Chief Justice’s Court

Serial Nos. 301 & 303

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

***

WRIT - C No. - 14113 of 2017 (O & M)

Decided on May 31, 2022

Runwell India Pvt. Ltd.

...Petitioner

Through:-

Mr. V.M. Zaidi, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.J. Akhtar,

Mr. Pankaj Dubey, Mr. Manu Khare, Mr. Rishu Mishra,

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Mr. Shiv Kant Mishra, Mr.

Saurabh Basu, Mr. Manoj Pandey, Mr. Ganga Dhar

Shukla, Mr. Satendra Singh, Mr. Dharmendra Pandey,

Mohd. Umar Khan, Mr. Awadesh Prasad, Mr. Ved Prakash

Pandey, Mr. Puneet Verma, Mr. Kamal Singh Yadav, Mr.

Ravindra Narayan Singh, Mr. Sunil Kumar Rai, Mr. Uma

Nath Pandey, Mr. Durga Prasad Tiwari, Mr. Anshul Kumar

Singhal, Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Mr. Sunil Nagar,

Mr. Nawal Kishore Mishra, Mr. Gautam Kumar, Mr.

Harendra Singh, Mr. Navin Kumar, Mr. Ashok Kumar

Singh, Mr. Anil Kumar Dubey, Mr. Raj Narayan Tiwari,

Mr. Ram Sajiwan Mishra, Mr. Amit Kumar, Mr. Ram

Raksha Yadav, Mr. Awdhesh Kumar Mishra, Mr. Swapnil

Kumar, Mr. Vijay Shyam Bhaskar, Mr. Ratnesh Kumar

Srivastava, Mr. Sanchit Nidhi, Ms. Nandini Mishra, Mr.

Prem Sagar Dubey, Mr. Haseen Ahmad, Mr. Shailendra

Kumar Mishra, Mr. Vidya Prakash Singh, Mr. Raj Kumar

Kesari, Mr. Rohit Nandan Pandey, Mr. Tej Bahadur Rai,

Ms. Hemlata Srivastava, Mr. Piyush Shukla, Mr. Hira Lal

Singh (Kushwaha), Mr. Sharda Prasad Pandey, Mr. Sanjay

Kumar Jaiswal, Mr. Prashant Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Chandra

Bhan Dubey, Mohd. Arif, Advocates.

Counsel for the Petitioners.

Vs.

2 Writ - C No. 14113 of 2017

State of U.P. and others

...Respondents

Through:-

Mr. Vineet Pandey, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. A.K.

Goel, Mr. Suresh Singh, Mr. Ramanand Pandey, Mr. G.C

Saxena, Additional Chief Standing Counsels, Ms.

Meenakshi Singh, Standing Counsel, Mr. Ankit Gaur, Mr.

Jagdish Prakash Pathak and Mr. Ajay Prakash Paul, State

Law Officers, for the State – respondents.

Mr. Ramendra Pratap Singh, Mr. Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari

& Ms. Anjali Upadhyay appearing for the respondents -

Greater Noida and

Mr. Shivam Yadav and Mr. Kaushlendra Nath Singh,

appearing for the respondents – Noida.

Counsel for the Respondents.

CORAM: HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL,CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, JUDGE

ORDER

PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

1. The following writ petitions filed by different land owners are

being decided by this common order:

GREATER NOIDA:

WRIT - C No. 21825 of 2015,

WRIT - C Nos. - 14116, 36842, 36844, 39385, 40061 and 40153 of 2017;

WRIT - C Nos. 14568, 36494 and 37044 of 2018;

