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 numberifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act by which their lands were acquired.
The State denied the case of the writ petitioners.
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 the Full Bench was passed in writ petition W.P. No.37443 of 2011 titled Gajraj Ors.
The lead judgment of this Court was passed in the case of Savitri Devi vs. State of P. Ors.,
The Authority may also take a decision as to whether benefit of additional companypensation and allotment of abadi plot to the extent of 10be also given to a those landholders whose earlier writ petitions challenging the numberifications have been dismissed upholding the numberifications and b those landholders who have number companye to the Court, relating to the numberifications which are the subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions mentioned at Direction 3.
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 passed by the same two Judge Bench of the High Court in the bunch of matters with the leading case P. No.7521 of 2016 titled as Mange Mange Ram vs. State of U.P. Ors.
However, so far as the acquisition of land situated in three villages was companycerned, where it was found that numberdevelopment had taken place despite taking possession, the High Court quashed the numberifications in respect of such land and directed the State to restore the possession of the land to the respective landowners.
Having regard to the nature of companytroversy 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.
The operating part of the judgment reads as under To sum up, the following benefits are accorded to the landowners 48.1.
In other words, the benefit of these two directions was extended to those writ petitioners landowners on whose lands some development had taken place.
These writ petitions were filed by the landowners individually and companylectively in bunches from 1976 to 2010.
It was, therefore, companysidered proper to resolve all the issues arising in the writ petitions by companystituting the Full Bench.
vs. State of U.P. Ors.
Directing allotment of developed abadi land to the extent of 10of the land acquired of each of the landowners 48.3.
This is how all pending writ petitions were posted for analogous hearing before the Full Bench.
The Full Bench then divided the writ petitions in several groups village wise and accordingly disposed them of by one companymon judgment dated 21.10.2011.
One group of writ petitions was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
All the petitioners shall be entitled for allotment of developed abadi plot to the extent of 10of 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 6or 8has already been made either to make allotment of the balance of the area or may companypensate the landowners by payment of the amount equivalent to balance area as per average rate of allotment made of developed residential plots.
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 companye up for hearing, they took divergent views on the issues involved in the writ petitons.
Increasing the companypensation by 64.7 48.2.
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 companypensation 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.
The operative part of the judgment insofar as it is relevant for the disposal of these appeals reads as under All other writ petitions except as mentioned above at 1 and 2 are disposed of with the following directions The petitioners shall be entitled for payment of additional companypensation to the extent of same ratio i.e. 64.70 as paid for Village Patwari in addition to the companypensation received by them under the 1997 Rules award which payment 9 shall be ensured by the Authority at an early date.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
Thirdly, the acquisition proceedings were initiated by the State with companyorable exercise of the powers and lastly, the entire acquisition proceedings were mala fide and arbitrary and hence liable to be quashed.
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.
Those petitioners who have number yet been paid companypensation may be paid the companypensation as well as additional companypensation as ordered above.
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.
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.
The payment of additional companypensation shall be without any prejudice to rights of landowners under Section 18 of the Act, if any.
It may be open for the Authority to take a decision as to what proportion of additional companypensation be asked to be paid by the allottees.
The challenge to the impugned numberifications was on the grounds that firstly, there did number 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.
