Allahabad High Court · 2025

extract of khatauni filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

5. It is admitted that the subject land alongwith some adjoining land, was utilized by the State for construction of the Hindon-Yamuna- Doab Bandh.

6. The case of the petitioner is that the State itself constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of District Magistrate- Gautam Buddh Nagar, to determine the rate of compensation. The said 2 of 9 Committee fixed the rate of the land utilized in the construction of the bandh with the consent of the affected tenure holders. The Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut vide communication dated

31.10.2018, apprised the District Magistrate- Gautam Buddh Nagar, that financial approval had been granted for a sum of Rs. 2900.3883/- lakhs, vide order of the Commissioner dated 27.10.2018 as per G.O. dated 19.05.2015. The petitioner, however, was not paid any compensation though indisputably his land had been used in the construction of the Dam.

7. Having regard to the aforementioned factual position, on

05.02.2025, the following order was passed: "1. In view of the stand taken in the written submissions, Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, prays that a last opportunity be provided to respondent no. 3 to pass an appropriate order for paying compensation to the petitioner. He submits that order in this behalf shall be passed definitely by the next date.

2. List as fresh on 19.2.2025.

3. Respondent no. 3 will bring on record the order, as may be passed in this behalf, by means of his affidavit, failing which, he shall remain personally present in the Court on the next date. "

8. Thereafter, it appears that an application dated 13.02.2025 came to be filed on behalf of the State by the District Government Counsel for recall of the order dated 29.02.2012 in Revision No. 39 of 2006-07 on the ground that the order passed in the revision was ex-parte and made 3 of 9 without proper notice to the State. It was followed by an order dated

15.02.2025 by District Magistrate- Gautam Buddh Nagar, stating that the State has already applied for recall of the order dated 29.02.2012 which had been passed in favour of the petitioner by the Revisional Authority. Consequently, the dispute relating to title between the petitioner and the State is still pending. As such, compensation could not be paid to the petitioner until the application filed by the State for recall is decided.

9. The first submission by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the State's act of withholding compensation is wholly malicious and is merely an attempt to delay payment. It is submitted that the respondents do not dispute that the land of the petitioner was used in construction of the Dam. The revision filed by the petitioner was allowed on 29.02.2012, after affording full opportunity to the District Government Counsel.

10. In support of the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards the recital contained in the order of the Revisional Authority dated 29.02.2012 to the effect that the District Government Counsel, Revenue was duly heard and even the submissions made by him in support of the case of the State were duly noted. He submits that the filing of the Restoration Application at such a belated stage, after this Court directed the District Magistrate to 4 of 9 pass appropriate orders for payment of compensation to the petitioner, is an attempt of overreach.

11. He further submits that in any case, the original tenure holder, namely Chandrabhan, was not a member of scheduled caste community. He belongs to Koli Caste, which is not a scheduled caste in State of U.P.. In support of his submission, he has relied on the Presidential Order notified under Article 341 of the Constitution of India, wherein, for State of U.P., 'Kori' and not 'Koli' has been notified as a scheduled caste.

12. Shri Rajiv Gupta, learning Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the recall application of the State is still pending, and as such, compensation could not be released. He further submits that Koli Caste and Kori Caste are the same, and the distinction which is being made by the petitioner, is imaginary. According to him, both Koli and Kori belong to Schedule Caste category in State of U.P.

13. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

14. Admittedly, the subject land has been utilized by the State for construction of a dam. The order dated 07.12.2006, by which the subject land was vested in the State under Section 157AA of the UPZA & LR Act, 1950 was set-aside in Revision No. 39/06-07 by order dated 29.02.2012. The State did not challenge the said order 5 of 9 until this Court directed the District Magistrate to pass appropriate orders for payment of compensation to the petitioner. At that stage, the State filed a recall application dated 13/15.02.2025. The application is based solely on the ground that proper notice of the revision was not given to the State, and the State was also not heard.

