Atar Singh & others v. State of U.P. & others) which was disposed off

the respondents No.1 & 2 and Ms. Ishita Sand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

2. The petitioners by means of the present writ petition have assailed the order dated 10.05.2016 passed by the respondent No.3-Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar.

3. It appears that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ-C No.5254 of 2016 (Atar Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. & others) which was disposed off with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioners. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the representation of the petitioners had been decided by order dated

10.05.2016 rejecting the same on the ground that the land in respect of which the petitioners want the benefit under the order of this Court dated

21.10.2011 does not come within the notifications which were under challenge in the case of Gajraj and others Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in ADJ 2011 (11) 1, decided on 21.10.2011.

4. Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners are claiming the benefit of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act, 1894") and not the benefit under the judgement in the case of Gajraj (supra). He submits that in such view of the fact, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 2 WRIC No. 37027 of 2025

5. Per contra, Ms. Ishita Sand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the impugned order has been passed on 10.05.2016 and there is inordinate delay of more than nine and half years in filing the present writ petition. She submits that the petitioners' case in Writ-C No.5254 of 2016 (Atar Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. & others) was that they are entitled to the benefit of judgement in the case of Gajraj (supra) and in such view of the fact, this Court directed the authority to consider the claim of the petitioners and the authority in the light of the judgement in the case of Gajraj (supra), and the authority recorded a categorical finding that the land of the petitioners were not part of the notifications which were under challenge in the case of Gajraj (supra). The finding recorded by the authority is based upon the proper appreciation of material on record and there is no error in the said finding.

6. Be that as it may, there is an inordinate delay of more than nine and half years in filing the present writ petition. The petitioners have explained the delay in paragraphs No.10 & 11 of the writ petition which are being reproduced herein below:-

10. That the petitioners meet to Sewa Ram son of Shyam Lal Resident of 39 Gulawali District Gautam Budh Nagar on 08.07.2025 and received information that identical case the writ petition was filed before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and that writ petition was registered as Writ-C No. 8417/2025 in that writ petition the order was passed on

24.03.2025. A copy of the order dated 24.03.2025 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.5 to this writ petition.

11. That after receiving the aforesaid information the petitioners collected the documents and filing the present writ petition if any delay same may be condoned and writ petition is treated as well time.

7. From perusal of the pleadings in the paragraphs extracted above, we find that no plausible explanation has been given for the delay in filing the present writ petition, therefore, the writ petition is barred by delay and laches.

8. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to benefit of Section 28A of the Act, 1894 is concerned, the plea of benefit of Section 28A of the Act, 1894 is not available in the instant case to the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioners had approached this Court by filing Writ-C No.5254 of 2016 contending inter 3 WRIC No. 37027 of 2025 alia that the petitioners are entitled to benefit of the judgement in the case of Gajraj (supra) and therefore, this Court directed the authority to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of the judgement in the case of Gajraj (supra). Relevant extract of the order passed inWrit-C No.5254 of 2016 (Atar Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. & others) is being reproduced herein below:- It is the case of the petitioners that the issue raised by means of the present writ petition stands settled in favour of the petitioners under the judgment and order of the full bench of this court in the case of Gajraj and others vs. State of U.P. and others reported in ADJ 2011 (11) page 1 and the petitioner is entitled to additional compensation and 10% of developed land. In view of the aforesaid, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to make a representation ventilating all their grievances before the Chief Executive Officer within two weeks from today along with certified copy of this Order. On such representation being made, the Chief Executive Officer shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law by means of reasoned speaking order preferably within eight weeks thereafter.

