied)

¶12

36. Subsequent to the judgement in Savitri Devi's case (supra), the Supreme Court in Khatoon's case (supra), while considering the question as to whether the appellants therein are entitled to claim additional abadi land in lieu of their acquired land in terms of the judgement in Gajraj's case (supra) and upheld in Savitri Devi's case (supra), has held as under:-

¶13

"49. That apart, there is no basis for the appellants to press in service the principle underlined in Article 14 in such cases for the simple reason that firstly, Article 14 does not apply to such cases; and secondly, there is no similarity between the case of those landowners, who filed the writ petitions and the present appellants, who did not file the writ petitions. Though the High Court, in Gajraj's case (supra) decided the rights of both categories of landowners but the cases of both stood on a different footing. It is for these reasons, the appellants were not held entitled to take benefit of condition No. 3 (a) and (b) of the case of Gajraj (supra) which was meant for the writ petitioners therein but not for the appellants. However, the appellants were held entitled to take the benefit of only condition No. 4 (a) and (b) of the said judgment and which they did take by accepting the additional compensation payable at the rate of 64.70%.

¶14

50. In our view, therefore substantial justice was done to all the landowners including the appellants, as observed in para 49 of Savitri Devi's case (supra)."

¶15

37. In view of subsequent judgements of this Court as well as the Apex Court as noted herein-above, claim of the land owners/tenure holders for allotment of 10% of Abadi land subject to the ceiling limit of 2,500 square meters has been negated, the benefit, as claimed by the petitioners, cannot be granted.

¶16

38. The land owners/tenure holders, whose lands have been acquired under the 1894 Act, are not entitled as a matter of right for allotment of 10% of developed land, subject to the ceiling limit of 2,500 square meters.

¶17

39. In view of the aforesaid, as held by the Apex Court in Savitri Devi's and Khatoon's cases (supra), the landowners/tenure holders cannot get benefit of the same as the judgement rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj's case (supra) was in view of the peculiar facts & circumstances of the case, which would not form precedent for the future cases and therefore, the benefit cannot be accorded to the petitioners, who were not before the Court in earlier round of litigation."

¶18

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶19

Order Date :- 3.2.2023 sailesh

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SAILESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Savitri Devi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savitri Devi and 3 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

Vidyawati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Murti Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramchandra Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Shiv Dayal Singh and 26 Others Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Mukesh Kumar and Another Vs Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and Another

Ram Sevak and 12 Others Vs Union of India and 3 Others