Court No. - 39

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38129 of 2022

Petitioner :- Dharmveer

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Shanker Misra,Vijai Shanker Shukla

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned

Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 2 NOIDA Authority.

The petitioner herein claims to be party in Writ Petition No. 46332 of 2011

which was disposed of vide order dated 17.02.2012, in view of decision of the

Full Bench of the Court in the Case of Gajraj & Others vs. State of U.P. &

Others reported in 2011 (11) ADJ 1 (FB).

The contention of the petitioner is that being party to the aforesaid writ petition,

he is entitled to the benefits given to the land owners in Gajraj (supra).

The prayer made in the present petition is as follows :-

"I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding

Chief Executive Officer, Noida Industrial Development Authority (respondent no.

2) to allot additional 5% developed residential plot or pay compensation @ Rs.

44,000/- per square meter for the 5% additional developed residential Abadi plot

in respect of the acquired land of the petitioner Khasra no. 175 of Village -

Sadarpur, Pargana and Tehsil - Dadri, District - Gautam Buddh Nagar, in

compliance of judgment and order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Hon'ble Full

Bench of this Court in the case of Gajraj and others vs. State of U.P. and others

as well as the order dated 17.02.2012 passed in Pratap Singh and others vs. State

of U.P. and others."

From the prayer made in the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner is

claiming compensation at a higher rate in lieu of allotment of 5% additional

developed residential Abadi in terms of decision of Gajraj (supra).

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has

never given consent for the rate i.e. Rs. 22,000/- determined by the Board in its

191st meeting and has never received the said amount determined by the

Development Authority in lieu of allotment of 5% additional developed

residential Abadi. It is further contended that the order passed by the Apex Court

in contempt petition was in view of the consent given by the petitioner therein.

The issue raised herein has been determined by this Court in Writ Petition No.

33492 of 2022 in the following terms :-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh learned

counsel for the respondent-Development Authority and perused the record.

This is a wholly misconceived petition filed with the following reliefs:-

"i. Issue a writ order or direction in the Nature of Certiorari calling for record and

quashing the impugned resolution of 191st Board Meeting dated 21.12.2016 so far

as it pertains to Supplementary Item No. 7. (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition).

ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the Nature of MANDAMUS commanding the

NOIDA-Authority to pay compensation @ Rs.55,632 per square meter in place of

Rs. 22,000/- per sq.mt. in light of judgment and order dated 21.10.2011 passed by

the Hon'ble Full Bench of this court in the case of (Gajraj and others Vs. State of

U.P. and others)."

The petitioner herein is claiming compensation at a higher rate than that has been

determined in 191st Board Meeting dated 21.12.2016 for the benefits granted to

the land owners by the Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj & ors vs State of U.P &

ors reported in 2011 (11) ADJ 1 (FB) in terms of additional 5% of developed

Abadi plot.

The Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj (supra) has issued the following

directions:-

"3. (a) The petitioners shall be entitled for payment of additional compensation to

the extent of same ratio (i.e. 64.70%) as paid for village Patwari in addition to the

compensation received by them under 1997 Rules/award which payment shal