9. In the light of the above order passed by this Court, the authority has decided the representation of the petitioners recording the following findings:- (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 1997 Rules/award which payment shall be ensured by the Authority at an early date. It may be open for Authority to take a decision as to what proportion of additional compensation be asked to be paid by 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 land owners 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 square meters. We however, leave it open to the Authority in cases where allotment of abadi plot to the extent of 6% or 8% have already been made either to make allotment of the balance of the area or may compensate the land owners by payment of the amount equivalent to balance area as per average rate of allotment made of developed 4 WRIC No. 37027 of 2025 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 land holders whose earlier writ petition challenging the notifications have been dismissed upholding the notifications; and (b) Those land holders who have not come to the Court, relating to the notifications which are subject matter of challenge in writ petitions mentioned at direction No.3. मा० उच्च न्यायालय के उक्त आदेश िदनांक 21.10.2011, िजसकी पुिष्ट, मा० उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा िसिवल अपील संख्या 4505/2015 श्रीमती सािवत्री देवी व अन्य प्रित उ०प्र० राज्य व अन्य में पािरत आदेश िदनांक 14.05.2015 द्वारा की गयी है, के आदेश के आलोक में प्रािधकरण बोडर् की 91वीं बैठक में आदेश में िनिहत अिधसूचना से आच्छािदत समस्त कृ षकों को चाहे उन्होंने िरट यािचका प्रस्तुत की हो या नहीं अथवा उनके द्वारा प्रस्तुत कोई यािचका िनरस्त कर दी गयी हो, को भी के वल 64.70% की दर से अितिरक्त प्रितकर भुगतान का िनणर्य िलया जा चुका है। िजस अिधसूचना/घोषणा द्वारा याचीगण/प्रत्यावेदकगण की भूिम अिजत की गयी है, वह मा० उच्च न्यायालय की पूवर्पीठ के उक्त आदेश िदनांक 21.10.2011 में सिम्मिलत नहीं है। अस्तु प्रत्यावेदकगण का प्रकरण मां० उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश िदनांक

21.10.2011 व प्रािधकरण बोडर् के नीितगत िनणर्य से आच्छािदत नहीं है। अस्तु प्रत्यावेदकगण मा० उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद द्वारा पािरत आदेश तथा प्रािधकरण बोडर् के िनणर्य के क्रम में 64.70% अितिरक्त प्रितकर व 10% आबादी भूखण्ड देय नहीं है।

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that the finding returned by the authority is based upon the proper appreciation of material on record. However, he submits that the petitioners are entitled to benefit of Section 28A of the Act, 1894. Such plea cannot be raised by the petitioners as it was never the case of the petitioners that they were entitled to benefit of Section 28A of the Act,1894 since their case in earlier writ petition was that they are entitled to benefit of judgement in the case of Gajraj (supra), and based upon the pleadings of the petitioners, this Court passed order in Writ- C No.5254 of 2016 (Atar Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. & others) directing the authority to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the judgement in the case of Gajraj (supra).

11. In such view of the fact, the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. November 21, 2025 SS (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)

the respondents No.1 & 2 and Ms. Ishita Sand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

2. The petitioners by means of the present writ petition have assailed the order dated 10.05.2016 passed by the respondent No.3-Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar.

3. It appears that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ-C No.5254 of 2016 (Atar Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. & others) which was disposed off with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioners. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the representation of the petitioners had been decided by order dated

10.05.2016 rejecting the same on the ground that the land in respect of which the petitioners want the benefit under the order of this Court dated

21.10.2011 does not come within the notifications which were under challenge in the case of Gajraj and others Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in ADJ 2011 (11) 1, decided on 21.10.2011.

4. Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners are claiming the benefit of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act, 1894") and not the benefit under the judgement in the case of Gajraj (supra). He submits that in such view of the fact, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 2 WRIC No. 37027 of 2025

5. Per contra, Ms. Ishita Sand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the impugned order has been passed on 10.05.2016 and there is inordinate delay of more than nine and half years in filing the present writ petition. She submits that the petitioners' case in Writ-C No.5254 of 2016 (Atar Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. & others) was that they are entitled to the benefit of judgement in the case of Gajraj (supra) and in such view of the fact, this Court directed the authority to consider the claim of the petitioners and the authority in the light of the judgement in the case of Gajraj (supra), and the authority recorded a categorical finding that the land of the petitioners were not part of the notifications which were under challenge in the case of Gajraj (supra). The finding recorded by the authority is based upon the proper appreciation of material on record and there is no error in the said finding.

6. Be that as it may, there is an inordinate delay of more than nine and half years in filing the present writ petition. The petitioners have explained the delay in paragraphs No.10 & 11 of the writ petition which are being reproduced herein below:-

10. That the petitioners meet to Sewa Ram son of Shyam Lal Resident of 39 Gulawali District Gautam Budh Nagar on 08.07.2025 and received information that identical case the writ petition was filed before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and that writ petition was registered as Writ-C No. 8417/2025 in that writ petition the order was passed on

24.03.2025. A copy of the order dated 24.03.2025 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.5 to this writ petition.

11. That after receiving the aforesaid information the petitioners collected the documents and filing the present writ petition if any delay same may be condoned and writ petition is treated as well time.

