Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RAJESH BINDAL, CJ., J.J. MUNIR, J.
Satish - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
Writ - C No. 7517 of 2020
Decided On : 12-07-2022
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4(1), 17(4), (1), 6(1), 11(2), 18 – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Acquired Land - Additional Compensation - Petitioner challenges order passed by Chief Executive Officer, refusing additional compensation for his acquired land, claimed on basis of a right – Held, Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner's case stands on a better footing and he is entitled to additional compensation on same principles - These issues have already been examined by Division Bench in Runwell India Pvt. Ltd. and Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar, where ratio was clear and unmistakable - It is to this effect: any claim for additional compensation based on directions in Full Bench directions in Gajraj which have been issued in special facts of case and confined to landholders who were before Court in Gajraj cannot be entertained - Benefit cannot be extended to fence-sitters, who now raise claims for additional compensation - This is clear purport of directions of Supreme Court in Savitri Devi modifying relative directions in Gajraj - It is for this reason that petitioner's claim for additional compensation, for his lands acquired long ago, canvassed by petitioning Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, was turned down by means of order that he has impugned in this petition - For all reasons indicated hereinabove, Court do not find any infirmity in order impugned passed by Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority – Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 30.10.2019 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA, refusing additional compensation for his acquired land, claimed on the basis of a right hereinafter detailed.
2. The petitioner's land comprising Khasra No. 545 admeasuring 7-14-15 situate in village Tugalpur, Pargana Dadari, Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Buddh Nagar was proposed to be acquired by the State Government vide notification issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ''the Act') dated September 9, 1997. A declaration under Section 6 read with Section 17 (1) of the Act dated October 9, 1998 followed. The acquired land of Khasra No. 545 (supra) shall hereinafter be referred to as ''the land in dispute'.
3. The land in dispute was acquired according to the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6(1) for the purpose of "planned industrial development" for Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority. Besides the land in dispute, lands of other tenure holders of village Tugalpur were also acquired. Award in respect of the acquired land in the village including the land in dispute was pronounced on March 31st, 2010 under Section 11(2) of the Act. After pronouncement of the award, compensation for individual tenure holders has been drawn up in Form 11, which includes compensation for the land in dispute.
4. Number of notifications relating to different villages within the development area of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority were challenged before this Court. One of the challenge that was laid by the landholders related to village Patwari. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.17068 of 2009, Har Karan Singh vs. State of U.P. and others was filed relating to the subject acquisition in village Patwari. The writ petition aforesaid, along with connected writ petitions, also relating to the same village, were allowed and the acquisition notifications quashed.
5. Later on, a Division Bench of this Court, hearing a challenge to the same notifications dated March 12, 2008 and June 30, 2008 that was in issue in Har Karan Singh's case (supra) in Writ Petition No. 37443 of 2011, Gajraj and others vs. State of U.P. and others along with similar petitions, doubted the correctness of the judgment in Har Karan Singh's case. A reference was made for the constitution of a Larger Bench.
6. Shorn of unnecessary detail, the Full Bench that was constituted pursuant to the reference, proceeded to decide a large bunch of writ petitions challenging the land acquisition notifications relating to various villages falling in the development area of Greater Noida and Noida vide judgment in Gajraj and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (11) ADJ 1 (FB). In Gajraj's case (supra) the following directions were issued :
1. The Writ Petition No. 45933 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 47545 of 2011 relating to village Nithari, Writ Petition No. 47522 of 2011 relating to village Sadarpur, Writ Petition No. 45196 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45208 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45211 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45213 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45216 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45223 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45224 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45226 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45229 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45230 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45235 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45238 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45283 of 2011 relating to village Khoda, Writ Petition No. 46764 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 46785 of 2011 relating to village Sultanpur, Writ Petition No. 46407 of 2011 relating to village Chaura Sadatpur and Writ Petition No. 46470 of 2011 relating to village Alaverdipur which have been filed with inordinate delay and laches are dismissed.
2(i) The writ petitions of Group 40 (Village Devla) being Writ Petition No. 31126 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 59131 of 2009, Writ Petit
The benefit granted by the Full Bench cannot be extended to similarly situated persons. The relief in the case of Gajraj Singh was granted by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdict....
The land owners were not entitled to the allotment of 10% developed land in lieu of their acquired land, as the directions of the High Court in the unique and peculiar/specific background would not f....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of fair compensation for acquired lands based on the prevailing market rate and the evidence presented to establish the market va....
Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record; it cannot involve re-evaluation of evidence or serve as an appeal.
Timely challenges are essential in land acquisition disputes; relief cannot be granted due to inordinate delay as established by the court's reaffirmation of the principle of laches.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
