Moreover, Article 31 of the Constitution provides that any State acquisition of property must only be upon enactment of a valid law, for a public purpose, and upon payment of compensations: High Court of Allahabad

Court No. 29 Case : WRIT C No. 21222 Petitioner : Bhikari And 12 Others Respondent : State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner : Navin Kumar Counsel for Respondent : C.S.C. Kaushalendra Nath Singh Hon ble Pritinker Diwaker J Hon ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava J Heard Sri Navin Kumar learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to allot 5% developed land in terms of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Gajraj Singh and others Vs State of U.P. and others1. The petitioners claim to be owners of khata no. 45 khasra no. 328 area 0.158 hectares situate in Village Sorkha Zahidabad Pargana and Tehsil Dadri District Gautam Budh Nagar which were subject matter of acquisition proceedings in terms of notification dated 12.04.2005 issued under Section 4 17(4) and the notification dated 27.07.2006 issued under Section 6 17 1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The petitioners admit to have accepted the compensation amount. The petitioners have specifically stated that they did not challenge the land acquisition proceedings. The writ petition is also silent as to whether the notifications under which the land of the petitioners was acquired were under challenge in the bunch of writ petitions which were decided along with the case of Gajraj Singh and others 2011ADJ 1The writ petitions of Group 40being Writ Petition No. 311211 Writ Petition No. 591309 Writ Petition No. 228010 Writ Petition No. 371111 Writ Petition No. 428109 Writ Petition No. 504109 Writ Petition No. 544209 Writ Petition No. 546509 Writ Petition No. 556509 Writ Petition No. 570309 Writ Petition No. 583109 Writ Petition No. 227910 Writ Petition No. 377810 Writ Petition No. 377810 Writ Petition No. 311211 Writ Petition No. 311211 Writ Petition No. 322311 Writ Petition No. 329811 Writ Petition No. 356411 Writ Petition No. 380511 Writ Petition No. 413311 Writ Petition No. 474211 and Writ Petition No. 474111 are allowed and the notifications dated 26.5.2009 and 22.6.2009 and all consequential actions are quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled for restoration of their land subject to deposit of compensation which they had received under agreement award before the authority Collector 2Writ petition No. 177210 Omveer and others Vs. State of U.P.relating to village Yusufpur Chak Sahberi is allowed. Notifications dated 10.4.2006 and 6.9.2007 and all consequential actions are quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled for restoration of their land subject to return of compensation received by them under agreement award to the Collector. 2(iii) Writ Petition No.474811of Group 42 relating to village Asdullapur is allowed. The notification dated 27.1.2010 and 4.2.2010 as well as all subsequent proceedings are quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled to restoration of their land. 3. All other writ petitions except as mentioned above atandare disposed of with following directions: The petitioners shall be entitled for payment of additional compensation to the extent of same ratioas 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 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. 5. The Greater NOIDA and its allottees are directed not to carry on development and not to implement the Master Plan 2021 till the observations and directions of the National Capital Regional Planning Board are incorporated in Master Plan 2021 to the satisfaction of the National Capital Regional Planning Board. We make it clear that this direction shall not be applicable in those cases where the development is being carried on in accordance with the earlier Master Plan of the Greater NOIDA duly approved by the National Capital Regional 6. We direct the Chief Secretary of the State to appoint officers not below the level of Principal Secretaryto conduct a thorough inquiry regarding the acts of Greater Noidain proceeding to implement Master Plan 2021 without approval of N.C.R.P. Board decisions taken to change the land use indiscriminate proposals for acquisition of land and thereafter the State Government shall take appropriate action in the matter Pursuant to the directions issued under paragraph 482of the judgment in the case of Gajraj Singh and others the respondent authority took a decision in its Board meeting for paying additional compensation to the extent of 64.70% to all land owners whether they had challenged the notifications or not. A decision was also taken not to allot abadi plot to the extent of 10 to those land owners who had not approached the writ court and had not questioned the acquisition proceedings. This decision of the authority was based on the fact that such huge area of developed abadi land was not available so as to allot it to all such persons who did not approach the Court. The contention of the petitioners that irrespective of the fact whether the notifications issued in respect of land acquisition proceedings were under challenge along with the bunch of cases decided by the Full Bench they should be granted the same benefit regarding developed abadi plot as was granted by the Full Bench is liable to be rejected for the reason that in the case of Gajraj Singh and others the Full Bench granted relief to the petitioners and to such persons whose earlier writ petitions challenging the notifications had been dismissed or who had not come to the Court challenging the notifications which were subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions in view of the peculiar facts of the case having regard to the extensive development which had taken place subsequent to the acquisition proceedings and also that the Supreme Court in the case of Savitri Devi vs. State of U.P. and others2 had made it clear that the directions issued by the Full Bench shall not be treated as a precedent in future cases 9. We may also refer to the case of Mange @ Mange Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others3 where in a similar set of