KHATOON & ORS. versus THE STATE OF U.P. THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS. on 15 February 2018

[2018] 10 S.C.R. 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 acquiredhundreds of hectares of land situated in several villages – Aggrieved,some landowners filed writ petitions – Lead judgment passed byHigh Court in writ petition entitled Gajraj & Ors. v. State of U.P. &Ors. – High Court though upheld the acquisition but directed theState to pay enhanced provisional additional compensation to writpetitioners at the rate of 64.70% for their acquired land and alsoto allot each writ petitioner one developed abadi plot to the extentof 10% of their acquired land – Same was upheld by the SupremeCourt in Savitri Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors. – Fresh writ petitionswere filed by some other landowners-appellants, whose lands werealso acquired in these acquisition proceedings – They pleaded thatthey were also entitled to claim the same reliefs, which were grantedto writ petitioners by the High Court – Additional compensation towrit petitioners at the rate 64.70% was already implemented by theState by paying compensation to all the landowners including theappellants without any contest – Therefore, the only questionremained, whether the appellants are also entitled to claim the reliefof allotment of developed abadi plot to the extent of 10% of theiracquired land – Relief declined by the High Court – On appeal,held: Appellants not entitled to get the benefit of the relief ofallotment of developed abadi plot – High Court in earlier writpetitions had, in express terms, granted the relief of allotment ofdeveloped abadi plot confining it only to the landowners, who hadfiled the writ petitions – Further, High Court had directed theAuthority to decide at their end as to whether they are willing toextend the same benefit to other similarly situated landowners-appellants or not – The Authority decided to extend the benefit inrelation to payment of an additional compensation, however, it

375

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Adeclined to extend the benefit in relation to allotment of developedabadi plot to such landowners-appellants – Also, the Authority didnot extend the benefit regarding allotment of additional abadi plotto even those earlier landowners-writ petitioners in whose favourthe original directions were issued by the High Court and whenlandowners filed contempt petition the same was dismissed by theBSupreme Court – Therefore, landowners-appellants have neitherany legal right and nor any factual foundation to claim the relief ofallotment of additional developed abadi plot.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

CHELD: 1. It is not in dispute that out of the two directionsgiven by the High Court in the case of Gajraj & Ors. v. State ofU.P. & Ors., one direction, namely, award of additionalcompensation payable at the rate of 64.70% to every landownerwas already implemented by the State/Authority and accordinglypayment was also made to the appellants notwithstandingDdismissal of their writ petitions. In other words, the appellantgot the partial benefit of the order passed in Gajraj’s case evenwithout contest. [Para 36] [386-G]

2. Therefore, the only question that now survives forconsideration in these appeals is whether the appellants areEentitled to get the benefit of second direction issued by the HighCourt in the case of Gajraj, namely, allotment of developed abadiplot to the appellants. [Para 37] [386-H; 387-A]

3. The appellants are not entitled to get the benefit of theaforementioned second direction for the following reasons. First,Fthe High Court in the case of Gajraj had, in express terms, grantedthe relief of allotment of developed abadi plot confining it only tothe landowners, who had filed the writ petitions. In other words,the High Court while issuing the aforesaid direction made it clearthat the grant of this relief is confined only to the writ petitioners.G[Paras 38, 39] [387-B-C}

4. Second, so far as the cases relating to second categoryof landowners, who had not challenged the acquisitionproceedings (like the appellants herein) were concerned, theHigh Court dealt with their cases separately and accordingly H

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 expressterms, directed the Authority to take a decision on the questionas to whether the Authority is willing to extend the benefit of thedirections contained in condition No. 3(a) and (b) also to secondcategory 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, whohad not filed the writ petitions and instead directed the Authorityto decide at their end as to whether they are willing to extend thesame 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 ofthe Authority to decide the question as to whether they are willingto extend the aforesaid benefits to second category of landownersor not. [Para 43] [387-F-G]

8. Third, as mentioned supra, the Authority, in compliancewith the directions, decided to extend the benefit in relation topayment of an additional compensation at the rate of 64.70% andaccordingly it was paid also. On the other hand, the Authoritydeclined to extend the benefit in relation to allotment of developedabadi plot to such landowners. [Para 44] [387-G]

