IMPORTANT POINT
When direction in earlier round of litigation was confined to petitioners therein, the relief cannot be extended to others on basis of parity.

Headnote:Administration of justice – High Court granting relief of additional compensation and one abadi plot to landowners in earlier round – Confining the relief to writ petitioners – In case of other land owners not before it, leaving grant of relief to the discretion of authorities – Authorities howver granting additional compensation to all landowners – Declining benefit of abadi plot to present petitioners – Contempt petition of even earlier petitioners for non-allotment of plot dismissed by Supreme court – Held, appellants neither having any legal right nor any factual foundation to claim relief of allotment of additional developed abadi plot. (Para 42, 43, 44, 46)
       (2015) 7 SCC 21 – Relied upon
       W.P. No.37443 of 2011 – Cited with approval
       Facts of the case:
       Huge chunk of land measuring hundreds of hectares situated in several villages of Noida and Greater Noida in the State of UP were acquired and possession was taken by invoking section 17.
       These acquisitions were challenged by some land owners before the High Court from 1976 to 2010.
       The high Court disposed of the writ petitions by granting additional compensation of 67.40% to the land owners which judgment has been upheld by Supreme Court.
       The State complied with the above order in case of all land owners irrespective of whether they were writ petitioners or not.
       The other land owners, appellants herein, filed writ petition ns in 2016. They were also granted the same relief by way of parity. However the High court declined the relief of allotment of developed abadi plot to the extent of 10% of their acquired land subject to maximum of 2500 Sq.M.

       Finding of the Court:
       Appellants have neither any legal right nor any factual foundation to claim relief of allotment of additional developed abadi plot.
       Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are filed against the final judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 01.08.2016 in C.M.W.P. No.7553 of 2016 etc.etc. and other similar writ petitions on different dates by which the High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein in terms of the judgment dated 01.08.2016 passed by the same two Judge Bench of the High Court in the bunch of matters with the leading case (W.P. No.7521 of 2016 titled as Mange @ Mange Ram vs. State of U.P. & Ors.).

3. In order to appreciate the issues involved in this bunch of appeals, it is necessary to set out the facts, which led to filing of these appeals.

4. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act"), the State of U.P. issued several notifications from time to time commencing from the year 1976 till 2010 seeking to acquire a huge chunk of land measuring hundreds of hectares situated in several villages of Noida and Greater Noida in the State of UP. The acquisition was for a public purpose, namely, "Planned Industrial Development". The acquisition was for the benefit of Greater Noida Industrial Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority"), which was to undertake its execution.

5. The aforementioned notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act from time to time were followed by publication of several declarations under Section 6 of the Act. The Government/Authority then took possession of the acquired land by invoking urgency provisions contained in Section 17 of the Act. The State/Authority then developed the acquired land in some villages.

6. Since a large chunk of land was acquired, which belonged to several landowners, who were around hundred in numbers, some landowners felt aggrieved and filed writ petitions in the High Court at Allahabad and challenged therein the legality and validity of the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act by which their lands were acquired. These writ petitions were filed by the landowners (individually and collectively in bunches) from 1976 to 2010.

7. The challenge to the impugned notifications was on the grounds that firstly, there did not exist any case of urgency under Section 17 of the Act. Secondly, dispensing of an enquiry under Section 5-A was, therefore, illegal inasmuch as such dispension deprived the landowners to file objections before the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) to challenge the acquisition proceedings. Thirdly, the acquisition proceedings were initiated by the State with colorable exercise of the powers; and lastly, the entire acquisition proceedings were mala fide and arbitrary and hence liable to be quashed.

8. The State denied the case of the writ petitioners. While defending the acquisition proceedings, the State, inter alia, averred that the acquisition was done strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and hence it deserves to be upheld.

9. Having regard to the nature of controversy involved in the writ petitions and secondly, since a large number of writ petitions were filed to challenge the acquisition proceedings, all the writ petitions (total 471) were clubbed together for their analogous hearing by the Full Bench of the High Court. One of the reasons for referring all the writ petitions to the Full Bench was that the two Division Benches before whom some writ petitions, out of the bunch, had come up for hearing, they took divergent views on the issues involved in the writ petitons. It was, therefore, considered proper to resolve all the issues arising in the writ petitions by constituting the Full Bench. This is how all pending writ petitions were posted for analogous hearing before the Full Bench.

10. The Full Bench then divided the writ petitions in several groups "village wise" and accordingly disposed them of by one common judgment dated 21.10.2011. The lead judgment of the Full Bench

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 139

IMPORTANT POINTWhen direction in earlier round of litigation was confined to petitioners therein, the relief cannot be extended to others on basis of parity.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
When direction in earlier round of litigation was confined to petitioners therein, the relief cannot be extended to others on basis of parity.