WRIT - C Nos. 493, 852, 6205, 8242, 13121, 13248, 13258, 13662, 13677,

13682, 13924, 14505, 14820, 15076, 15077, 15083, 21197, 23221, 23234,

23240, 23329, 23362, 23579, 23853, 23883, 24141, 24143, 24147, 24501,

24654, 25215, 25496, 25533, 25641, 25645, 25668, 25839, 25859, 26233,

3 Writ - C No. 14113 of 2017

26307, 26471, 26674, 26724, 26727, 27076, 27079, 27081, 27296, 27336,

27337, 27346, 27349, 27378, 27390, 27394, 27500, 27514, 27524, 27540,

27552, 27560, 27803, 27882, 27883, 27962, 27976, 27996, 28009, 28058,

28069, 28094, 28100, 28235, 28249, 28260, 28296, 28297, 28391, 28397,

28447, 28480, 28508, 28510, 28547, 28552, 28632, 28644, 28648, 28649,

28663, 28675, 28696, 28699, 28701, 28702, 28704, 28705, 28708, 28711,

28714, 28716, 28717, 28770, 28804, 28840, 28852, 28886, 28893, 28946,

29024, 29032, 29099, 29105, 29114, 29278, 29280, 29284, 29289, 29293,

29313, 29323, 29324, 29342, 29354, 29587, 29591, 29637, 29665, 29852,

29863, 29923, 29943, 29950, 29951, 29956, 29959, 29983, 29996, 30032,

30034, 30035, 30039, 30051, 30116, 30128, 30143, 30159, 30179, 30183,

30194, 30251, 30262, 30279, 30287, 30294, 30314, 30418, 30490, 30657,

30659, 30666, 30673, 30674, 30675, 30679, 30691, 30700, 30702, 30713,

30716, 30723, 30899, 30937, 30951, 30962, 31024, 31039, 31203, 31296,

31312, 31313, 31329, 31338, 31350, 31357, 31372, 31383, 31385, 31405,

31407, 31416, 31437, 31478, 31484, 31489, 31491, 31501, 31759, 31769,

31783, 31963, 31988, 31990, 32005, 32012, 32195, 32272, 32289, 32345,

32356, 32404, 32408, 32437, 32456, 32502, 32507, 32520, 32555, 32559,

32587, 32593, 32595, 32784, 32942, 33009, 33014, 33022, 33026, 33264,

33322, 33428, 33449, 33469, 33891, 34069, 34364, 34491, 34494, 34501,

34527, 34554, 34585, 34667, 34716, 34724, 34739, 34773, 34774, 34926,

36749, 36760 , 36990, 36991, 17526, 24570, 34575 and 30139 of 2019;

WRIT - C Nos. 2184, 2221, 2290, 2298, 2947, 3047, 3055, 3122, 3857,

3865, 3867, 3902, 3910, 3915, 3930, 3934, 4192, 4548, 4893, 6043 and

6092 of 2020 and

WRIT - C Nos. 947, 28235, 30834, 30840, 30888, 30973, 30988, 1347,

26393, 33067, 33192, 33237, 33333, 34220, 34486 and 34502 of 2021.

NOIDA:

Writ C No.-1532 of 2017;

Writ C Nos. 15086, 16258, 16263, 17560, 17563, 17566, 17584, 17739,

4 Writ - C No. 14113 of 2017

17753 , 17778, 17800, 17876, 17877, 18107, 18367, 19018, 19022,

19056 , 22795, 23154, 23157, 23160, 24130, 25877, 26034, 26381, 26440,

26449, 26482, 26498, 26731, 27144, 27290, 27556, 27818, 27827, 27880,

27885, 27890, 28047, 28099, 28101, 28102, 28171, 28191, 28208, 28386,

28462, 28472, 28477, 28700, 28707, 28709, 28713, 28715, 28790, 28796,

29063, 29295, 29317, 29337, 29560, 29564, 29632, 29652, 30216, 30306,

31130, 31193, 31332, 31345, 31392, 31411, 31438, 31454, 31462, 31472,

31477, 31497, 31785, 31935, 31958, 31997, 32001 of 2019, 32006, 32265,

32399 , 32513, 32724, 33000, 33311, 33444, 33475, 33795, 33804, 34539,

34543 , 34550 , 34562, 34694, 34729, 34931, 34936, 34939, 34956, 34961,

34998, 35020 and 4840 of 2019;

Writ C Nos.-3043, 3845, 3846, 3853, 4209, 4217, 4226 and 4233 of 2020

and

Writ C No. 26108 of 2021.

2. The principal relief claimed in all the writ petitions is that

respondents be directed to allot 10% developed land in lieu of their land

acquired by the State Government for Noida Development

Authority/Greater Noida Development Authority, District - Gautam Buddha

Nagar.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

3. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14113 of 2017 (Runwell India

Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others) is treated as the leading writ

petition.

4. From the record, it transpires that petitioner - Runwell India

Pvt. Ltd. is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act

(hereinafter referred to as “Company”).

5. The Company purchased Survey Plot No. 444, area 0-17-0

bighas situate in Village – Patwari, Pargana & Tehsil - Dadri, District -

Gautam Buddha Nagar, vide registered sale deed dated 31.3.1987.

5 Writ - C No. 14113 of 2017

6. The State Government issued notification dated 12.3.2008

under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 (for short, 'the 1894 Act'), whereby the State Government disclosed

its intention for acquiring large tract of land (589.188 hectares), situated in

Village - Patwari, Pargana & Tehsil-Dadri, District-Gautam Buddha Nagar

for planned industrial development.

