REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2127 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.35758 of 2016)

Khatoon & Ors.            ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

The State of U.P. Through  Principal Secretary & Ors. ….Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2128 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 34436 of 2016)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2130 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.36516 of 2016)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2129 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 249 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2131 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 250 of 2017)

1

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2133 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 1727 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2132 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 1723 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2134 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 6339 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2145 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 12373 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2139 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 9581 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2142 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 8326 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2140 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 7746 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2141 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 7762 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2135-2136 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 6989-6990 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2137-2138 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 7269-7270 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL No.2143 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 8543 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2146 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 12633 of 2017)

2

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2144 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.10006 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL No.2148 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 16127 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL No.2193 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 35674 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2192 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.32778 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2190 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 31316 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2171 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 26309 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2170 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 26308 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2147 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 15834 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2149 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 18359 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2150 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 21083 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2162 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 23506 of 2017)

3

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2153 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 21156 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2155 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 21512 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2151 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 21144 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2152 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 21150 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2161 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 21975 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2154 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 21306 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2163 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 24238 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2165 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 24241 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2164 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 24240 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2156 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.21647 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2158 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.21685 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2160 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.21715 of 2017)

4

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2159 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.21707 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2157 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.21649 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2172 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 26335 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2173 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.26337 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2195 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.4955/2018

D.No. 26548 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2167 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 25313 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2166 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 24337 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2168 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 25414 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2175 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 26699 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2174  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 26475 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2185 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 29917 of 2017)

5

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2180 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 28232 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2176 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 27187 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2179 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 27821 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2178 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 27813 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2183 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 28890 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2177 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 27218 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2182 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 28861 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2181  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 28246 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2184  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 28947 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2188  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 30263 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2187 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 30254 of 2017)

6

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2194 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 35676 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2186 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 30089 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2189 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 30508 of 2017)

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2191  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 32260 of 2017)

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These  appeals  are  filed  against  the  final

judgment and order passed by the  High Court  of

Judicature at Allahabad on 01.08.2016 in C.M.W.P.

No.7553  of  2016  etc.etc.  and  other  similar  writ

petitions on different dates by which the High Court

dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants

herein in terms of the judgment dated 01.08.2016

7

passed by the same two Judge Bench of the High

Court in the bunch of matters with the leading case

(W.P. No.7521 of 2016 titled as Mange @ Mange

Ram vs. State of U.P. & Ors.).  

3. In order  to  appreciate  the  issues involved in

this bunch of appeals, it is necessary to set out the

facts, which led to filing of these appeals.

4. In  exercise  of  the  powers  conferred  under

Section  4  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894

(hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the  Act"),  the  State  of

U.P. issued several notifications from time to time

commencing from the year 1976 till 2010 seeking to

acquire a huge chunk of land measuring hundreds

of hectares situated in several villages of Noida and

Greater Noida in the State of UP.  The acquisition

was  for  a  public  purpose,  namely,  "Planned

Industrial  Development".  The  acquisition  was  for

the  benefit  of  Greater  Noida  Industrial  Authority

8

(hereinafter  referred  to  as  "the  Authority"),  which

was to undertake its execution.  

5. The aforementioned notifications issued under

Section 4 of the Act from time to time were followed

by publication of several declarations under Section

6 of the Act. The Government/Authority then took

possession of the acquired land by invoking urgency

provisions contained in Section 17 of the Act. The

State/Authority then developed the acquired land in

some villages.

6. Since  a  large  chunk  of  land  was  acquired,

which  belonged  to  several  landowners,  who  were

around hundred in numbers, some landowners felt

aggrieved and filed writ petitions in the High Court

at Allahabad and challenged therein the legality and

validity of the notifications issued under Sections 4

and 6 of the Act by which their lands were acquired.

These  writ  petitions  were  filed  by the  landowners

9

(individually and collectively in bunches) from 1976

to 2010.  

7. The  challenge  to  the  impugned  notifications

was on the grounds that firstly, there did not exist

any case of  urgency under Section 17 of  the Act.

Secondly,  dispensing of  an enquiry  under Section

5-A  was,  therefore,  illegal  inasmuch  as  such

dispension  deprived  the  landowners  to  file

objections before the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO)

to  challenge  the  acquisition  proceedings.  Thirdly,

the  acquisition  proceedings  were  initiated  by  the

State  with  colorable  exercise  of  the  powers;  and

lastly, the entire acquisition proceedings were mala

fide and arbitrary and hence liable to be quashed.  