facts certain petitioners whose lands had been acquired under notifications which were challenged not by the petitioners but by other similarly situate landowners filed writ petitions in the year 2015) 7 SCC 21 2016ADJ 792016 praying that they being similarly situate with those landowners who had filed writ petitions and challenged the acquisition proceedings were also entitled to claim the same relief which had been granted to the writ petitioners in terms of the judgment in the case of Gajraj Singh and others and upheld in the case of Savitri Devi. The claim raised by the petitioners therein was turned down by this Court after recording a conclusion that the benefit granted by the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj Singh and others cannot be extended to the petitioners even though they may be similarly situate and the action of the respondents in not giving additional developed abadi land was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. The observations made in the judgment are as follows : “11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the direction given by the Full Bench in Gajraj s casewe find that the judgment of the Full Bench was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Savitri Devito the authority to consider the case for payment of additional compensation and allotment of developed abadi plot to those land owners who had not challenged the acquisition proceedings or whose writ petitions were dismissed earlier was also affirmed by the Supreme Court. Based on such direction the authority took a decision to pay additional compensation to all the land owners irrespective of the fact as to whether they had challenged the acquisition proceedings or not. But with regard to allotment of developed abadi land the authority took a decision not to allot to those land owners who had not approached the writ Court on the ground that they have no developed land to allot to these land owners. The fact that the authority does not have any developed land for allotment has not been disputed as no rejoinder affidavit has been filed nor any evidence has been brought on record. We also find that such decision taken by the Board is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory 12. The Full Bench in order to save the acquisition proceedings had issued the direction for payment of additional compensation and for allotment of developed abadi plots in the extenuating facts and circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court acceded to the said consideration holding that the Full Bench was justified in issuing such directions in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in order to save the acquisition proceedings from the vice of arbitrariness. The Supreme Court while affirming the decision of the Full Bench categorically held that the said decision would not be treated to form a precedent for future cases. The Supreme Court held: "50. 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 13. Thus we are of the opinion that the ratio decendi of the Full Bench cannot be applied to similarly situated persons. The said benefit given by the Full Bench cannot be extended to the petitioners even though they may be similarly situated and their land had been acquired under the same notification 14. We are of the view that the action of the respondents in not giving additional developed abadi land to the petitioners is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory especially when there is no evidence to dispute the fact that the respondents have no developed land with them for The aforementioned judgment in the case of Mange Mange Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others decided along with other connected matters was subjected to challenge before the Supreme Court and came to be decided in terms of the judgment in Khatoon and others Vs. State of U.P. and others4. The question as to whether the landowners were entitled to claim benefit of the judgment passed by the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj Singh and others which had been upheld in the case of Savitri Devi insofar as it related to allotment of additional abadi plot was considered by the Supreme Court in aforementioned case of Khatoon and others and the contention sought to be raised on the basis of the principles underlying Article 14 of the Constitution was repelled after taking notice of the fact that insofar as allotment of abadi plot is concerned the High Court in the case of Gajraj Singh and others had confined the relief only to the petitioners therein and for other landowners the matter was left to discretion of the authority concerned which had declined to extend the said relief. It was held that the appellants had neither any legal right nor any factual foundation to claim the relief of allotment of additional developed abadi plot 14 SCC 346 Furthermore it was taken note of that the relief in the case of Gajraj Singh was granted by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and was confined to the petitioners therein and even the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi case held that said directions were not to be treated as precedent and were limited only to the facts obtaining in that case The relevant observations made in the judgment in the case of Khatoon and others are being extracted below : 16. In other words the case of the appellant writ petitioners before the High Court was that the reliefs which were granted to the landowners by the Full Bench in Gajraj case and affirmed by this Court in Savitri Devi case be also granted to the appellants because their lands were also acquired in the same acquisition proceedings in which the lands of the writ petitioners of Gujraj case was acquired. In effect the relief was prayed on the principles of parity between the two landowners qua State 17. It is however pertinent to mention that so far as the direction of the High Court to award additional compensation payable @ 64.70 was concerned the same was already implemented by the State by paying the compensation to all the landowners including the appellants without any contest 18. In this view of the matter the only question before the High