7. The notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of

the 1894 Act was followed by the notification dated 30.06.2008 published

under Section 6(1) read with Section 17(1) of the 1894 Act. As per the

aforesaid notification, an area of 589.188 hectares situated in Village -

Patwari, Pargana & Tehsil-Dadri, District-Gautam Buddha Nagar was

notified.

8. Since the urgency clause was invoked, therefore, by virtue of

the provisions contained under Section 17(3A) of the 1894 Act, the State

Government was duty-bound to pay 80% of the compensation amount

before taking possession of the land of the petitioners. According to

petitioners, the compensation amount was paid on 08.04.2010.

9. The notifications under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4)

dated 12.03.2008 and Section 6(1) read with Section 17(1) of 1894 Act

dated 30.06.2008 in respect of Village - Patwari were challenged before this

Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17068 of 2009 Har Karan

Singh Vs. State of U.P & others. The aforesaid writ petition, along with

other connected writ petitions, was allowed vide judgement dated

19.07.2011 and the impugned notifications were quashed.

10. A Division Bench of this Court, dealing with the same

notifications dated 12.03.2008 and 30.06.2008 issued under Sections 4 & 6

of the 1894 Act in Writ Petition No. 37443 of 2011 (Gajraj and others Vs.

State of U.P. and others), along with other writ petitions of similar nature,

doubted the correctness of the judgement rendered in Har Karan Singh's

case (supra). Vide order dated 26.07.2011 passed in aforesaid case,

reference was made to Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger

6 Writ - C No. 14113 of 2017

Bench. The same reads as under:

“Against this background, prima facie we are of the view that a

larger Bench is required to be formed for the purpose of

hearing these matter not only in respect of the village in

question but also for all the acquisition matters in respect of the

New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and greater

Noida Industrial Development Authority for the ends of justice,

to reduce the fume and to avoid the multiplicity of the

proceedings”

11. The Full Bench decided the matters referred to it vide

judgement dated 21.10.2011 reported as [2011 (11) ADJ 1 (FB)] Gajraj

and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, by issuing following directions

vide paragraph 482 of the judgement:

“482. In view of the foregoing conclusions we

order as follows:

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

7 Writ - C No. 14113 of 2017

delay and laches are dismissed.

2. The writ petitions of Group 40 (Village Devla)

being Writ Petition No. 31126 of 2011, Writ Petition No.

59131 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 22800 of 2010, Writ Petition

No. 37118 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 42812 of 2009, Writ

Petition No. 50417 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 54424 of 2009,

Writ Petition No. 54652 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 55650 of

2009, Writ Petition No. 57032 of 2009, Writ Petition No.

58318 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 22798 of 2010, Writ Petition

No. 37784 of 2010, Writ Petition No. 37787 of 2010, Writ

Petition No. 31124 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 31125 of 2011,

Writ Petition No. 32234 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 32987 of

2011, Writ Petition No. 35648 of 2011, Writ Petition No.

38059 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 41339 of 2011, Writ Petition

No. 47427 of 2011 and Writ Petition No. 47412 of 2011 are

allowed and the notifications dated 26.5.2009 and 22.6.2009

and all consequential actions are quashed. The petitioners shall

be entitled for restoration of their land subject to deposit of

compensation which they had received under agreement/award

before the authority/Collector.

2(ii). Writ petition No. 17725 of 2010

Omveer and others Vs. State of U.P. (Group 38)

relating to village Yusufpur Chak Sahberi is

allowed. Notifications dated 10.4.2006 and

6.9.2007 and all consequential actions are

quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled for

restoration of their land subject to return of

compensation received by them under

agreement/award to the Collector.

2(iii) Writ Petition No.47486 of 2011

(Rajee and others vs. State of U.P. and others) of

8 Writ - C No. 14113 of 2017

Group-42 relating to village Asdullapur is

allowed. The notification dated 27.1.2010 and

4.2.2010 as well as all subsequent proceedings

are quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled to

restoration of their land.

3. 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

9 Writ - C No. 14113 of 2017

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.

5. The Greater NOIDA and its allottees are directed

not to carry on development and not to implement the Master

Plan 2021 till the observations and directions of the National

Capital Regional Planning Board are incorporated in Master

Plan 2021 to the satisfaction of the National Capital Regional

Planning Board. We make it clear that this direction shall not

be applicable in those cases where the development is being

carried on in accordance with the earlier Master Plan of the

Greater NOIDA duly approved by the National Capital

Regional Planning Board.

