Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5686 of 2016
Petitioner :- Brahm Pal And 68 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Prasad Tiwari,Kamlesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhya,R.P.Singh
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the state respondents and Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh learned counsel for the contesting respondent no.4- Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has made a statement that he is confining the prayer made by the petitioners in this writ petition only for the payment of additional compensation of 64.70 %. The petitioners do not want to press the prayer for being provided 10% developed land.
The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the notification dated 2.5.2003 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1984 (in short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), proposing to acquire a large number of plots of land of village Kasna District Gautam Budh Nagar for Greater Noida which includes the plots of the petitioner. On the ground of urgency, the provisions of section 17 (1) and (4) of the Act was invoked and the enquiry provided under section 5A of the Act was dispensed with. The declaration under section 6 of the Act was issued on 16.6.2003, which is also under challenge.
According to the respondents, the possession of the land was transferred in favour of GNIDA on 2.8.2003 and the award was pronounced on 13.10.2008. The petitioner had also entered into agreement under the U.P.Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation & Declaration of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules 1997 and had been paid compensation in terms of the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this writ petition is covered by the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj & others Vs. State of U.P. & others reported in (2011) 11 ADJ 1, and in the case of Khemchand Vs. State of U.P. & others reported in 2014 (2) ADJ 30 (DB).
It is not disputed that the ratio laid down by the said judgment would be applicable to the facts of the present case.
However, considering the fact that the respondents have already transferred the land to the private individuals and the nature of the land has also been changed on account of extensive development carried out on the land in question, as has been held by the aforesaid Full Bench and the Division Bench of this Court, the notifications issued under section 4 and 6 of the Act cannot be quashed.
Learned counsel for the parties agree that the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj (supra) has in cases falling out of similar facts and circumstances of various villages allowed the additional compensation to the extent of 64.70% taking into consideration that the authority itself agreed to pay such compensation to the aggrieved persons.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, as the learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the ratio laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Gajraj (Supra) would squarely cover this case also, we are of the view that the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of direction issued by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gajraj (Supra) in paragraph of 482-3(a) is as under :-
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 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.
This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Parties shall bear their own costs.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 Pramod Tripathi