Court No. - 29
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 285 of 2021 Applicant :- Vinod And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- M J Akhtar,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- Kaushalendra Nath Singh
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Heard on the application for condonation of delay of 321 days in maintaining the review application and also on the merit of the review.
The review application has been filed against the judgment dated 14.10.2020 whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioners was dismissed. It was after referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Khatoon and others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2018) 14 SCC 346.
The writ petition was filed to seek additional compensation of 64.70% on acquisition of land and allotment of 10% of the land. Reference of the judgment in the case of Gajraj and others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2011 SCC OnLine All 1711 was given. The writ petition was dismissed by the Court in reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Khatoon (supra).
The review application has been filed by the petitioners on the ground that judgment in the case of Khatoon (supra) was not applicable to the facts of this case. The petitioners herein were petitioners in the case of Gajraj (supra) and thereby, they were covered by the judgment in the case of Gajraj (supra) itself. The facts aforesaid were narrated in the writ petition though the second writ petition was filed for the same prayer. In any case, when the petitioners' first writ petition was allowed in the light of the judgment in the case of Gajraj (supra), the second writ petition could not have been dismissed covering it by the subsequent judgment in the case of the Khatoon (supra), the prayer is accordingly to review the judgment impugned herein.
We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners and perused the record.
It is a case where Larger Bench of this Court gave judgment in the case of Gajraj (supra) directing the respondents to allow additional compensation of 64.70% with allotment of 10% of the land. The said judgment was discussed in the case of Khatoon (supra). The relief was claimed by other land owners in reference to the judgment in the case of Gajraj (supra), the prayer was not accepted by the Division Bench. Thus, the appeal was filed by Khatoon and others. In the case of Khatoon (supra), the Supreme Court did not approve the judgment in the case of Gajraj (supra). It was found that there is no provision in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to allow additional compensation and allotment of 10% of the land.
In view of the above, the writ petition of the petitioners to claim additional compensation of 64.70% with allotment of 10% of land was not accepted.
Learned counsel for the petitioners did not submit that earlier writ petition was allowed alongwith the writ petition of Gajraj (supra).
In fact, the review applicants did not even made statement about the earlier writ petition. Otherwise, if the writ petition filed by them was earlier allowed, no reason was existing to file a fresh writ petition for the same relief, rather it would not have been maintainable. The second writ petition was not filed to seek compliance of the judgment in the first writ petition. It is apart from the fact that in the case of Khatoon (supra), very same claim in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Gajraj (supra) was declined and even the contempt petition preferred in reference to the judgment in the case of Gajraj (supra) was not accepted rather dismissed. Para 44 of the judgment in the case of Khatoon (supra) is quoted hereunder for ready reference :-
"44. Fourth, it is not in dispute, being a matter of record, that when the Authority failed to extend the benefit regarding allotment of additional abadi plot to even those landowners in whose favour the directions were issued by the High Court in Gajraj (supra) and by this Court in Savitri Devi v. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 21, the landowners filed the contempt petition against the Authority complaining of non-compliance with the directions of this Court but this Court dismissed the contempt petition holding therein that no case of non-compliance was made out."
In view of the above and otherwise the applicants have failed to show any error in the judgment apparent on the face of record, we do not find that the review application can be accepted rather finding it to be covered by the judgment in the case of Khatoon (supra). We do not find even any ground for condonation of delay of 321 days.
Accordingly, the application for delay condonation so as the review application are dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.10.2021 Shubham .
(Piyush Agrawal, J.) (Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.)