15. We have carefully gone through the order dated 29.02.2012, passed by the Revisional Authority. In the third paragraph of the said order, it is noted that counsel for both the parties were heard. In the same paragraph, the argument advanced by him on behalf of the State that the original tenure holder belonged to Koli Community, which is a Schedule Caste is also noted. The Revisional Court has even examined the said plea and has observed that in the sale deed the caste of the vendor is mentioned as Koli, which is not a Scheduled Caste as per the Amended Order dated 10.07.1986, of the Department of Harijan and Social Welfare Anuvad-3.

16. As such, the ground taken in the recall application-that the order passed by the Revisional Court was without due notice and opportunity of hearing to the State is, on the face of it, incorrect. It is evident from the manner in which the case has proceeded that the State initially took possession of the subject land without paying any compensation. Thereafter, when this Court directed the District Magistrate to pass a specific order in relation to the claim of the petitioner for payment of compensation, the State instead filed a 6 of 9 frivolous application after thirteen years for recall of the order of the Revisional Court and took a wholly false stand therein that the order of the Revisional Court was ex parte and that it was not heard.

17. Normally, when the restoration application is still pending, we would not have entered into the merits of the said application. However, in the peculiar facts of the present case- where a substantial portion of the land of the petitioner has already been utilized several years back for construction of a dam without payment of compensation- the restoration application based on totally incorrect pleas is nothing but a deliberate attempt to delay the rightful claim of the petitioner. We are, therefore, constrained to go into the said aspect.

18. As we find the application to be a device to delay payment of compensation to the petitioner, therefore, we are left with no other option but to hold the said application to be wholly frivolous, abuse of process of law and quash the proceedings emanating therefrom.

19. Additionally, we also do not find any illegality in the view taken by the revisional authority that ‘Koli’ caste is not a Scheduled Caste in the State of U.P. and, therefore, the original tenure holder was not required to obtain any prior approval from District Magistrate before sale of his land. The Presidential order issued under Article 341 of the Constitution (Annexure-2 to the affidavit of the petitioner dated

25.02.2025), in Part XVIII pertaining to the State of U.P., lists ‘Kori’ as a Scheduled Caste. ‘Koli’ caste, to which the original tenure holder 7 of 9 belongs, is not mentioned. In contrast, in respect of few other States like Rajasthan, Chandigarh, Chhattisgarh, Punjab and Haryana both ‘Koli and Kori’ have been notified as Scheduled Caste. We, therefore, find no apparent illegality in the finding recorded in this behalf by the revision court in its order dated 29.02.2012.

20. It is not disputed before us that for determining rate of compensation to the tenure holders, whose lands had been used by the State while constructing Hindon-Yamuna Doab Bandh, a Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of District Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar. It is also an admitted fact that number of similarly situated tenure holders, whose lands had been utilized by the State while constructing the dam and were not paid any compensation, filed various writ petitions before this court, wherein directions were issued for payment of compensation to them.

21. The orders passed in some of these petitions (Writ-C No.35409 of 2019, Virendra @ Virendra Singh and 5 Others vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others, order dated 10.12.2024; Writ-C No.2014 of 2024, Nanak and Another vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others, order dated 06.03.2024; Writ- C No.14950 of 2023, Smt. Bharti and Another vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others, order dated 21.09.2023) have been annexed. It is evident from the orders passed in these cases that the State accorded financial approval for payment of compensation and taking notice of the said fact, the writ petitions were disposed of. The State, even, challenged 8 of 9 the order dated 08.12.2023 in Writ-C No.14950 of 2023 by filing Special Leave (Civil) Diary No.42220 of 2023 but it was dismissed on

08.12.2023.

22. Having regard to the said factual position, we dispose of the instant petition with direction to the respondents, particularly respondent no. 1, to ensure payment of compensation after quantification of the amount alongwith interest, as applicable, under the relevant Land Acquisition Laws within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the instant order and also Rs. 50,000/- as cost for involving the petitioner in frivolous litigation and delaying the release of compensation. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 Shubham Arya (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 9 of 9

extract of khatauni filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

5. It is admitted that the subject land alongwith some adjoining land, was utilized by the State for construction of the Hindon-Yamuna- Doab Bandh.

