SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(All) 430

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : V.K. SHUKLA AND ASHOK KUMAR, JJ.
Smt. ATARI DEVI AND OTHERS ....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 63139 of 2014, 8608, 7836, 7838, 67980 of 2015, 63139, 63064 of 2014, decided on 28th April, 2017)

Advocates:
Counsel :
R.D. Tiwari, M.D. Singh “Shekhar”, Pankaj Sharma, Ramesh Upadhyay and B. Dayal for the Petitioners; C.S.C., Amit Negi, Mahendra Pratap and P.P. Yadav for the Respondents.

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Writ of Mandamus—Contractual matters—Enforcement of contract—Contract that is being sought to be enforced is purely a contract between private parties for acquisition of land—Merely because state authorities have been also involved at point of time when aforesaid contract entered upon—Such a contract cannot be dubbed as statutory contract and cannot be enforced under Article 226—Especially when private Developer Company is trying to wriggle out and trying to contend that under coercion such a contract entered upon by unauthorized incumbent—And petitioners in spite of fact that they have entered into private negotiations and have proceeded to execute sale-deed are trying to encash situation for getting additional money and land—And even attacking terms and conditions of agreement. [Paras 25 and 26]

       Result; Petitions Dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Bunch of writ petitions have been filed by the villagers of different villages at District Gautam Budh Nagar before this Court with the following prayer and with the consent of parties Writ Petition No. 63139 of 2014 (Smt. Atari Devi and others v. State of U.P. and others) is being treated leading one.

“I. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the ownership and possession of the petitioners over the disputed land which details have been given in Annexure 1 to the writ petition without paying adequate compensation as per the direction of Gajraj Singh case and another benefit accordingly the compromise arrived (Annexures. 11and 12 to the writ petition);

II. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation minimum at the rate of Rs. 1550/- per square yard and other emoluments and benefits as directed by the Hon’ble Court in Gajraj Singh case;

III. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay all other benefits for which the compromise was arrived which details have been given in paragraph No. 20 of the writ petition (Annexures 11 and 12 to the writ petition); and

IV. issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper according to the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Brief background of the case in hand is that petitioners before us are farmers and their grievance is that petitioners’ land has been taken by the M/s. Hi-tech Development Private Limited and qua each one of the petitioner accepted position is that they have proceeded to execute the sale-deed in favour of M/s. Hi-tech Development Private Limited. Petitioners in spite of the fact that they have proceeded to sell the land in question in favour of M/s. Hi-tech Development Private Limited, submitted that price, that has been so offered to them, was totally inadequate and, in view of this, large scale agitation has been carried out as poor tenure holders have transferred their land under the threat of acquisition but the fact of the matter is that possession remain with the petitioners and other villagers and, in view of this, on the intervention of Executive Authorities, meeting for compromise was organized on 24.4.2013 and 9.6.2013 and ultimately on 28.6.2013 following terms were settled;

“I. The land owners who have already sold the land on e person of his family would be given employment on the list prepared by the Up Ziladhikar, Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar.

II. The hereditary farmers who have been paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 850/- per square yard by the company without any Abadi land, they will be given 8% of their acquired land for Abadi without any cost.

III. The hereditary farmers who have been paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 850/- per square yard for their balance land which has been sold at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per square yard land, they are entitled 8% Aadi land without any cost even on the latter sold land at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per square yard.

IV. The land owners who have been sold their land at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per square yard but they have not get the Abadi land those land owners are also entitled to get 8% of the land for Abadi, they could get on the payment of Rs. 1845/- per square yard to the company for the 8% land of Abadi.

V. The development of the Abadi land would be done on the term of the NOIDA and the same would be allotted within three months and the compensation would be given within the period of one year.

VI. The hereditary landless persons of the village would get 17 square yard land per head from the company/respondent No. 7 accordingly the list prepared by the Up Ziladhikari, Dadri. The entire exercise be completed within six months and the land would be handed over within the period of one year.

VII. The development of the village Dujana would be done by the respondent No.































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top