9. Fourth, it is not in dispute, being a matter of record, thatwhen the Authority failed to extend the benefit regarding allotmentof additional abadi plot to even those landowners in whose favourthe directions were issued by the High Court in the case of Gajrajand by this Court in Savitri Devi, the landowners filed the contemptpetition against the Authority complaining of non-compliance ofthe directions of this Court but this Court dismissed the contemptpetition holding therein that no case of non-compliance was madeout. [Para 45] [387-H; 388-A-B]

10. The appellants have neither any legal right and nor anyfactual foundation to claim the relief of allotment of additionaldeveloped abadi plot. In order to claim any mandamus againstthe State for claiming such relief, it is necessary for the writ A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Apetitioners to plead and prove their legal right, which should befounded on undisputed facts against the State. It is only then themandamus can be issued against the State for the benefit of writpetitioners. [Para 46] [388-B-C]

11. Indeed, when the landowners, in whose favour the orderBwas passed by the High Court for allotment of such plot, couldnot get the plot then, in such event, there arise no occasion forthe appellants herein to claim such relief for want of any factualand legal basis in their favour. [Para 47] [388-D]

12. There is no basis for the appellants to press in serviceCthe principle underlined in Article 14 in such cases for the simplereason that firstly, Article 14 does not apply to such cases; andsecondly, there is no similarity between the case of thoselandowners, who filed the writ petitions and the present appellants,who did not file the writ petitions. Though the High Court, inGajraj’s case decided the rights of both categories of landownersDbut the cases of both stood on a different footing. It is for thesereasons, the appellants were not held entitled to take benefit ofcondition No. 3 (a) and (b) of the case of Gajraj which was meantfor the writ petitioners therein but not for the appellants.However, the appellants were held entitled to take the benefit ofEonly condition No. 4 (a) and (b) of the said judgment and whichthey did take by accepting the additional compensation payableat 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; GajrajF& Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. W. P. No. 37443 of 2011decided by Allahabad High Court; Savitri Devi v. Stateof U.P. & Ors. [2015] 7 SCR 512 : (2015) 7 SCC 21 –referred to.

Case Law Reference

G[2015] 7 SCR 512referred toPara 14

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2127

of 2018

From the Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2016 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petiton No. 7553 of 2016H

WITH

C. A. Nos. 2134, 2145, 2139, 2142, 2140, 2141, 2135-36, 2137-38,2143, 2146, 2144, 2128, 2130, 2129, 2131, 2133, 2132, 2148, 2193, 2192,2190, 2171, 2170, 2147, 2149, 2152, 2165, 2153, 2150, 2156, 2151, 2162,2163, 2167, 2154, 2161, 2157, 2155, 2164, 2158, 2159. 2160, 2195, 2172,2173, 2177, 2182, 2168, 2175, 2166, 2174, 2176, 2181, 2187, 2183, 2179,2180, 2178, 2186, 2185, 2191, 2184, 2189, 2188 and 2194 of 2018.

S. R. Singh, Sr. Adv., Dr. Rajeev Sharma, Pankaj Dubey,Dharmendra Sharma, Vipin Kumar Sharma, Raghuvir Sharma, HajiSalimuddin, Ram Anugrah Singh, Bhanwar Lal Singh Jadon, PrasantSharma, Hara Prasad Sahu, Shiv Kant Mishra, Kamlesh Kumar Mishra,Goutam Kumar Upadhyay, Sunil Kumar Pandey, Pranaya KumarMohapatra, F. I. Choudhury, Dhruv Paliwal, Mangal Prasad, Ms. ShwetaYadav, Ms. Anita Tripathi, Yash Pal Dhingra, Ms. Shashi Kiran, ManojJain, Satish Chandra, Sujit Kumar Jha, Advs. for the Appellants.

Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, AAG, Ravindra Kumar, Sanjai KumarPathak, Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Akhilendra Singh, Ankur Yadav, AnuvratSharma, Ms. Alka Sinha, Raman Yadav, Syed Mehdi Imam, AkshayRana, Ms. Varnita Rastogi, Pawanshree Agrawal, Rachit Mittal,Ms. Tanvi Aggarwal, Dr. Kailash Chand, Abhishek Baid, Anup Jain,Praneet Das, Tanmaya Agarwal, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are filed against the final judgment and orderpassed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 01.08.2016 inC.M.W.P. No.7553 of 2016 etc.etc. and other similar writ petitions ondifferent dates by which the High Court dismissed the writ petitions filedby the appellants herein in terms of the judgment dated 01.08.2016 passedby the same two Judge Bench of the High Court in the bunch of matterswith 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 theLand Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AState of U.P. issued several notifications from time to time commencingfrom the year 1976 till 2010 seeking to acquire a huge chunk of landmeasuring hundreds of hectares situated in several villages of Noidaand Greater Noida in the State of UP. The acquisition was for a publicpurpose, namely, “Planned Industrial Development”. The acquisition wasfor the benefit of Greater Noida Industrial Authority (hereinafter referredBto as “the Authority”), which was to undertake its execution.

5. The aforementioned notifications issued under Section 4 of theAct from time to time were followed by publication of several declarationsunder Section 6 of the Act. The Government/Authority then tookpossession of the acquired land by invoking urgency provisions containedCin Section 17 of the Act. The State/Authority then developed the acquiredland in some villages.

6. Since a large chunk of land was acquired, which belonged toseveral landowners, who were around hundred in numbers, somelandowners felt aggrieved and filed writ petitions in the High Court atDAllahabad and challenged therein the legality and validity of thenotifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act by which theirlands were acquired. These writ petitions were filed by the landowners(individually and collectively in bunches) from 1976 to 2010.

7. The challenge to the impugned notifications was on the groundsEthat firstly, there did not exist any case of urgency under Section 17 ofthe Act. Secondly, dispensing of an enquiry under Section 5-A was,therefore, illegal inasmuch as such dispension deprived the landownersto file objections before the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) to challengethe acquisition proceedings. Thirdly, the acquisition proceedings wereFinitiated by the State with colorable exercise of the powers; and lastly,the entire acquisition proceedings were mala fide and arbitrary and henceliable to be quashed.

8. The State denied the case of the writ petitioners. Whiledefending the acquisition proceedings, the State, inter alia, averred thatGthe acquisition was done strictly in accordance with the provisions of theAct and hence it deserves to be upheld.

9. Having regard to the nature of controversy involved in the writpetitions and secondly, since a large number of writ petitions were filedto challenge the acquisition proceedings, all the writ petitions (total 471)were clubbed together for their analogous hearing by the Full Bench ofH

the High Court. One of the reasons for referring all the writ petitions tothe Full Bench was that the two Division Benches before whom somewrit petitions, out of the bunch, had come up for hearing, they tookdivergent views on the issues involved in the writ petitons. It was,therefore, considered proper to resolve all the issues arising in the writpetitions by constituting the Full Bench. This is how all pending writpetitions were posted for analogous hearing before the Full Bench.

10. The Full Bench then divided the writ petitions in several groups“village wise” and accordingly disposed them of by one common judgmentdated 21.10.2011. The lead judgment of the Full Bench was passed inwrit petition (W.P. No.37443 of 2011) titled Gajraj & Ors. vs. State ofU.P. & Ors.

11. One group of writ petitions was dismissed on the ground ofdelay and laches. The other main group of writ petitions was disposed ofwith directions in which the High Court though upheld the acquisition butdirected the State to pay enhanced provisional additional compensationto the writ petitioners at the rate of 64.70% for their acquired land andalso allot to each writ petitioner one developed abadi plot to the extent of10% of their acquired land subject to maximum of 2500 sq.m.

12. These two directions were confined to those cases where itwas found, as a fact, that some development was undertaken by theState on the acquired land. In other words, the benefit of these twodirections was extended to those writ petitioners (landowners) on whoselands some development had taken place.

13. However, so far as the acquisition of land situated in threevillages was concerned, where it was found that no development hadtaken place despite taking possession, the High Court quashed thenotifications in respect of such land and directed the State to restore thepossession of the land to the respective landowners. The operative partof the judgment insofar as it is relevant for the disposal of these appealsreads as under:

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

(a) The petitioners shall be entitled for payment ofadditional compensation to the extent of same ratio (i.e.64.70%) as paid for Village Patwari in addition to the AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Acompensation received by them under the 1997 Rules/award which payment(9) shall be ensured by the Authorityat an early date. It may be open for the Authority to take adecision as to what proportion of additional compensationbe asked to be paid by the allottees. Those petitioners whohave not yet been paid compensation may be paid theBcompensation as well as additional compensation as orderedabove. The payment of additional compensation shall bewithout any prejudice to rights of landowners under Section18 of the Act, if any.