6. We direct the Chief Secretary of the State to

appoint officers not below the level of Principal Secretary

(except the officers of Industrial Development Department

who have dealt with the relevant files) to conduct a thorough

inquiry regarding the acts of Greater Noida (a) in proceeding

to implement Master Plan 2021 without approval of N.C.R.P.

Board, (b) decisions taken to change the land use, (c)

allotment made to the builders and (d) indiscriminate

proposals for acquisition of land, and thereafter the State

Government shall take appropriate action in the matter. ”

10 Writ - C No. 14113 of 2017

12. After the aforesaid Full Bench judgement of this Court, the

Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, in order to give effect to

the directions issued by the Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj's case

(supra), convened its meeting and passed the resolution dated 02.11.2011.

13. Subsequently, the Greater Noida Industrial Development

Authority, in order to implement the directions given by the Full Bench in

respect of such land owners, who had already executed sale deeds in favour

of Greater Noida Authority in respect of the acquired land, constituted a

Committee, which submitted its report on 18.11.2011.

14. Thereafter, the Greater Noida Industrial Development

Authority, in its 91

st

meeting, vide resolution dated 25.11.2011, decided to

accord benefit of the Full Bench judgement in Gajraj's case (supra) to the

land owners whose lands were acquired as well as purchased by way of

sale deeds.

15. While the aforesaid exercise was undertaken by Greater Noida

Authority, the respondent no. 3, in the leading writ petition, i.e., Civil

Misc. Writ Petition No.37443 of 2011 (Gajraj and others Vs. State of

U.P. and others), filed a review petition seeking review of the judgement

dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Full Bench. The same was registered as

Review Application No. 3968519 of 2011 and was dismissed vide order

dated 14.05.2012.

16. Thereafter, a correction application was filed in Civil Misc.

Writ Petition No. 43392 of 2011 (Bhushan Singh and others Vs. State of

U.P. and others) seeking correction in the judgement dated 21.10.2011

passed by the Full Bench. The aforesaid correction application came to be

disposed of finally vide order dated 29.04.2013.

17. Feeling aggrieved by the judgement dated 21.10.2011 rendered

by the Full Bench in Gajraj's case (supra), some of the land owners

challenged the same before the Supreme Court. The leading case was

registered as Civil Appeal No. 4506 of 2015 (Savitri Devi Vs. State of

11 Writ - C No. 14113 of 2017

U.P. and others). The aforesaid Civil Appeal, along with connected

matters, were disposed of finally vide judgement dated 14.5.2015

[reported as (2015) 7 SCC 26, Savitri Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others]

with the following observations:

“ 48. To sum up, following benefits are accorded to the

land owners:

48.1 increasing the compensation by 64.7%;

48.2 directing allotment of developed abadi land to the

extent of 10% of the land acquired of each of the land owners;

48.3 compensation which is increased at the rate of

64.7% is payable immediately without taking away the rights

of the land owners to claim higher compensation under the

machinery provided in the Land Acquisition Act wherein the

matter would be examined on the basis of the evidence

produced to arrive at just and fair market value.

xxxx

50. ….. 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.”

(emphasis supplied)

18. At this juncture, the Greater Noida Authority, in its 104

th

Board

meeting dated 14.03.2016, took a decision to allot 10% of developed land

upto the maximum limit of 2,500 square meters pursuant to earlier orders

passed by this Court as well as Hon'ble the Supreme Court.

19. The aforesaid proposal was sent to the State Government for

approval. However, the State Government, vide its order dated 21.09.2016,

refused to grant its approval to the same.

20. On account of the above letter/order of the State Government,

12 Writ - C No. 14113 of 2017

the Greater Noida Authority, in its 115

th

Board meeting, passed the

resolution dated 22.08.2019, in which, vide agenda item no. 115/10, it was

resolved that the proposal to allot 10% of developed land subject to the

maximum limit 2,500 square meters be re-called.

21. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, counter affidavit has been filed

by respondent no. 4, the Greater Noida Authority, in the leading writ

petition as well as other connected writ petitions affecting the Greater

Noida Authority. Counter affidavits have also been filed by Noida

Authority in some of the connected writ petitions. However, no counter

affidavit has been filed by the State Government till date.

22. The learned counsel for the parties agreed that irrespective of

above, since period of more than four years has rolled by from the date of

filing of aforementioned writ petitions, the same be disposed of finally at

the admission stage itself. Consequently, with the consent of the parties and

as provided under the Rules of this Court, the bunch of writ petitions was

heard for final disposal and is, therefore, now being decided finally.

