Landowners Not Covered By Full Bench's 2011 Gajraj Judgment Are Not Entitled To Allotment Of 10% Abadi Land: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the landowners who were not petitioners covered by Full Bench's decision in Gajraj and others vs. State of UP and others (2011) and batch, are not entitled to allotment of 10% abadi land as directed therein.

In Gajraj judgment, the land acquisition proceedings initiated vide notification dated 31.08.2007 issued under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act were under challenge.

Holding that the urgency clause was wrongly invoked and that the statutory requirement for objections under Section 5A were wrongly dispensed with, the Full bench had directed enhancement of additional compensation by 64.70%.

It had further directed that all petitioners shall be entitled to allotment of developed Abadi plot to the extent of 10% of their acquired land subject to maximum of 2500 square meters. But with regard to such land holders who had not challenged the acquisition proceedings in Gajraj, the full bench had left it open to the development authority to take a decision whether to provide 64.70% additional compensation and to allot 10% abadi land.

This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others and it was held that the judgment would apply in unique and peculiar/specific background and will not be a precedent for future cases as it was observed that development had taken place on certain parcels of land.

While hearing petitions seeking allotment of 10% abadi land based on the aforesaid judgments, the bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta held

“Not only that every landowner also got additional compensation at the rate of 64.70% over and above what was payable to them under the Act. The reliefs in the case of Gajraj (supra) were confined only to the landowners, who had filed the writ petition. Even the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi's case (Supra) held that the directions given be not treated as precedent for being adopted to other cases in future and they be treated as confined to that case only.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the petitioners do not have any vested right to claim the benefit of parity and they are not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by them in these writ petitions. The 10% developed land cannot be allowed to them, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Savitri Devi (supra)...wherein, it has been clearly held that the petitioners have neither any legal right nor any factual foundation to claim the relief of allotment of additional developed abadi land and therefore, no benefit can be granted to the petitioners". 

As per established facts, predecessors of the petitioners had received about 80% of the compensation and the land had been transferred to the builders for carrying out the planned development in Gautam Budh Nagar. In 2011, the judgment of the Full Bench in Gajraj came pursuant to which petitioners were given 64.7% additional compensation and 6% abadi land.

Unsatisfied with the allotment of 6% abadi land, petitioners filed several representations. Though in its 117th Board meeting dated 10.02.2020, authority proposed allotting 10% abadi land, it later decided not to do so as it was against the judgment of the Full Bench as the petitioners had not approached the High Court challenging the acquisition notifications.

Thereafter, petitioners approached the High Court seeking allotment of 10% abadi land in lieu of the judgment in Gajraj.

The Court observed that even though the Court had drawn distinction between those who had filed writ petitions and those who hadn't, the development authority had decided to provide 64.7% additional compensation to all land owners irrespective of the writ petitions.

The Court relied on Mange @ Mange Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, where the Allahabad High Court has held that not providing extra developed abadi land is not discriminatory or arbitrary as the judgment in Full Bench cannot be applied to all similarly situated persons. Further, the Apex Court in Khatoon and Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. had also held the same.

The bench held that additional compensation and additional abadi land was awarded because it was found that the dispensation of requirement under Section 5A of the 1984 Act was illegal.

Regarding claim of unequal treatment between the landowners, the Court held

“It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake or under some directions of the Court, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well.”

It held that

“A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of administration impossible.”

Holding that the landowners got the additional compensation over and above what was statutorily due to them, the Court dismissed the writ petitions.

Case Title: Dambar Singh and another v. State of U.P. and another [WRIT – C No. 29560 of 2025]

Click Here To Read/Download Order