6. The case of the petitioner is that the State itself constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of District Magistrate- Gautam Buddh Nagar, to determine the rate of compensation. The said 2 of 9 Committee fixed the rate of the land utilized in the construction of the bandh with the consent of the affected tenure holders. The Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut vide communication dated

31.10.2018, apprised the District Magistrate- Gautam Buddh Nagar, that financial approval had been granted for a sum of Rs. 2900.3883/- lakhs, vide order of the Commissioner dated 27.10.2018 as per G.O. dated 19.05.2015. The petitioner, however, was not paid any compensation though indisputably his land had been used in the construction of the Dam.

7. Having regard to the aforementioned factual position, on

05.02.2025, the following order was passed: "1. In view of the stand taken in the written submissions, Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, prays that a last opportunity be provided to respondent no. 3 to pass an appropriate order for paying compensation to the petitioner. He submits that order in this behalf shall be passed definitely by the next date.

2. List as fresh on 19.2.2025.

3. Respondent no. 3 will bring on record the order, as may be passed in this behalf, by means of his affidavit, failing which, he shall remain personally present in the Court on the next date. "

8. Thereafter, it appears that an application dated 13.02.2025 came to be filed on behalf of the State by the District Government Counsel for recall of the order dated 29.02.2012 in Revision No. 39 of 2006-07 on the ground that the order passed in the revision was ex-parte and made 3 of 9 without proper notice to the State. It was followed by an order dated

15.02.2025 by District Magistrate- Gautam Buddh Nagar, stating that the State has already applied for recall of the order dated 29.02.2012 which had been passed in favour of the petitioner by the Revisional Authority. Consequently, the dispute relating to title between the petitioner and the State is still pending. As such, compensation could not be paid to the petitioner until the application filed by the State for recall is decided.

9. The first submission by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the State's act of withholding compensation is wholly malicious and is merely an attempt to delay payment. It is submitted that the respondents do not dispute that the land of the petitioner was used in construction of the Dam. The revision filed by the petitioner was allowed on 29.02.2012, after affording full opportunity to the District Government Counsel.

10. In support of the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards the recital contained in the order of the Revisional Authority dated 29.02.2012 to the effect that the District Government Counsel, Revenue was duly heard and even the submissions made by him in support of the case of the State were duly noted. He submits that the filing of the Restoration Application at such a belated stage, after this Court directed the District Magistrate to 4 of 9 pass appropriate orders for payment of compensation to the petitioner, is an attempt of overreach.

11. He further submits that in any case, the original tenure holder, namely Chandrabhan, was not a member of scheduled caste community. He belongs to Koli Caste, which is not a scheduled caste in State of U.P.. In support of his submission, he has relied on the Presidential Order notified under Article 341 of the Constitution of India, wherein, for State of U.P., 'Kori' and not 'Koli' has been notified as a scheduled caste.

12. Shri Rajiv Gupta, learning Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the recall application of the State is still pending, and as such, compensation could not be released. He further submits that Koli Caste and Kori Caste are the same, and the distinction which is being made by the petitioner, is imaginary. According to him, both Koli and Kori belong to Schedule Caste category in State of U.P.

13. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

14. Admittedly, the subject land has been utilized by the State for construction of a dam. The order dated 07.12.2006, by which the subject land was vested in the State under Section 157AA of the UPZA & LR Act, 1950 was set-aside in Revision No. 39/06-07 by order dated 29.02.2012. The State did not challenge the said order 5 of 9 until this Court directed the District Magistrate to pass appropriate orders for payment of compensation to the petitioner. At that stage, the State filed a recall application dated 13/15.02.2025. The application is based solely on the ground that proper notice of the revision was not given to the State, and the State was also not heard.