(b) All the petitioners shall be entitled for allotment ofCdeveloped abadi plot to the extent of 10%of their acquiredland subject to maximum of 2500 sq m. We however, leaveit open to the Authority in cases where allotment of abadiplot to the extent of 6%or 8%has already been made eitherto make allotment of the balance of the area or mayDcompensate the landowners by payment of the amountequivalent to balance area as per average rate of allotmentmade of developed residential plots.

4. The Authority may also take a decision as to whetherbenefit of additional compensation and allotment of abadiEplot to the extent of 10%be also given to:

(a) those landholders whose earlier writ petitionschallenging the notifications have been dismissed upholdingthe notifications; and (b) those landholders who have not come to the Court,Frelating to the notifications which are the subject-matter ofchallenge in the writ petitions mentioned at Direction 3.”

14. Some landowners felt aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment ofthe High Court and carried the matter in appeals to this Court afterobtaining special leave to appeal. This Court (Three Judge Bench), onG14.05.2015 dismissed all the appeals filed by the landowners and upheldthe judgment of the High Court. The lead judgment of this Court waspassed in the case of Savitri Devi vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2015) 7SCC 21. The operating part of the judgment reads as under:

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

48.1. Increasing the compensation by 64.7%; 48.2. Directing allotment of developed abadi land to theextent of 10%of the land acquired of each of the landowners; 48.3. Compensation which is increased @ 64.7%is payableimmediately without taking away the rights of thelandowners to claim higher compensation under themachinery provided in the Land Acquisition Act whereinthe matter would be examined on the basis of the evidenceproduced to arrive at just and fair market value.

49. This, according to us, provides substantial justice tothe appellants.

Conclusion

50. Keeping in view all these peculiar circumstances, weare of the opinion that these are not the cases where thisCourt should interfere under Article 136 of theConstitution. However, we make it clear that directions ofthe High Court are given in the aforesaid unique andpeculiar/specific background and, therefore, it would notform precedent for future cases.

51………………………………

52. The Full Bench judgment of the High Court is,accordingly, affirmed and all these appeals are disposed ofin terms of the said judgment of the Full Bench.”

15. The appellants herein, whose lands were also acquired in theseacquisition proceedings, then woke up out of slumber and filed the writpetitions for the first time on 15.02.2016 in the High Court of Judicatureat Allahabad out of which these appeals arise.

16. In the writ petitions, the appellants prayed that they beingsimilarly situated along with those landowners, who had filed writ petitionsand challenged the acquisition proceedings, are also entitled to claim thesame reliefs, which were granted to the writ petitioners by the Full Benchin 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 A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Alandowners by the Full Bench in Gajraj’s case (supra) and affirmed bythis Court in Savitri Devi’s case (supra) be also granted to the appellantsbecause their lands were also acquired in the same acquisitionproceedings in which the lands of the writ petitioners of Gajraj’s case(supra) was acquired. In effect, the relief was prayed on the principlesof parity between the two landowners qua State.

B

18. It is, however, pertinent to mention that so far as the directionof the High Court to award additional compensation payable at the rateof 64.70% was concerned, the same was already implemented by theState by paying the compensation to all the landowners including theappellants without any contest.

C

19. In this view of the matter, the only question before the HighCourt in the appellants’ writ petitions that remained for decision was asto whether the appellants are also entitled to claim the relief of allotmentof developed abadi plot to the extent of 10% of their acquired land subjectto maximum of 2500 Sq.M. in terms of the judgment in Gajraj’s caseD(supra) and Savitri Devi’s case (supra).

20. This relief was declined by the High Court in the impugnedjudgment to the appellants which has given rise to filing of the presentappeals by the unsuccessful writ petitioners (landowners) in this Courtafter obtaining leave to appeal.

