Smt. Madhuri Srivastava v. State of UP & others) connected
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:120361-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 252 of 2024 Applicant :- Vedram @ Bedram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anjali Upadhya,C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Shri Shailendra, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Ms. Anjali Upadhya, learned counsel for the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar. 2. Present Review Application is preferred to review the order dated 29.04.2024 on the ground that while pressing the relief the petitioner had confined his prayer to the extent that the representation dated 07.03.2024, which is pending consideration before the Chief Executive Officer, qua the grievance of the petitioner, be decided within some stipulated time. For ready reference, the order dated 29.04.2024 is reproduced as under:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent no.1 and Ms. Anjali Upadhya, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 2. The petitioner claims to be owner with transferrable rights of Khasra No.127 area 0.200 hec. situated in Revenue Village Patwari, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The State Government had acquired the land in question for 'planned industrial development' through Greater Noida vide notifications dated 12.03.2008 and 30.06.2008 and the petitioner has been paid compensation on the basis of Pushtaini Kashtkar. So far as the grievance of the petitioner is concerned, he has already filed a representation dated 07.03.2024 before the Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar (respondent no.2) for redressal of his grievance, which is still pending. He has confined his prayer only to the relief that his representation dated 07.03.2024 may be considered by the appropriate authority within some stipulated time. 3. In response to the order of this Court dated 19.4.2024, Ms. Anjali Upadhya, learned counsel for the second respondent has placed the resolution of 57th Board Meeting dated 20.03.2006, which is taken on record. She submits that a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.05.2016 had proceeded to dismiss the Writ C No.61449 of 2009 (Smt. Madhuri Srivastava vs. State of UP & others) connected with three other writ petitions. She further submits that the judgement and order dated 30.03.2018 passed by a Full Bench of this Court was subject matter of challenge in Civil Appeal No.8819 of 2022 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.11447/2018) (Ramesh Chandra Sharma & ors vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors) connected with Civil Appeal Nos.8820 of 2022 and 8821 of 2022, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the judgement passed in Writ C No.61449 of 2009 filed by Madhuri Srivastava (supra) alongwith other connected petitions filed by certain landholders whose land was acquired by NOIDA challenging the decision of the Board of Directors of NOIDA dated 07.01.1998 and the approval granted to the said resolution by the State Government dated 02.03.2009, whereby a distinction was carved out in the matter of payment of compensation by creating a classification between "Pushtaini" and "Gair-pushtaini" landholders. In Ramesh Chandra Sharma's case (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the classification made by both the executive actions were bad in law and consequently, the judgement passed by the Full Bench was set aside. The writ petitions filed by the appellants before the High Court were allowed by the Apex Court and the appellants were entitled to the reliefs claimed in the said writ petition. She submits that against the judgement passed in Ramesh Chandra Sharma's case (supra), the review application has been filed by the second respondent, which is still pending consideration. 4. Once the controversy in hand has already been put at rest by the Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Sharma's case (supra) then at this stage we are not inclined to keep the matter pending consideration.
Decision
5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with an observation that the claim set up by the petitioner is to be decided by the Chief Executive Officer of Greater Noida in the light of the judgement passed by the Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Sharma's case (supra) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order." 3. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner submits that the petitioner is Pustaini Kastkar and the judgement relied by the Court has no relevance qua the matter pertaining to Pustaini Kastkar. He further submits that in similar facts Writ C No.9590/2023 (Manoj Bhati and another vs. State of U.P. and others) was already disposed of by the Division Bench vide order dated 11.04.2023, the said relief may be accorded in the present case also. In this backdrop, he submits that the the order dated 29.04.2024 is liable to be reviewed. 4. For ready reference, the order dated 11.04.2023 passed in Manoj Bhati (supra) is extracted as under:- "The petitioners herein claim allotment of 6% developed abadi land out of their acquired lands in Khasra No. 137 area 0.3690 hectare and Khasra No.557 area 3.2620 hectare of the Village Sirsa, Pargana Dankaur, Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Budh Nagar, as per 65th Board meeting of Greater Noida Authority. The issue raised herein would require a factual enquiry. Mr. Mahesh Narayan Singh, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent authority. Without entering into the merits of the case, we direct that the petitioner shall file a fresh representation before the respondent authority within two weeks from today along with a copy of this order and the respondent authority is under obligation to take an expeditious decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a further period of six weeks. The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly." 5. So far as the factual and legal position, the same is not disputed by counsel for the respondents. However it is submitted that the applicant-petitioner shall move a fresh representation ventilating his grievance so that the decision may be taken in accordance with law. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order dated 29.04.2024 is liable to be interfered with. The order dated 29.04.2024 is substituted with following order: "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent no.1 and Ms. Anjali Upadhya, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 2. The petitioner claims to be owner with transferrable rights of Khasra No.127 area 0.200 hec. situated in Revenue Village Patwari, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The State Government had acquired the land in question for 'planned industrial development' through Greater Noida vide notifications dated 12.03.2008 and 30.06.2008 and the petitioner has been paid compensation on the basis of Pushtaini Kashtkar. So far as the grievance of the petitioner is concerned, he has already filed a representation dated 07.03.2024 before the Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar (respondent no.2) for redressal of his grievance, which is still pending. He has confined his prayer only to the relief that his representation dated 07.03.2024 may be considered by the appropriate authority within some stipulated time. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that in case any such claim still survives, the petitioner may move a fresh application so that his grievance be addressed in accordance with law. 4. Without entering into the merits of the case, we direct that the petitioner shall file a fresh representation before the respondent authority within two weeks from today along with a copy of this order and the respondent authority is under obligation to take an expeditious decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a further period of six weeks. 5. The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly." 7. The review application is disposed of, accordingly. Order Date :- 26.7.2024 A. Pandey