PETITIONERS' ARGUMENTS:

23. Mr. Manu Khare, along with Mr. Pankaj Dubey, the learned

counsel for some of the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are

entitled to allotment of 10% developed land, subject to the ceiling limit of

2,500 square meters, on the basis of directions contained in Full Bench

judgement of this Court in Gajraj's case (supra) as well as the judgement

of Supreme Court in Savitri Devi's case (supra). It was also contended

that since subsequent to aforesaid judgements the Greater Noida Industrial

Development Authority had itself resolved to allot 10% of developed land,

no deviation can be made from the same. To lend legal support to his

submissions, he has relied upon the following judgements/orders of

Hon'ble the Supreme Court as well as this Court:-

(1) Gajraj & others Vs. State of U.P. & others reported in

[2011 (11) ADJ 1]

13 Writ - C No. 14113 of 2017

(2) Judgement dated 19.07.2011 rendered in Writ C No.

17068 of 2009 (Har Karan Singh Vs. State of U.P.);

(3) Savitri Devi Vs. State of U.P. [(2015) 7 SCC 21];

24. Mr. Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for some of the petitioners

has supplied a chart in support of his submission that some of the

notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act were not

covered in Gajraj's case (supra) decided by the Full Bench of this Court,

but were covered in Savitri Devi's case (supra) decided by the Supreme

Court. The same are as under:-

Sl. No. SLP No. Appeal No. VillageDate of Notification

1SLP (CIVIL)

22716-22718/14

W. P. No. 4875 of

2011

Civil Appeal No.

004766-004768/2015

Lakhnawali28.11.2002 U/S 4

29.01.2003 U/S 6

2SLP (CIVIL)

22384-22385/14

W.P. No. 55008 of

2020

Civil Appeal No.

004764-004765/2015

Habibpur02.05.2003 U/S 4

26.06.2003 U/S 6

3SLP (CIVIL)

06024-06027/14

W.P. No. 52178 of

2011

Civil Appeal No.

004742-004745/2015

Birondi

Chakrasenpur

18.12.2001 U/S 4

30.03.2003 U/S 6

25. It was further submitted that after passing of the judgement in

Savitri Devi's case (supra), the respondents have not complied with the

directions contained thereunder. Therefore, the parties therein moved eight

contempt petitions before the Apex Court, the leading being Contempt

Petition (C) (Diary) No. 1507 of 2022. In the said contempt petitions, the

respondents filed affidavit stating therein that the orders/directions have

been complied with. In order words, 10% developed land was allotted to

the parties in the contempt petitions. Thereafter, the contempt petitions

were disposed of on 21.03.2022.

26. Mr. V. M. Zaidi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. M.J.

Akhtar, has adopted the arguments of Mr. Manu Khare. He submitted that

the petitioners are entitled for allotment of 10% developed land in view of

the directions contained in the Full Bench judgement of this Court in

14 Writ - C No. 14113 of 2017

Gajraj's case (supra).

27. Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for some of the

petitioners, has also adopted the arguments raised by other counsel. He has

relied upon the following orders/judgements:-

(1) Order dated 14.05.2012 passed by the Full Bench in

Review Application No. 368519 of 2011 in Writ-C no. 37443

of 2011 (Gajraj and others Vs. State of U.P. and others)

(2) 2014 (2) ADJ 30 (Khemchand and others Vs. State of

U.P. and others).

RESPONDENTS' ARGUMENTS:

28. Mr. Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the Greater

Noida Authority, submits that the claim of the petitioners for allotment of

10% of developed land upto the maximum limit of 2,500 square meters is

not tenable. He submits that the Authority cannot allot developed land to

any person without previous approval of the State Government. He further

submits that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court as well as Hon'ble

the Supreme Court, the Authority passed resolutions dated 02.11.2011,

25.11.2011 and 14.03.2016, whereby decision was taken to allot 10%

developed land, subject to the ceiling limit of 2,500 square meters.

However, the decision taken by the Noida Authority was not approved by

the State Government. It is on account of above that the Authority had

subsequently passed the resolution dated 22.08.2019, whereby it has been

resolved that earlier proposal to allot 10% of developed land subject to the

ceiling limit of 2,500 square meters be recalled. The tenure holders/land

owners, who had already executed sale deeds in favour of Noida Authority

in respect of acquired land, have no locus to maintain the writ petitions

seeking allotment of 10% of developed land subject to the ceiling limit of

2,500 square metres. It has, lastly, been submitted that in view of the

judgements of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, this Court as well as various

orders passed by this Court, the petitioners do not have an indefeasible

15 Writ - C No. 14113 of 2017

right to claim allotment of 10% developed land subject to the ceiling limit

of 2,500 square metres. He has relied upon the following judgements:-

(a) With regard to the proposition that the petitioners

have no legal right to claim allotment of 10% developed land

subject to the ceiling limit of 2,500 sq. mtrs., reliance is

placed upon:

(i) Mange @ Mange Ram Vs. State of U.P.

and others, 2016 (8) ADJ 79 (DB),

(ii) judgement dated 11.08.2016 in Writ

Petition No.37373 of 2016 (Raja Ram Vs. State

of U.P. and others),

(iii) judgement dated 09.01.2018 in Writ-C

No.28781 of 2012 (Umesh Kumar Sharma Vs.