Court in the appellants writ petitions that remained for decision was as to whether the appellants are also entitled to claim the relief of allotment of developed abadi plot to the extent of 10% of their acquired land subject to maximum of 2500 Sq.M.in terms of the judgment in Gajraj case and Savitri Devi case 36. Therefore the only question that now survives for consideration in these appeals is whether the appellants are entitled to get the benefit of second direction issued by the High Court in Gajraj namely allotment of developed abadi plot to the appellants 37. In our considered opinion the appellants are not entitled to get the benefit of the aforementioned second direction and this we say for the 38. First the High Court in Gajraj 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 petitionersandwere concerned the High Court dealt with their cases separately and accordingly issued directions which are contained in conditions 4(a) andof the order 40. In conditions 4(a) and 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 conditions 3(a) and also to second category of landowners or not 41. 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 42. 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 43. Third as mentioned supra the Authority in compliance with the directions decided to extend the benefit in relation to payment of an additional compensation @ 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. 44. 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 Gajraj and by this Court in Savitri Devi the landowners filed the contempt petition against the Authority complaining of non compliance with the directions of this Court but this Court dismissed the contempt petition holding therein that no case of non compliance was made out 45. 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. 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 @ 64.70% over and above what was payable to them under the Act. 48. The reliefs in Gajraj 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 Devi case 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 51. 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 Court s directions contained in para 50 of the order passed in Savitri Devi case." The question as to whether the benefit of the directions issued by the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj Singh and others for providing additional compensation to the extent of 64.70% and developed abadi plot to the extent of 10% of the land acquired was liable to be extended to such tenure holders also whose lands were not acquired in terms of the notifications which were under challenge in the case of Gajraj Singh and others has also been considered by a coordinate Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Rameshwari and 3 others Vs. State of U.P and 2 others5 and in terms of judgment dated 3.5.2017 it has been held as follows : “A perusal of the Full Bench judgement in the case of Gajraj Singh Supra) goes to show that in order to save the acquisition proceedings direction for payment of additional compensation and allotment of developed abadi plot was issued in peculiar facts and circumstances particularly the fact that extensive development had taken place even though the Full Bench found that opportunity to file objection under Section 5A Act had been wrongly denied to the tenure holders However the benefit extended to the land owners in lieu of saving the acquisition proceedings even though the same were found to be illegal and liable to be quashed was restricted to the acquisition proceedings challenged before it. However the question of extending the benefits of additional compensation and allotment of developed abadi plot to such land holders whose challenge to the land acquisition notification already stood dismissed or such land holders who did not approach this Court challenging the land acquisition notification though the said notifications were subject matter of challenge before the Full Bench 5 Writ C No. 189417 decided on 3.5.2017 was left open to be decided by the authority. As already noticed above in pursuance of the aforesaid directions the authority took a decision in its Board meeting for making payment of additional compensation to the extent of 64.7% to all land holders whether they had put challenge to the land acquisition notifications or not However in respect of allotment of abadi plot to the extent of 10% the authority took a decision not to extend the benefit to such land holders who had not approached the writ court and had not questioned the acquisition proceedings In the case in hand the petitioners land was acquired by means of notification dated 09.09.1997. Equally admitted fact is that the petitioners accepted the award and did not come forward to challenge the land acquisition proceedings. Not only that notification dated 9.9.2017 whereunder an area 1275 18 18 including Gata no. 582 area 6 5 13 538 area 0 15 6 609 area 1 2 12 and 615 area 9 10 10 of the petitioners situate at village Tugalpur was acquired was not subject of matter of challenge before the Full Bench. In view of above facts and discussions it is clear that the relief which was granted by the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj Singhcannot be made applicable to the acquisition proceedings which were not assailed and were not subject matter of adjudication before the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj Singhin terms of which the Authority was to take a decision as to whether benefit of additional compensation and allotment of abadi plot to the extent of 10% was to be given was confined to those land holders whose writ petitions challenging the notifications had been dismissed earlier and to those who had not approached the court to challenge the notifications which were subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions decided along with the case of Gajraj Singh and others. The directions under para 482were not in respect of those persons such as the petitioners in the present case whose land had been acquired in terms of 6. 