Landowners challenged the Greater Noida Authority's rejection of their claim to additional compensation and developed plots. The court held the writ petition was barred by delay and laches and that a Section 28A plea was unavailable since their earlier petition claimed only Gajraj benefits. Dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 37027 of 2025
Atar Singh And 5 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Mishra, Shri Krishna Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anjali Upadhya, C.S.C.
Court No. - 40
HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
WRIC No. 37027 of 2025
2
5. Per contra , Ms. Ishita Sand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the impugned order has been passed on 10.05.2016 and there is inordinate delay of more than nine and half years in filing the present writ petition. She submits that the petitioners' case in Writ-C No.5254 of 2016 (Atar Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. & others) was that they are entitled to the benefit of judgement in the case of Gajraj (supra) and in such view of the fact, this Court directed the authority to consider the claim of the petitioners and the authority in the light of the judgement in the case of Gajraj (supra) , and the authority recorded a categorical finding that the land of the petitioners were not part of the notifications which were under challenge in the case of Gajraj (supra) . The finding recorded by the authority is based upon the proper appreciation of material on record and there is no error in the said finding.
6. Be that as it may , there is an inordinate delay of more than nine and half years in filing the present writ petition. The petitioners have explained the delay in paragraphs No.10 & 11 of the writ petition which are being reproduced herein below:-
10. That the petitioners meet to Sewa Ram son of Shyam Lal Resident of 39 Gulawali District Gautam Budh Nagar on 08.07.2025 and received information that identical case the writ petition was filed before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and that writ petition was registered as Writ-C No. 8417/2025 in that writ petition the order was passed on 24.03.2025. A copy of the order dated 24.03.2025 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.5 to this writ petition.
11. That after receiving the aforesaid information the petitioners collected the documents and filing the present writ petition if any delay same may be condoned and writ petition is treated as well time.
WRIC No. 37027 of 2025
3
alia that the petitioners are entitled to benefit of the judgement in the case of Gajraj (supra) and therefore, this Court directed the authority to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of the judgement in the case of Gajraj (supra) . Relevant extract of the order passed inWrit-C No.5254 of 2016 (Atar Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. & others) is being reproduced herein below:-
It is the case of the petitioners that the issue raised by means of the present writ petition stands settled in favour of the petitioners under the judgment and order of the full bench of this court in the case of Gajraj and others vs. State of U.P. and others reported in ADJ 2011 (11) page 1 and the petitioner is entitled to additional compensation and 10% of developed land.
In view of the aforesaid, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to make a representation ventilating all their grievances before the Chief Executive Officer within two weeks from today along with certified copy of this Order. On such representation being made, the Chief Executive Officer shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law by means of reasoned speaking order preferably within eight weeks thereafter.
(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.
(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
WRIC No. 37027 of 2025
4
residential plots.
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 :
(a) Those land holders whose earlier writ petition challenging the notifications have been dismissed upholding the notifications; and
(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.
मा० उच्च न्यायालय के उक्त आदेश िदनांक 21.10.2011, िजसकी पुिष्ट, मा० उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा िसिवल अपील संख्या 4505/2015 श्रीमती सािवत्री देवी व अन्य प्रित उ०प्र० राज्य व अन्य में पािरत आदेश िदनांक 14.05.2015 द्वारा की गयी है, के आदेश के आलोक में प्रािधकरण बोडर् की 91वीं बैठक में आदेश में िनिहत अिधसूचना से आच्छािदत समस्त कृषकों को चाहे उन्होंने िरट यािचका प्रस्तुत की हो या नहीं अथवा उनके द्वारा प्रस्तुत कोई यािचका िनरस्त कर दी गयी हो, को भी केवल 64.70% की दर से अितिरक्त प्रितकर भुगतान का िनणर्य िलया जा चुका है। िजस अिधसूचना/घोषणा द्वारा याचीगण/प्रत्यावेदकगण की भूिम अिजत की गयी है, वह मा० उच्च न्यायालय की पूवर्पीठ के उक्त आदेश िदनांक 21.10.2011 में सिम्मिलत नही हं ै। अस्तु प्रत्यावदकगण का पे ्रकरण मां० उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश िदनांक 21.10.2011 व प्रािधकरण बोडर् के नीितगत िनणर्य से आच्छािदत नहीं है। अस्तु प्रत्यावेदकगण मा० उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद द्वारा पािरत आदेश तथा प्रािधकरण बोडर् के । िनणर्य के क्रम में 64.70% अितिरक्त प्रितकर व 10% आबादी भूखण्ड देय नहीं ह
November 21, 2025 SS
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the order dated 10.05.2016 was barred by delay and laches.
Whether petitioners could claim benefit of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 when their earlier case rested on Gajraj.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gajraj and others Vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred
ADJ 2011 (11) 1
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Atar Singh
State Of U.P.
Saral Srivastava
Sudhanshu Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