State of U.P. and others),

(iv)Khatoon and others Vs. State of U.P. and

others, 2018 (14) SCC 346, (v) judgement dated

31.10.2019 in Writ-C No.34922 of 2019 (Gajraj

Vs. State of U.P. and others), and

(vi) judgement dated 05.10.2020 in Writ-C

No.10262 of 2020 (Jai Kumar Sharma and

others Vs. State of U.P. and others).

(b) In support of the submission that such tenure

holders/land owners who have executed sale deed in favour of

Noida Authority regarding acquired land have no right to

claim 10% of developed land subject to the ceiling limit of

2,500 square meters, reliance is placed upon the order of this

Court dated 3.2.2012 passed in Writ C No. 6176 of 2012

(Brahma Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others).

16 Writ - C No. 14113 of 2017

29. Ms. Anjali Upadhyay, one of the counsel appearing for the

Greater Noida, has also adopted the arguments raised by Shri Ramendra

Pratap Singh and opposed the writ petitions. She contended that in view of

the judgement of the Apex Court in Savitri Devi's case (supra) and

thereafter, judgement in Khatoon's case (supra), the present petitions are

liable to be dismissed. She further submitted that none of the petitioners

was before the Court on earlier occasions.

30. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents nos. 1 to

3 submits that the claim of the petitioners for allotment of 10% developed

land subject to the ceiling limit of 2,500 square meters is not tenable in law

and fact. The view as taken by the Full Bench in Gajraj's case (supra) as

affirmed by the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi's case (supra), the

petitioners do not have any such right under the 1894 Act. As such, the

claim of the petitioners that they have a right to have 10% of developed

land subject to the ceiling limit of 2,500 square metres is not an

indefeasible right. In support of the submission, he has relied upon the

following judgements/orders:-

(1) Khatoon and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2018)

14 SCC, 346

(2) Mange alias Mange Ram Vs. State of U.P. 2016 (8) ADJ

79 (DB);

(3) Order dated 31.10.2019 passed in Writ C No. 34922 of

2019 (Gajraj Vs. State of U.P. and three others).

31. Mr. Shivam Yadav and Mr. Kaushlendra Nath Singh, the

learned counsel representing the New Okhla Industrial Development

Authority (NOIDA), have also opposed these writ petitions. They have

adopted the arguments raised by Mr. Ramendra Pratap Singh as well as

learned Standing Counsel. They contend that subsequent to the Full Bench

judgement of this Court in Gajraj's case (supra), the Board of the Noida

Authority, in its 188

th

Meeting dated 29.11.2013, deferred the decision

17 Writ - C No. 14113 of 2017

regarding aforesaid subject matter. Subsequently, the Board of the Noida

Authority held its 197

th

Meeting on 27.09.2019 and vide Agenda Item No.2,

resolved not to allot 10% developed land. He has, however, relied upon

order dated 17.02.2012 passed by the Full Bench of this Court in Civil

Misc. Writ Petition No. 6022 of 2018 (Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.) in

support of the proposition that the writ petitions, placed in Group -B by the

Full Bench in Gajraj's case (supra), were dismissed. It was also

contended that present writ petitions, which pertain to the notifications

under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act and fall in Group B category

formulated by the Full Bench of this Court, are liable to be dismissed.

COURT'S ANALYSIS:

32. On the submissions and counter submissions urged on behalf

of the learned counsel for the parties, the following issues arise for

determination in this bunch of writ petitions.

(i) Whether in view of the judgement of the Apex

Court in Savitri Devi's case (supra) and the subsequent

judgement in Khatoon's case (supra), the petitioners are

entitled for allotment of 10% developed land subject to the

ceiling limit of 2,500 square meters?

(ii) Whether the land owners/writ petitioners, who

were not parties in the earlier round of litigation, can maintain

the claim for allotment of 10% developed land subject to the

ceiling limit of 2,500 square meters?