2019ADJ 225of the Act. Therefore a person whose land is acquired not only gets adequate compensation as per market value of the land but also gets interest on the amount of compensation 12% from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act as well as an amount of solatium which is 30% of the amount of compensation. Neither the Land Acquisition Act nor the regulations provides that in the event of acquisition of the land one of the family members of the landholder shall be given employment in addition to the amount of compensation. Therefore in the absence of any statutory provision or any promise the petitioner respondent cannot claim appointment as a matter of right nor can the respondent make such appointment.” The aforementioned position has been considered in a recent decision of this Court in Anand Prakash and Another vs State of U.P. and others8 wherein the question which was 2005) 1 UPLBEC 118 2019ADJ 17117(4) and the notification dated 27.07.2006 issued under Section 6 17of the Act 1894. Admittedly the petitioners did not choose to challenge the land acquisition proceedings and it is also not the case of the petitioners that the notifications in terms of which the land of the petitioners was acquired were subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions which were decided by the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj Singh and others It may be noticed that there was no direction in the judgment of the Full Bench for grant of payment of additional compensation or allotment of abadi land or for consideration of the said benefits by the authority in respect of those persons whose land had been acquired in terms of the notifications which were not subject matter of challenge in the case of Gajraj Singh and Others and connected bunch of writ petitions The petitioners have admitted to having accepted the compensation in respect of their land which was subject matter of acquisition. The additional benefit by way of allotment of developed abadi plot which is sought by the petitioners not being founded on any legally enforceable right no mandamus can be claimed for grant of such benefit. In view of the foregoing discussion the petitioners are not entitled to reliefs which have been sought The writ petition thus fails and is accordingly dismissed Order Date : 9.2.2022 Dr. Y.K. Srivastava J) (Pritinker Diwaker J

Summary: Land dispute is one of the oldest forms of disputes ever recorded in the history of civilized society. The land is nothing but a form of property that is immovable and limited proceedings for the said offence and the same issue was held in the judgement passed by a division bench judge Hon’ble Pritinker Diwaker, J. Hon’ble Dr Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J. In the matter, Bhikari And Others V/s  State of U.P. and Another [WRIT – C No. – 2121 of 2022] dealt with an issue mentioned above.   The petitioners claim to be owners of khata no. 45 khasra no. 328 area 0.158 hectares situate in Village Sorkha Zahidabad, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar which were the subject matter of acquisition proceedings in terms of the notification dated 12.04.2005 issued under Section 4 (1)/17(4), and the notification dated 27.07.2006 issued under Section 6/17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners admit to having accepted the compensation amount. 
The contention of the petitioners that irrespective of the fact whether the notifications issued in respect of land acquisition proceedings were under challenge along with the bunch of cases decided by the Full Bench they should be granted the same benefit regarding developed Abadi plot as was granted by the Full Bench is liable to be rejected, for the reason that in the case of Gajraj Singh and others the Full Bench granted relief to the petitioners and to such persons whose earlier writ petitions challenging the notifications had been dismissed or who had not come to the Court challenging the notifications which were subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions, in view of the peculiar facts of the case having regard to the extensive development which had taken place subsequent to the acquisition proceedings, and also that the Supreme Court in the case of Savitri Devi vs. State of U.P. and others2 had made it clear that the directions issued by the Full Bench shall not be treated as a precedent in future cases.
The court perused the facts and arguments presented in the case  The petitioners have admitted to having accepted the compensation in respect of their land which was the subject matter of acquisition. The additional benefit by way of allotment of developed Abadi plot which is sought by the petitioners not being founded on any legally enforceable right no mandamus can be claimed for grant of such benefit.
Click here to read the judgment
Judgment reviewed by Sakshi Mishra
 The contention of the petitioners that irrespective of the fact whether the notifications issued in respect of land acquisition proceedings were under challenge along with the bunch of cases decided by the Full Bench they should be granted the same benefit regarding developed Abadi plot as was granted by the Full Bench is liable to be rejected, for the reason that in the case of Gajraj Singh and others the Full Bench granted relief to the petitioners and to such persons whose earlier writ petitions challenging the notifications had been dismissed or who had not come to the Court challenging the notifications which were subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions, in view of the peculiar facts of the case having regard to the extensive development which had taken place subsequent to the acquisition proceedings, and also that the Supreme Court in the case of Savitri Devi vs. State of U.P. and others2 had made it clear that the directions issued by the Full Bench shall not be treated as a precedent in future cases. The court perused the facts and arguments presented in the case  The petitioners have admitted to having accepted the compensation in respect of their land which was the subject matter of acquisition. The additional benefit by way of allotment of developed Abadi plot which is sought by the petitioners not being founded on any legally enforceable right no mandamus can be claimed for grant of such benefit.