7. From perusal of the pleadings in the paragraphs extracted above, we find that no plausible explanation has been given for the delay in filing the present writ petition, therefore, the writ petition is barred by delay and laches.

8. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to benefit of Section 28A of the Act, 1894 is concerned, the plea of benefit of Section 28A of the Act, 1894 is not available in the instant case to the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioners had approached this Court by filing Writ-C No.5254 of 2016 contending inter 3 WRIC No. 37027 of 2025 alia that the petitioners are entitled to benefit of the judgement in the case of Gajraj (supra) and therefore, this Court directed the authority to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of the judgement in the case of Gajraj (supra). Relevant extract of the order passed inWrit-C No.5254 of 2016 (Atar Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. & others) is being reproduced herein below:- It is the case of the petitioners that the issue raised by means of the present writ petition stands settled in favour of the petitioners under the judgment and order of the full bench of this court in the case of Gajraj and others vs. State of U.P. and others reported in ADJ 2011 (11) page 1 and the petitioner is entitled to additional compensation and 10% of developed land. In view of the aforesaid, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to make a representation ventilating all their grievances before the Chief Executive Officer within two weeks from today along with certified copy of this Order. On such representation being made, the Chief Executive Officer shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law by means of reasoned speaking order preferably within eight weeks thereafter.

9. In the light of the above order passed by this Court, the authority has decided the representation of the petitioners recording the following findings:- (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 1997 Rules/award which payment shall be ensured by the Authority at an early date. It may be open for Authority to take a decision as to what proportion of additional compensation be asked to be paid by 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 land owners 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 square meters. We however, leave it open to the Authority in cases where allotment of abadi plot to the extent of 6% or 8% have already been made either to make allotment of the balance of the area or may compensate the land owners by payment of the amount equivalent to balance area as per average rate of allotment made of developed 4 WRIC No. 37027 of 2025 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 land holders whose earlier writ petition challenging the notifications have been dismissed upholding the notifications; and (b) Those land holders who have not come to the Court, relating to the notifications which are subject matter of challenge in writ petitions mentioned at direction No.3. मा० उच्च न्यायालय के उक्त आदेश िदनांक 21.10.2011, िजसकी पुिष्ट, मा० उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा िसिवल अपील संख्या 4505/2015 श्रीमती सािवत्री देवी व अन्य प्रित उ०प्र० राज्य व अन्य में पािरत आदेश िदनांक 14.05.2015 द्वारा की गयी है, के आदेश के आलोक में प्रािधकरण बोडर् की 91वीं बैठक में आदेश में िनिहत अिधसूचना से आच्छािदत समस्त कृ षकों को चाहे उन्होंने िरट यािचका प्रस्तुत की हो या नहीं अथवा उनके द्वारा प्रस्तुत कोई यािचका िनरस्त कर दी गयी हो, को भी के वल 64.70% की दर से अितिरक्त प्रितकर भुगतान का िनणर्य िलया जा चुका है। िजस अिधसूचना/घोषणा द्वारा याचीगण/प्रत्यावेदकगण की भूिम अिजत की गयी है, वह मा० उच्च न्यायालय की पूवर्पीठ के उक्त आदेश िदनांक 21.10.2011 में सिम्मिलत नहीं है। अस्तु प्रत्यावेदकगण का प्रकरण मां० उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश िदनांक

21.10.2011 व प्रािधकरण बोडर् के नीितगत िनणर्य से आच्छािदत नहीं है। अस्तु प्रत्यावेदकगण मा० उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद द्वारा पािरत आदेश तथा प्रािधकरण बोडर् के िनणर्य के क्रम में 64.70% अितिरक्त प्रितकर व 10% आबादी भूखण्ड देय नहीं है।

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that the finding returned by the authority is based upon the proper appreciation of material on record. However, he submits that the petitioners are entitled to benefit of Section 28A of the Act, 1894. Such plea cannot be raised by the petitioners as it was never the case of the petitioners that they were entitled to benefit of Section 28A of the Act,1894 since their case in earlier writ petition was that they are entitled to benefit of judgement in the case of Gajraj (supra), and based upon the pleadings of the petitioners, this Court passed order in Writ- C No.5254 of 2016 (Atar Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. & others) directing the authority to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the judgement in the case of Gajraj (supra).

11. In such view of the fact, the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. November 21, 2025 SS (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)