8. The  State  denied  the  case  of  the  writ

petitioners.   While  defending  the  acquisition

proceedings,  the State,  inter  alia,  averred that the

acquisition was done strictly in accordance with the

10

provisions of  the Act  and hence it  deserves to be

upheld.  

9. Having  regard  to  the  nature  of  controversy

involved in the writ petitions and secondly, since a

large number of writ petitions were filed to challenge

the  acquisition  proceedings,  all  the  writ  petitions

(total 471) were clubbed together for their analogous

hearing by the Full Bench of the High Court.  One of

the reasons for referring all the writ petitions to the

Full  Bench  was  that  the  two  Division  Benches

before whom some writ petitions, out of the bunch,

had come up for hearing, they took divergent views

on the issues involved in the writ petitons. It was,

therefore, considered proper to resolve all the issues

arising in the writ petitions by constituting the Full

Bench. This is how all pending writ petitions were

posted for analogous hearing before the Full Bench.

11

10.  The Full Bench then divided the writ petitions

in  several  groups  "village  wise"  and  accordingly

disposed them of by one common judgment dated

21.10.2011.  The lead judgment of the Full Bench

was passed in writ petition (W.P. No.37443 of 2011)

titled Gajraj & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

11. One group of writ petitions was dismissed on

the  ground  of  delay  and  laches.  The  other  main

group  of  writ  petitions  was  disposed  of  with

directions in which the High Court though upheld

the  acquisition  but  directed  the  State  to  pay

enhanced  provisional  additional  compensation  to

the writ petitioners at the rate of 64.70% for their

acquired land and also allot to each writ petitioner

one  developed abadi  plot  to  the  extent  of  10% of

their  acquired  land  subject  to  maximum of  2500

sq.m.  

12

12. These  two  directions  were  confined  to  those

cases  where  it  was  found,  as  a  fact,  that  some

development was undertaken by the  State  on the

acquired land.  In other words, the benefit of these

two  directions  was  extended  to  those  writ

petitioners  (landowners)  on  whose  lands  some

development had taken place.

13. However,  so  far  as  the  acquisition  of  land

situated in three villages was concerned,  where it

was  found  that  no  development  had  taken  place

despite taking possession, the High Court quashed

the  notifications  in  respect  of  such  land  and

directed the State to restore the possession of the

land  to  the  respective  landowners.  The  operative

part of the judgment insofar as it is relevant for the

disposal of these appeals reads as under:

“3.  All  other  writ  petitions  except  as mentioned above at (1) and (2) are disposed of with the following directions:

13

(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  the 1997 Rules/award which payment(9) shall be ensured by the Authority at an early date. It may  be  open  for  the  Authority  to  take  a decision as to what proportion of additional compensation  be  asked  to  be  paid  by  the 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 landowners 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 sq m. We however, leave it  open  to  the  Authority  in  cases  where allotment of abadi plot to the extent of 6%or 8%has  already  been  made  either  to  make allotment of the balance of the area or may compensate  the  landowners  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  landholders  whose  earlier  writ petitions  challenging  the  notifications  have

14

been dismissed  upholding  the  notifications; and

(b) those landholders who have not come to the Court, relating to the notifications which are  the  subject-matter  of  challenge  in  the writ petitions mentioned at Direction 3.”

14. Some  landowners  felt  aggrieved  of  the

aforesaid judgment of  the High Court and carried

the matter in appeals to this Court after obtaining

special  leave  to  appeal.   This  Court  (Three Judge

Bench),  on  14.05.2015  dismissed  all  the  appeals

filed by the landowners and upheld the judgment of

the High Court.  The lead judgment of this Court

was passed in the case of Savitri Devi vs. State of

U.P. & Ors., (2015) 7 SCC 21. The operating part of

the judgment reads as under:

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

15

48.3. Compensation  which  is  increased  @ 64.7%is payable immediately without taking away the rights of  the landowners 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. 49. This,  according  to  us,  provides substantial justice to the appellants. Conclusion 50. 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. 51……………………………… 52. The  Full  Bench  judgment  of  the  High Court is, accordingly, affirmed and all these appeals are disposed of in terms of the said judgment of the Full Bench.”

15. The appellants herein, whose lands were also

acquired  in  these  acquisition  proceedings,  then

woke up out of slumber and filed the writ petitions

for the first time on 15.02.2016 in the High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad out of which these appeals

arise.  