15. We have carefully gone through the order dated 29.02.2012, passed by the Revisional Authority. In the third paragraph of the said order, it is noted that counsel for both the parties were heard. In the same paragraph, the argument advanced by him on behalf of the State that the original tenure holder belonged to Koli Community, which is a Schedule Caste is also noted. The Revisional Court has even examined the said plea and has observed that in the sale deed the caste of the vendor is mentioned as Koli, which is not a Scheduled Caste as per the Amended Order dated 10.07.1986, of the Department of Harijan and Social Welfare Anuvad-3.

16. As such, the ground taken in the recall application-that the order passed by the Revisional Court was without due notice and opportunity of hearing to the State is, on the face of it, incorrect. It is evident from the manner in which the case has proceeded that the State initially took possession of the subject land without paying any compensation. Thereafter, when this Court directed the District Magistrate to pass a specific order in relation to the claim of the petitioner for payment of compensation, the State instead filed a 6 of 9 frivolous application after thirteen years for recall of the order of the Revisional Court and took a wholly false stand therein that the order of the Revisional Court was ex parte and that it was not heard.

17. Normally, when the restoration application is still pending, we would not have entered into the merits of the said application. However, in the peculiar facts of the present case- where a substantial portion of the land of the petitioner has already been utilized several years back for construction of a dam without payment of compensation- the restoration application based on totally incorrect pleas is nothing but a deliberate attempt to delay the rightful claim of the petitioner. We are, therefore, constrained to go into the said aspect.

18. As we find the application to be a device to delay payment of compensation to the petitioner, therefore, we are left with no other option but to hold the said application to be wholly frivolous, abuse of process of law and quash the proceedings emanating therefrom.

19. Additionally, we also do not find any illegality in the view taken by the revisional authority that ‘Koli’ caste is not a Scheduled Caste in the State of U.P. and, therefore, the original tenure holder was not required to obtain any prior approval from District Magistrate before sale of his land. The Presidential order issued under Article 341 of the Constitution (Annexure-2 to the affidavit of the petitioner dated

25.02.2025), in Part XVIII pertaining to the State of U.P., lists ‘Kori’ as a Scheduled Caste. ‘Koli’ caste, to which the original tenure holder 7 of 9 belongs, is not mentioned. In contrast, in respect of few other States like Rajasthan, Chandigarh, Chhattisgarh, Punjab and Haryana both ‘Koli and Kori’ have been notified as Scheduled Caste. We, therefore, find no apparent illegality in the finding recorded in this behalf by the revision court in its order dated 29.02.2012.

20. It is not disputed before us that for determining rate of compensation to the tenure holders, whose lands had been used by the State while constructing Hindon-Yamuna Doab Bandh, a Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of District Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar. It is also an admitted fact that number of similarly situated tenure holders, whose lands had been utilized by the State while constructing the dam and were not paid any compensation, filed various writ petitions before this court, wherein directions were issued for payment of compensation to them.

21. The orders passed in some of these petitions (Writ-C No.35409 of 2019, Virendra @ Virendra Singh and 5 Others vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others, order dated 10.12.2024; Writ-C No.2014 of 2024, Nanak and Another vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others, order dated 06.03.2024; Writ- C No.14950 of 2023, Smt. Bharti and Another vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others, order dated 21.09.2023) have been annexed. It is evident from the orders passed in these cases that the State accorded financial approval for payment of compensation and taking notice of the said fact, the writ petitions were disposed of. The State, even, challenged 8 of 9 the order dated 08.12.2023 in Writ-C No.14950 of 2023 by filing Special Leave (Civil) Diary No.42220 of 2023 but it was dismissed on

08.12.2023.

22. Having regard to the said factual position, we dispose of the instant petition with direction to the respondents, particularly respondent no. 1, to ensure payment of compensation after quantification of the amount alongwith interest, as applicable, under the relevant Land Acquisition Laws within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the instant order and also Rs. 50,000/- as cost for involving the petitioner in frivolous litigation and delaying the release of compensation. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 Shubham Arya (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 9 of 9