E

21. Therefore, the short question, which arises for considerationin this bunch of appeals, is whether the appellants (landowners) areentitled to claim the benefit of judgment dated 21.10.2011 passed by theFull Bench of the High Court in the case of Gajraj (supra), which wasupheld by this Court in the case of Savitri Devi (supra) insofar as itFrelates to allotment of additional abadi plot to the maximum of 2500Sq.M.

22. In other words, the question involved is whether the appellantsare entitled to claim additional abadi plot in lieu of their acquired land interms of judgment dated 21.10.2011 passed in the case of Gajraj (supra)Gand Savitri Devi (supra).

23. Learned counsel for the appellants mainly contended that whenthe order was passed by the High Court (Full Bench) against the Statein relation to one acquisition proceedings for the benefit of somelandowners in the case of Gajraj (supra) then, in such circumstances, H

the benefit of such order should also be extended to all the landownerswhose lands were acquired in the same acquisition proceedings regardlessof the fact whether such landowners challenged the acquisitionproceedings in the High Court along with others or not.

24. In other words, the submission was that once the order waspassed by the High Court in the acquisition proceedings, whether at theinstance of one landowner or two landowners for his/their benefit, allthe landowners whose lands are acquired become entitled to claim thesame benefits which were granted to the landowners, who filed the writpetitions.

25. Learned counsel then urged that, in any case, the Authorityhaving resolved in their meeting to allot the additional land/plot to all thelandowners in terms of the order of the High Court regardless of thefact whether such landowner was a party to the original proceedings ornot, the High Court erred in not granting the relief to the appellants. Itwas contended that in the light of such resolution, there was no reasonas to why the appellants, who are similarly situated landowners alikeothers, should be deprived of the benefit of the judgment of the HighCourt passed in the case of Gajraj (supra) insofar as it directed theState to allot the developed abadi plot to each landowner.

26. It is essentially these submissions, which were adopted andelaborated by all the learned counsel for the appellants (landowners) intheir respective submissions in support of their appeals.

27. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the respondents (Stateand the Authority) supported the impugned judgment including itsreasoning and the conclusion and contended that no case is made out inthese appeals calling for any interference in the impugned judgment.

28. Learned counsel while elaborating his submissions pointedout 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 thoselandowners, who had filed the writ petitions in the High Court and civilappeals in this Court which is clear from the judgment itself.

29. In the second place, learned counsel pointed out that the HighCourt had directed the State and the Authority to decide as to whetherthey 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.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

A30. It was pointed out that pursuant to the directions of the HighCourt in Gajraj’s case (supra), the respondents (State and Authority)resolved to pay the additional compensation at the rate of 64.70% to allsuch landowners but expressed their inability to allot the plot to eachlandowner including even to those in whose favour the order of allotmenthad been passed for want of availability of additional land with theBAuthority.

31. In the third place, learned counsel pointed out that therespondents accordingly paid to each landowner including the appellants(landowners) the additional compensation at the rate of 64.70%.

C32. In the fourth place, it was pointed out that several landowners,in whose favour the directions for allotment of additional plot was issuedby the High Court, did not get the plot and, therefore, they had filedcontempt petitions, which were dismissed by this Court holding that nocase for contempt is made out against the State/Authority. In otherwords, this Court accepted the stand of the Authority of non-availabilityDof additional land with them.

33. And lastly, learned counsel contended that in the absence ofany factual foundation and legal right in appellants’ favour, they are notentitled to claim the relief sought in the writ petitions which was rightlydeclined by the High Court.E

34. It is these submissions, which were elaborated by the learnedcounsel for the respondents.

35. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we find no merit in the submissions urged bythe learned counsel for the appellants (landowners).F

36. As mentioned above, it is not in dispute that out of the twodirections given by the High Court in the case of Gajraj (supra), onedirection, namely, award of additional compensation payable at the rateof 64.70% to every landowner was already implemented by the State/Authority and accordingly payment was also made to the appellantsGnotwithstanding dismissal of their writ petitions. In other words, theappellant got the partial benefit of the order passed in Gajraj’s case(supra) even without contest.

37. Therefore, the only question that now survives for considerationin these appeals is whether the appellants are entitled to get the benefit H

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 getthe benefit of the aforementioned second direction and this we say forthe following reasons.