16

16.  In  the  writ  petitions,  the  appellants  prayed

that they being similarly situated along with those

landowners,  who  had  filed  writ  petitions  and

challenged  the  acquisition  proceedings,  are  also

entitled  to  claim  the  same  reliefs,  which  were

granted to the writ petitioners by the Full Bench in

the  case  of  Gajraj (supra)  and  upheld  in  Savitri

Devi (supra).

17. In other words, the case of the appellants (writ

petitioners)  before  the  High  Court  was  that  the

reliefs, which were granted to the landowners by the

Full Bench in Gajraj’s case (supra) and affirmed by

this  Court  in  Savitri  Devi’s case  (supra)  be  also

granted to the appellants because their  lands were

also acquired in the same acquisition proceedings in

which the lands of the writ petitioners of  Gajraj’s

case (supra) was acquired.  In effect, the relief was

17

prayed on the principles of parity between the two

landowners qua State.  

18. It is, however, pertinent to mention that so far

as  the  direction  of  the  High  Court  to  award

additional  compensation  payable  at  the  rate  of

64.70%  was  concerned,  the  same  was  already

implemented  by  the  State  by  paying  the

compensation to  all  the  landowners  including  the

appellants without any contest.  

19. In this view of the matter,  the only question

before  the  High  Court  in  the  appellants’  writ

petitions  that  remained  for  decision  was  as  to

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  subject  to

maximum of 2500 Sq.M. in terms of the judgment

in  Gajraj’s case  (supra)  and  Savitri  Devi’s case

(supra).

18

20. This relief was declined by the High Court in

the impugned judgment to the appellants which has

given  rise  to  filing  of  the  present  appeals  by  the

unsuccessful  writ  petitioners  (landowners)  in  this

Court after obtaining leave to appeal.    

21. Therefore, the short question, which arises for

consideration in this bunch of appeals, is whether

the appellants (landowners) are entitled to claim the

benefit of judgment dated 21.10.2011 passed by the

Full Bench of the High Court in the case of  Gajraj

(supra), which was upheld by this Court in the case

of  Savitri  Devi (supra)  insofar  as  it  relates  to

allotment of additional abadi plot to the maximum

of 2500 Sq.M.

22. In  other  words,  the  question  involved  is

whether  the  appellants  are  entitled  to  claim

additional abadi plot in lieu of their acquired land in

19

terms of judgment dated 21.10.2011 passed in the

case of Gajraj (supra) and Savitri Devi (supra).  

23. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  mainly

contended that when the order was passed by the

High Court (Full Bench) against the State in relation

to  one  acquisition  proceedings  for  the  benefit  of

some landowners in the case of Gajraj (supra) then,

in  such  circumstances,  the  benefit  of  such  order

should  also  be  extended  to  all  the  landowners

whose lands were acquired in the same acquisition

proceedings  regardless  of  the  fact  whether  such

landowners challenged the acquisition proceedings

in the High Court along with others or not.

24. In other words, the submission was that once

the  order  was  passed  by  the  High  Court  in  the

acquisition proceedings, whether at the instance of

one  landowner  or  two  landowners  for  his/their

benefit,  all  the  landowners  whose  lands  are

20

acquired become entitled to claim the same benefits

which were granted to the landowners, who filed the

writ petitions.  

25. Learned counsel then urged that, in any case,

the  Authority  having  resolved  in  their  meeting  to

allot the additional land/plot to all the landowners

in terms of the order of the High Court regardless of

the fact whether such landowner was a party to the

original proceedings or not, the High Court erred in

not  granting  the  relief  to  the  appellants.  It  was

contended that in the light of such resolution, there

was no reason as to why the appellants,  who are

similarly  situated landowners alike others,  should

be deprived of  the  benefit  of  the  judgment  of  the

High  Court  passed  in  the  case  of  Gajraj  (supra)

insofar as it directed the State to allot the developed

abadi plot to each landowner.  

21

26. It is essentially these submissions, which were

adopted and elaborated by all the learned counsel

for  the  appellants (landowners)  in their  respective

submissions in support of their appeals.

27. In  reply,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the

respondents (State and the Authority) supported the

impugned judgment including its reasoning and the

conclusion and contended that no case is made out

in these appeals calling for any interference in the

impugned judgment.  

