KHATOON & ORS. versus THE STATE OF U.P. THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 10 S.C.R. 375 · Decided: 15-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
375
KHATOON & ORS.
v.
   THE STATE OF U.P. THROUGH PRINCIPAL
         SECRETARY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2127 of 2018)
FEBRUARY 15, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
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 landowners-
appellants or not – The Authority decided to extend the benefit in
relation to payment of an additional compensation, however, it
[2018]  10  S.C.R. 375
375
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
376
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
377
issued directions which are contained in condition No. 4(a) and
(b) of the order. [Para 40] [387-C-D]
5. In condi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.