Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4,6 and 17 – State acquired hundreds of hectares of land situated in several villages – Aggrieved, some landowners filed writ petitions – Lead judgment passed by High Court in writ petition entitled Gajraj & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. – High Court though upheld the acquisition but directed the State to pay enhanced provisional additional compensation to writ petitioners at the rate of 64.70% for their acquired land and also to allot each writ petitioner one developed abadi plot to the extent of 10% of their acquired land – Same was upheld by the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors. – Fresh writ petitions were filed by some other landowners-appellants, whose lands were also acquired in these acquisition proceedings – They pleaded that they were also entitled to claim the same reliefs, which were granted to writ petitioners by the High Court – Additional compensation to writ petitioners at the rate 64.70% was already implemented by the State by paying compensation to all the landowners including the appellants without any contest – Therefore, the only question remained, whether the appellants are also entitled to claim the relief of allotment of developed abadi plot to the extent of 10% of their acquired land – Relief declined by the High Court – On appeal, held: Appellants not entitled to get the benefit of the relief of allotment of developed abadi plot – High Court in earlier writ petitions had, in express terms, granted the relief of allotment of developed abadi plot confining it only to the landowners, who had filed the writ petitions – Further, High Court had directed the Authority to decide at their end as to whether they are willing to extend the same benefit to other similarly situated landownersappellants or not – The Authority decided to extend the benefit in relation to payment of an additional compensation, however, it declined to extend the benefit in relation to allotment of developed abadi plot to such landowners-appellants – Also, the Authority did not extend the benefit regarding allotment of additional abadi plot to even those earlier landowners-writ petitioners in whose favour the original directions were issued by the High Court and when landowners filed contempt petition the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court – Therefore, landowners-appellants have neither any legal right and nor any factual foundation to claim the relief of allotment of additional developed abadi plot.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is not in dispute that out of the two directions given by the High Court in the case of Gajraj & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., one direction, namely, award of additional compensation payable at the rate of 64.70% to every landowner was already implemented by the State/Authority and accordingly payment was also made to the appellants notwithstanding dismissal of their writ petitions. In other words, the appellant got the partial benefit of the order passed in Gajraj’s case even without contest. [Para 36] [386-G]
2. Therefore, the only question that now survives for consideration in these appeals is whether the appellants are entitled to get the benefit of second direction issued by the High Court in the case of Gajraj, namely, allotment of developed abadi plot to the appellants. [Para 37] [386-H; 387-A]
3. The appellants are not entitled to get the benefit of the aforementioned second direction for the following reasons. First, the High Court in the case of Gajraj had, in express terms, granted the relief of allotment of developed abadi plot confining it only to the landowners, who had filed the writ petitions. In other words, the High Court while issuing the aforesaid direction made it clear that the grant of this relief is confined only to the writ petitioners. [Paras 38, 39] [387-B-C}
4. Second, so far as the cases relating to second category of landowners, who had not challenged the acquisition proceedings (like the appellants herein) were concerned, the High Court dealt with their cases separately and accordingly issued directions which are contained in condition No. 4(a) and
(b) of the order. [Para 40] [387-C-D]
5. In condition No. 4(a) and (b), the High Court, in express terms, directed the Authority to take a decision on the question as to whether the Authority is willing to extend the benefit of the directions contained in condition No. 3(a) and (b) also to second category of landowners or not. [Para 41] [387-D-E]
6. In other words, the High Court, in express terms, declined to extend the grant of any relief to the landowners, who had not filed the writ petitions and instead directed the Authority to decide at their end as to whether they are willing to extend the same benefit to other similarly situated landowners or not. [Para 42] [387- E-F]
7. It is, therefore, clear that it was left to the discretion of the Authority to decide the question as to whether they are willing to extend the aforesaid benefits to second category of landowners or not. [Para 43] [387-F-G]
8. Third, as mentioned supra, the Authority, in compliance with the directions, decided to extend the benefit in relation to payment of an additional compensation at the rate of 64.70% and accordingly it was paid also. On the other hand, the Authority declined to extend the benefit in relation to allotment of developed abadi plot to such landowners. [Para 44] [387-G]
9. 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 the case of Gajraj and by this Court in Savitri Devi, the landowners filed the contempt petition against the Authority complaining of non-compliance of the directions of this Court but this Court dismissed the contempt petition holding therein that no case of non-compliance was made out. [Para 45] [387-H; 388-A-B]
10. The appellants have neither any legal right and nor any factual foundation to claim the relief of allotment of additional developed abadi plot. In order to claim any mandamus against the State for claiming such relief, it is necessary for the writ petitioners to plead and prove their legal right, which should be founded on undisputed facts against the State. It is only then the mandamus can be issued against the State for the benefit of writ petitioners. [Para 46] [388-B-C]
11. Indeed, when the landowners, in whose favour the order was passed by the High Court for allotment of such plot, could not get the plot then, in such event, there arise no occasion for the appellants herein to claim such relief for want of any factual and legal basis in their favour. [Para 47] [388-D]
12. 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 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 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%. [Para 50] [388-G-H; 389-A-B] Mange @ Mange Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors. W.P. No. 7521 of 2016 decided by Allahabad High Court; Gajraj & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. W. P. No. 37443 of 2011 decided by Allahabad High Court; Savitri Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors. [2015] 7 SCR 512 : (2015) 7 SCC 21 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.