(iii) Whether such land owners/tenure holders who

have executed sale deeds in favour of Noida Authority are

entitled to claim 10% of developed land subject to the ceiling

limit of 2,500 square metres?

(iv) Whether the decision of the State Government,

refusing to accord sanction/approval to the proposal of the

18 Writ - C No. 14113 of 2017

Greater Noida Authority as taken in its 104

th

Board meeting

dated 14.03.2016, is illegal, unjust and arbitrary?

(v) What will be the effect on the right of the land

owners whose writ petitions were dismissed by the Full Bench

of this Court in Gajraj and others' case (supra).

ISSUE NOS. (i) & (ii):

33. As issue nos. (i) & (ii) are interconnected, therefore, the same

are being decided together.

34. It has been vehemently urged on behalf of petitioners that all

such tenure holders/land owners, whose land was acquired pursuant to the

notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act read with Section 17 of

the 1894 Act as well as other notifications covered under the Full Bench

Judgement of this Court in Gajraj's case (supra) or under Savitri Devi's

case (supra) decided by Supreme Court, are entitled to the aforesaid

benefit.

35. The grounds urged on behalf of petitioners for claiming 10%

developed land subject to ceiling limit of 2,500 square meters, though

appears to be attractive at the first flush, but are devoid of substance. The

submission is that subsequent to the Full Bench judgement of this Court in

Gajraj's case (supra), some of the land owners/tenure holders challenged

the same before the Supreme Court. All the Civil Appeals/Special Leave

Petitions were clubbed together and decided by a common judgement dated

14.02.2015, as Savitri Devi's case (supra), wherein, in paragraph no. 50, it

has been held that in view of the peculiar circumstances, the order passed

by the High Court would not form precedent for future cases. The

observation made in paragraph no. 50 in Savitri Devi's case (supra) reads

as under:-

50. Conclusion Keeping in view all these peculiar

circumstances, we are of the opinion that these are not the

19 Writ - C No. 14113 of 2017

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.”

(emphasis supplied)

36. Subsequent to the judgement in Savitri Devi's case (supra),

the Supreme Court in Khatoon's case (supra), while considering the

question as to whether the appellants therein are entitled to claim additional

abadi land in lieu of their acquired land in terms of the judgement in

Gajraj's case (supra) and upheld in Savitri Devi's case (supra), has held

as under:-

“49. That apart, there is no basis for the appellants to

press in service the principle underlined in Article 14 in such

cases for the simple reason that firstly, Article 14 does not

apply to such cases; and secondly, there is no similarity

between the case of those landowners, who filed the writ

petitions and the present appellants, who did not file the writ

petitions. Though the High Court, in Gajraj’s case (supra)

decided the rights of both categories of landowners but the

cases of both stood on a different footing. It is for these

reasons, the appellants were not held entitled to take benefit of

condition No. 3 (a) and (b) of the case of Gajraj (supra) which

was meant for the writ petitioners therein but not for the

appellants. However, the appellants were held entitled to take

the benefit of only condition No. 4 (a) and (b) of the said

judgment and which they did take by accepting the additional

compensation payable at the rate of 64.70%.

50. In our view, therefore substantial justice was done

to all the landowners including the appellants, as observed in

para 49 of Savitri Devi’s case (supra).

20 Writ - C No. 14113 of 2017

37. In view of subsequent judgements of this Court as well as the

Apex Court as noted herein-above, claim of the land owners/tenure holders

for allotment of 10% of Abadi land subject to the ceiling limit of 2,500

square meters has been negated, the benefit, as claimed by the petitioners,

cannot be granted.

38. The land owners/tenure holders, whose lands have been

acquired under the 1894 Act, are not entitled as a matter of right for

allotment of 10% of developed land, subject to the ceiling limit of 2,500

square meters.

39. In view of the aforesaid, as held by the Apex Court in Savitri

Devi's and Khatoon's cases (supra), the landowners/tenure holders cannot

get benefit of the same as the judgement rendered by the Full Bench of this

Court in Gajraj's case (supra) was in view of the peculiar facts &

circumstances of the case, which would not form precedent for the future

cases and therefore, the benefit cannot be accorded to the petitioners, who

were not before the Court in earlier round of litigation.

ISSUE NO. (iii):

40. We shall now deal with the next issue involved in these bunch

of writ petitions, i.e., whether such tenure holders, who have executed sale

deeds in favour of Noida Authorities in respect of lands sought to be

acquired by virtue of notifications published under Sections 4 and 6 of the

1894 Act, are entitled to claim 10% of developed land subject to the ceiling

limit of 2,500 square meters. A Division Bench of this Court, vide order

dated 03.02.2012 passed in Writ-C no. 6176 of 2012 (Braham Singh and

others Vs. State of U.P. and others), negated the claim of such tenure

holders.

