Case: Khatoon &amp; Others Vs. The State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary &amp; Others

Court in the case of Gajraj (supra), namely, allotment of developed abadi plot to the appellants.38. In our considered opinion, the appellants are not entitled to get the benefit of the aforementioned second direction and this we say for the following reasons.39. First, the High Court in the case of Gajraj (supra) had, in express terms, granted the relief of allotment of developed abadi plot confining it only to the landowners, who had filed the writ petitions. In other words, the High Court while issuing the aforesaid direction made it clear that the grant of this relief is confined only to the writ petitioners [see condition No. 3(a) and (b)].40. Second, so far as the cases relating to second category of landowners, who had not challenged the acquisition proceedings (like the appellants herein) were concerned, the High Court dealt with their cases separately and accordingly issued directions which are contained in condition No. 4(a) and (b) of the order.41. In condition No. 4(a) and (b), the High Court, in express terms, directed the Authority to take a decision on the question as to whether the Authority is willing to extend the benefit of the directions contained in condition No. 3(a) and (b) also to second category of landowners or not.42. In other words, the High Court, in express terms, declined to extend the grant of any relief to the landowners, who had not filed the writ petitions and instead directed the Authority to decide at their end as to whether they are willing to extend the same benefit to other similarly situated landowners or not.43. It is, therefore, clear that it was left to the discretion of the Authority to decide the question as to whether they are willing to extend the aforesaid benefits to second category of landowners or not.44. Third, as mentioned supra, the Authority, in compliance with the directions, decided to extend the benefit in relation to payment of an additional compensation at the rate of 64.70% and accordingly it was paid also. On the other hand, the Authority declined to extend the benefit in relation to allotment of developed abadi plot to such landowners.45. Fourth, it is not in dispute, being a matter of record, that when the Authority failed to extend the benefit regarding allotment of additional abadi plot to even those landowners in whose favour the directions were issued by the High Court in the case of Gajraj (supra) and by this Court in Savitri Devi (supra), the landowners filed the contempt petition against the Authority complaining of non-compliance of the directions of this Court but this Court dismissed the contempt petition holding therein that no case of non-compliance was made out.46. In our view, the appellants have neither any legal right and nor any factual foundation to claim the relief of allotment of additional developed abadi plot. In order to claim any mandamus against the State for claiming such relief, it is necessary for the writ petitioners to plead and prove their legal right, which should be founded on undisputed facts against the State. It is only then the mandamus can be issued against the State for the benefit of writ petitioners. Such is not the case here.47. Indeed, when the landowners, in whose favour the order was passed by the High Court for allotment of such plot, could not get the plot then, in such event, there arise no occasion for the appellants herein to claim such relief for want of any factual and legal basis in their favour.48. One cannot dispute that the Act does not provide for grant of such reliefs to the landowners under the Act. Similarly, there is no dispute that the State paid all statutory compensation, which is payable under the Act, to every landowner. Not only that every landowner also got additional compensation at the rate of 64.70% over and above what was payable to them under the Act.49. The reliefs in the case of Gajraj (supra) were granted by the High Court by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances arising in the case at hand. They were confined only to the landowners, who had filed the writ petitions. Even this Court in Savitri Devis case (supra) held that the directions given be not treated as precedent for being adopted to other cases in future and they be treated as confined to that case only.50. 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 Gajrajs 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%.51. In our view, therefore substantial justice was done to all the landowners including the appellants, as observed in para 49 of Savitri Devis case (supra).52. In our opinion, therefore, there is no case made out by the appellants for grant of any relief much less the relief of allotment of additional developed abadi plot. If we entertain the appellants plea for granting them the relief then it would amount to passing an order contrary to this Courts directions contained in para 50 of the order passed in Savitri Devis case (supra).