39. First, the High Court in the case of Gajraj (supra) had, inexpress terms, granted the relief of allotment of developed abadi plotconfining it only to the landowners, who had filed the writ petitions. Inother words, the High Court while issuing the aforesaid direction made itclear that the grant of this relief is confined only to the writ petitioners[see condition No. 3(a) and (b)].

40. Second, so far as the cases relating to second category oflandowners, who had not challenged the acquisition proceedings (likethe appellants herein) were concerned, the High Court dealt with theircases separately and accordingly issued directions which are containedin condition No. 4(a) and (b) of the order.

41. In condition No. 4(a) and (b), the High Court, in expressterms, directed the Authority to take a decision on the question as towhether the Authority is willing to extend the benefit of the directionscontained in condition No. 3(a) and (b) also to second category oflandowners or not.

42. In other words, the High Court, in express terms, declined toextend the grant of any relief to the landowners, who had not filed thewrit petitions and instead directed the Authority to decide at their end asto whether they are willing to extend the same benefit to other similarlysituated landowners or not.

43. It is, therefore, clear that it was left to the discretion of theAuthority to decide the question as to whether they are willing to extendthe aforesaid benefits to second category of landowners or not.

44. Third, as mentioned supra, the Authority, in compliance withthe directions, decided to extend the benefit in relation to payment of anadditional compensation at the rate of 64.70% and accordingly it waspaid also. On the other hand, the Authority declined to extend the benefitin relation to allotment of developed abadi plot to such landowners.

45. Fourth, it is not in dispute, being a matter of record, that whenthe Authority failed to extend the benefit regarding allotment of additional A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aabadi plot to even those landowners in whose favour the directions wereissued by the High Court in the case of Gajraj (supra) and by this Courtin Savitri Devi (supra), the landowners filed the contempt petition againstthe Authority complaining of non-compliance of the directions of thisCourt but this Court dismissed the contempt petition holding therein thatno case of non-compliance was made out.

B

46. In our view, the appellants have neither any legal right and norany factual foundation to claim the relief of allotment of additionaldeveloped abadi plot. In order to claim any mandamus against the Statefor claiming such relief, it is necessary for the writ petitioners to pleadand prove their legal right, which should be founded on undisputed factsCagainst the State. It is only then the mandamus can be issued againstthe State for the benefit of writ petitioners. Such is not the case here.

47. Indeed, when the landowners, in whose favour the order waspassed by the High Court for allotment of such plot, could not get theplot then, in such event, there arise no occasion for the appellants hereinDto 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 ofsuch reliefs to the landowners under the Act. Similarly, there is no disputethat the State paid all statutory compensation, which is payable underthe Act, to every landowner. Not only that every landowner also gotEadditional compensation at the rate of 64.70% over and above what waspayable to them under the Act.

49. The reliefs in the case of Gajraj (supra) were granted by theHigh Court by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 ofthe Constitution and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstancesFarising 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 forbeing adopted to other cases in future and they be treated as confined tothat case only. .

G

50. That apart, there is no basis for the appellants to press inservice the principle underlined in Article 14 in such cases for the simplereason that firstly, Article 14 does not apply to such cases; and secondly,there is no similarity between the case of those landowners, who filedthe writ petitions and the present appellants, who did not file the writ H

petitions. Though the High Court, in Gajraj’s case (supra) decided therights of both categories of landowners but the cases of both stood on adifferent footing. It is for these reasons, the appellants were not heldentitled to take benefit of condition No. 3 (a) and (b) of the case ofGajraj (supra) which was meant for the writ petitioners therein but notfor the appellants. However, the appellants were held entitled to takethe benefit of only condition No. 4 (a) and (b) of the said judgment andwhich they did take by accepting the additional compensation payable atthe rate of 64.70%.

51. In our view, therefore substantial justice was done to all thelandowners including the appellants, as observed in para 49 of SavitriDevi’s case (supra).

52. In our opinion, therefore, there is no case made out by theappellants for grant of any relief much less the relief of allotment ofadditional developed abadi plot. If we entertain the appellants’ plea forgranting them the relief then it would amount to passing an order contraryto this Court’s directions contained in para 50 of the order passed inSavitri Devi’s case (supra).

53. In the light of the foregoing discussion and on examining theappellants’ case from any angle, we find no merit in the appeals, whichfail and are accordingly dismissed.

Ankit Gyan

Appeals dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H