28. Learned  counsel  while  elaborating  his

submissions pointed out that firstly, the judgments

of the High Court in the case of  Gajraj (supra) and

this Court in Savitri Devi (supra) are confined only

to  those  landowners,  who  had  filed  the  writ

petitions in the High Court and civil appeals in this

Court which is clear from the judgment itself.

22

29.  In the second place, learned counsel pointed

out that the High Court had directed the State and

the  Authority  to  decide  as  to  whether  they  are

willing to pay additional compensation at the rate of

64.70% and to allot the plot out of developed abadi

land to those landowners, who did not challenge the

acquisition proceedings.  

30. It  was  pointed  out  that  pursuant  to  the

directions  of  the  High  Court  in  Gajraj’s  case

(supra),  the  respondents  (State  and  Authority)

resolved to pay the additional compensation at the

rate  of  64.70%  to  all  such  landowners  but

expressed  their  inability  to  allot  the  plot  to  each

landowner including even to those in whose favour

the order of allotment had been passed for want of

availability of additional land with the Authority.

31. In the third place, learned counsel pointed out

that  the  respondents  accordingly  paid  to  each

23

landowner  including  the  appellants  (landowners)

the additional compensation at the rate of 64.70%.

32. In  the  fourth  place,  it  was  pointed  out  that

several landowners, in whose favour the directions

for allotment of  additional  plot  was issued by the

High Court, did not get the plot and, therefore, they

had filed contempt petitions, which were dismissed

by this Court holding that no case for contempt is

made  out  against  the  State/Authority.   In  other

words,  this  Court  accepted  the  stand  of  the

Authority of  non-availability of additional land with

them.  

33. And lastly, learned counsel contended that in

the  absence  of  any  factual  foundation  and  legal

right in appellants’ favour, they are not entitled to

claim the relief sought in the writ petitions which

was rightly declined by the High Court.

24

34. It is these submissions, which were elaborated

by the learned counsel for the respondents.

35. Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

find  no  merit  in  the  submissions  urged  by  the

learned counsel for the appellants (landowners).

36. As mentioned above, it is not in dispute that

out of the two directions given by the High Court in

the  case  of  Gajraj (supra),  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

(supra) even without contest.

25

37. 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 (supra), namely, allotment of developed abadi

plot to the appellants.  

38. In our considered opinion, the appellants are

not entitled to get the benefit of the aforementioned

second direction and this we say for the following

reasons.

39. First,  the  High  Court  in  the  case  of  Gajraj

(supra) 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 [see

condition No. 3(a) and (b)].  

26

40. 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.  

41. 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.  

42. 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

27

same benefit to other similarly situated landowners

or not.  

43. 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.  

44. 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.

45. 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

28

directions were issued by the High Court in the case

of Gajraj (supra) and by this Court in Savitri Devi

(supra), 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.

46. In our view, 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.  Such is not the case here.

29

47. 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.  

48. One  cannot  dispute  that  the  Act  does  not

provide for grant of such reliefs to the landowners

under the Act.  Similarly, there is no dispute that

the State paid all statutory compensation, which is

payable under the Act, to every landowner.  Not only

that  every  landowner  also  got  additional

compensation at the rate of 64.70% over and above

what was payable to them under the Act.  

49. The reliefs in the case of  Gajraj (supra) were

granted  by  the  High  Court  by  exercising

extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution and  keeping in view the peculiar facts

30

and  circumstances  arising  in  the  case  at  hand.

They were confined only to the landowners, who had

filed the writ petitions.  Even this Court in  Savitri

Devi’s case (supra) held that the directions given be

not treated as precedent for being adopted to other

cases in future and they be treated as confined to

that case only.  .   

50. 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

31

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%.

51. 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).  

52. In  our  opinion,  therefore,  there  is  no  case

made out by the appellants for grant of any relief

much  less  the  relief  of  allotment  of  additional

developed abadi plot. If we entertain the appellants’

plea  for  granting  them  the  relief  then  it  would

amount to passing an order contrary to this Court’s

32

directions  contained in para 50 of the order passed

in Savitri Devi’s case (supra).

53. In the light of the foregoing discussion and on

examining the appellants’ case from any angle, we

find  no  merit  in  the  appeals,  which  fail  and  are

accordingly dismissed.        

   ………...................................J.

[R.K. AGRAWAL]             

                        …...……..................................J.

        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi; February 15, 2018  

33