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]35. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in the submissions urged by the learned counsel for the appellants (landowners).36. As mentioned above, it is not in dispute that out of the two directions given by the High Court in the case of Gajraj (supra), one direction, namely, award of additional compensation payable at the rate of 64.70% to every landowner was already implemented by the State/Authority and accordingly payment was also made to the appellants notwithstanding dismissal of their writ petitions. In other words, the appellant got the partial benefit of the order passed in Gajrajs case (supra) even without contest.In our considered opinion, the appellants are not entitled to get the benefit of the aforementioned second direction and this we say for the following reasons.39. First, the High Court in the case of Gajraj (supra) had, in express terms, granted the relief of allotment of developed abadi plot confining it only to the landowners, who had filed the writ petitions. In other words, the High Court while issuing the aforesaid direction made it clear that the grant of this relief is confined only to the writ petitioners [see condition No. 3(a) and (b)].40. Second, so far as the cases relating to second category of landowners, who had not challenged the acquisition proceedings (like the appellants herein) were concerned, the High Court dealt with their cases separately and accordingly issued directions which are contained in condition No. 4(a) and (b) of the order.41. In condition No. 4(a) and (b), the High Court, in express terms, directed the Authority to take a decision on the question as to whether the Authority is willing to extend the benefit of the directions contained in condition No. 3(a) and (b) also to second category of landowners or not.42. In other words, the High Court, in express terms, declined to extend the grant of any relief to the landowners, who had not filed the writ petitions and instead directed the Authority to decide at their end as to whether they are willing to extend the same benefit to other similarly situated landowners or not.43. It is, therefore, clear that it was left to the discretion of the Authority to decide the question as to whether they are willing to extend the aforesaid benefits to second category of landowners or not.44. Third, as mentioned supra, the Authority, in compliance with the directions, decided to extend the benefit in relation to payment of an additional compensation at the rate of 64.70% and accordingly it was paid also. On the other hand, the Authority declined to extend the benefit in relation to allotment of developed abadi plot to such landowners.45. Fourth, it is not in dispute, being a matter of record, that when the Authority failed to extend the benefit regarding allotment of additional abadi plot to even those landowners in whose favour the directions were issued by the High Court in the case of Gajraj (supra) and by this Court in Savitri Devi (supra), the landowners filed the contempt petition against the Authority complaining ofof the directions of this Court but this Court dismissed the contempt petition holding therein that no case ofwas made out.46. In our view, the appellants have neither any legal right and nor any factual foundation to claim the relief of allotment of additional developed abadi plot. In order to claim any mandamus against the State for claiming such relief, it is necessary for the writ petitioners to plead and prove their legal right, which should be founded on undisputed facts against the State. It is only then the mandamus can be issued against the State for the benefit of writ petitioners. Such is not the case here.47. Indeed, when the landowners, in whose favour the order was passed by the High Court for allotment of such plot, could not get the plot then, in such event, there arise no occasion for the appellants herein to claim such relief for want of any factual and legal basis in their favour.48. One cannot dispute that the Act does not provide for grant of such reliefs to the landowners under the Act. Similarly, there is no dispute that the State paid all statutory compensation, which is payable under the Act, to every landowner. Not only that every landowner also got additional compensation at the rate of 64.70% over and above what was payable to them under the Act.49. The reliefs in the case of Gajraj (supra) were granted by the High Court by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances arising in the case at hand. They were confined only to the landowners, who had filed the writ petitions. Even this Court in Savitri Devis case (supra) held that the directions given be not treated as precedent for being adopted to other cases in future and they be treated as confined to that case only.50. 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 Gajrajs 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%.51. In our view, therefore substantial justice was done to all the landowners including the appellants, as observed in para 49 of Savitri Devis case (supra).52. In our opinion, therefore, there is no case made out by the appellants for grant of any relief much less the relief of allotment of additional developed abadi plot. If we entertain the appellants plea for granting them the relief then it would amount to passing an order contrary to this Courts directions contained in para 50 of the order passed in Savitri Devis case (supra).