Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20688 of 2012 Petitioner :- Shyam Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Kant Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramendra Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:
"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to give the 10% Develop Land and other benefit to the petitioners as given to the other tenure holders of the Village Kasna pargana Dankaur Tehsil Sadar District Gautam Budh Nagar.
(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus the respondent to pay the additional compensation to the petitioners."
We have gone through the pleadings as raised in the writ petition and we find that it is petitioners' own case that they had sold their land through registered sale deed dated 12.12.2011 in favour of Greater New Okhla Industrial Development Authority directly for a consideration to which, they had voluntarily agreed. So it is not a case of compulsory acquisition by the State, but it is a case where an element of voluntary offer and consent to the consideration agreed between the parties for the sale.
U.P. and others, Writ-C No. 31443 of 2001 decided by the Full Bench of this Court on 21.10.2011, the following order was passed:
"All other writ petitions except as mentioned above at (1) and (2) are disposed of with following directions:
(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.
(b) All the petitioners shall be entitled for allotment of developed Abadi plot to the extent of 10% of their acquired land subject to maximum of 2500 square meters. We however, leave it open to the Authority in cases where allotment of abadi plot to the extent of 6% or 8% have already been made either to make allotment of the balance of the area or may compensate the land owners by payment of the amount equivalent to balance area as per average rate of allotment made of developed residential plots.
4. The Authority may also take a decision as to whether benefit of additional compensation and allotment of abadi plot to the extent of 10% be also given to ;
(a) those land holders whose earlier writ petition challenging the notifications have been dismissed upholding the notifications; and
(b) those land holders who have not come to the Court, relating to the notifications which are subject matter of challenge in writ petitions mentioned at direction No.3."
From the perusal of directions as contained herein in above in Gajraj's case (supra) it is clear that directions were certainly made for those very petitioners who approached this Court notice for acquisition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further drawn the attention of this Court towards some resolution of the Greater NOIDA Development Authority passed after the judgment of the Full Bench in which with certain conditions, the Board in its 100th meeting had taken a decision for grant of 10% land even in those cases where the land was directly purchased from the farmers situated in the area where notification under the Land Acquisition Act was enforced.
We find that in the entire writ petition, neither any necessary pleading has been raised in respect to the conditions imposed under the resolution of the Board nor any foundation has been laid to meet any condition referred to in the resolution. Moreover, while affirming the judgment of the Full Bench, the Apex Court had passed following order on 14.05.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 4506 of 2015, Savitri Devi v. State of U.P. and others:
"Keeping in view all these peculiar circumstances, we are of the opinion that these are not the cases where this Court should interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution. However, we make it clear that directions of the High Court are given in the aforesaid unique and peculiar/ specific background and, therefore, it would not form precedent for future cases."
Further, it is also worth noticing that in identical set of facts and circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court presided over by Hon'ble Judge who also presided the Full Bench (supra), while rejecting the writ petition being Writ - C No. 6176 of 2012, Brahm Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors, held thus:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 and learned standing counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 and 2.
By this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant them enhancement of compensation as well as developed land in pursuance of judgment of Full Bench dated 21.10.2011 in Gajraj Singh's case.
From the materials brought on record, it is clear that the petitioners in this case have executed sale deed dated. 22.2.2006 in favour of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority with regard to the land in question on consideration which was mentioned in the sale deed. The petitioners having executed the sale deed of the lands in dispute they are not entitled for the benefit of the decision of Full Bench passed in Writ Petition No.37443 of 2001 (Gajraj and others vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 21st October, 2011. The petitioners having voluntarily executed the sale deed, they can not claim that the compensation is inadequate nor any such claim can be considered at this stage.
With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed."
In the present case also, the petitioners have executed voluntarily a sale deed on 12.12.2011 much after the judgment of Full Bench and is certainly not covered by the resolution of the Board which relates to the acquisition and sale of the land pursuant to the acquisition proceedings, inasmuch as, the same was confined to the tenure holders who could not approach the court by challenging the notification that was subject matter of litigation in Gajraj's case (supra).
In view of the above, we also do not find any good ground to maintain the present writ petition for the relief prayed for and accordingly the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 IrfanUddin