41. However, in view of the observation contained in paragraph

no. 50 of the judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi's

and Khatoon's cases (supra), all tenure holders, who were affected by the

notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act, the benefit cannot be

21 Writ - C No. 14113 of 2017

granted to the petitioners. Therefore, we have no hesitation to conclude that

by virtue of above, the tenure holders, who have executed sale deeds of

their land pursuant to the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the

1894 Act and such notifications are covered under aforesaid judgements,

are not entitled to have the benefit of allotment of 10% developed land

subject to the ceiling limit of 2,500 square meters.

ISSUE NO. (iv):

42. The State Government has not filed any counter affidavit

disputing the claim of the petitioners. Only oral objections have been raised

disputing the claim of the petitioners. It is only during the course of hearing

that the letter/order of the State Government dated 21.09.2016 was placed

before us. It is on the basis of the aforesaid letter/order of the State

Government that Mr. Vineet Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel, has

submitted before us that the State Government has rightly refused to accord

its approval/sanction to the resolution of the Greater Noida Authority dated

14.03.2016 passed in its 104

th

Board meeting, as the Apex Court in Savitri

Devi's and subsequently, in Khatoon's cases (supra) has held that the

order passed by the High Court shall not form precedent for future cases.

43. The Greater Noida Authority has taken a specific stand before

us that no allotment of land can be made without sanction/approval of the

State Government. As the decision taken by the Greater Noida Authority to

allot 10% of developed land subject to the ceiling limit of 2,500 square

meters has not been approved by the State Government, the Greater Noida

Authority has consequently passed the resolution dated 22.08.2019 in its

115

th

Board meeting, whereby, a decision has been taken to recall the

proposal formulated vide resolution dated 14.03.2016.

44. In view of the judgements of the Apex Court in Savitri Devi's

and Khatoon's cases (supra), where the Apex Court has very categorically

held that the order passed by the High Court, in the peculiar facts &

circumstances, would not form precedent for future cases, no claim can be

22 Writ - C No. 14113 of 2017

made on the basis of the Full Bench judgement of this Court in Gajraj's

case (supra) and the State Government has rightly refused to accord its

approval/sanction to the resolution dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Greater

Noida in its 104

th

Board's meeting.

ISSUE NO. (v):

45. We now come to the last issue involved in this bunch of writ

petitions. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been urged that by virtue of

the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi's case (supra),

all such petitioners, whose lands were acquired under the 1894 Act, are also

entitled to allotment of 10% developed land subject to the ceiling limit of

2,500 square meters.

46. The aforesaid claim has been seriously objected to by the

learned counsel for respondents. They contend that once the writ petitions

were dismissed by the Full Bench of this Court and order passed on the writ

petitions of such tenure holders, whose writ petitions were dismissed

having not been challenged before the Supreme Court, are now bound by

the judgement of the Full Bench of this Court, as qua then the matter

attained finality.

47. The objection so raised on behalf of the respondents holds

water in view of the observation/direction issued by the Apex Court in

Savitri Devi's and Khatoon's cases (supra), wherein, it has been clearly

held that directions of the High Court, given in the unique and

peculiar/specific background, it would not form precedent for future cases.

Therefore, no benefit can be granted to the petitioners, whose writ petitions

were dismissed by the Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj's case (supra).

48.The claim so raised by the petitioners appears to be attractive, but is

of no substance in view of the observation made in paragraph no. 50 by

Supreme Court in the case of Savitri Devi's case (supra) and thereafter, in

Khatoon's case (supra). The logical corollary of the same shall be that all

such tenure holders, whose lands were acquired pursuant to the

23 Writ - C No. 14113 of 2017

notifications involved in Gajraj's case (supra), Savitri Devi's case

(supra) as well as Khaoon's case (supra), are not entitled to the aforesaid

benefit.

CONCLUSION:

49. Upon evaluation of the submissions advanced on behalf of the

learned counsel for the parties, the material available on record as well as

the law laid down by the Apex Court in Savitri Devi's and Khaoon's cases

(supra) and the judgement of the Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj's case

(supra), we do not find any good ground to grant the relief as prayed for.

All the writ petitions are devoid of merit and the same are, accordingly,

dismissed.

(Piyush Agrawal) (Rajesh Bindal)

Judge Chief Justice

Allahabad

May 31, 2022

Amit Mishra

Whether the order is speaking: -

Whether the order is reportable: Yes