MAHAVEER SHARMAversusSHRI RAVI KUMAR

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
            CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5473 of 2026

Mahaveer Sharma
                                                                    .....Applicant(s)
                                        Versus

Shri Ravi Kumar
                                                                        .....Opposite
                                                                              Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Akshay Pratap Singh, Hemendra Pratap
                                Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Shivam Yadav

Court No. - 53
                      HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

1. The present contempt application has been preferred alleging willful
defiance of the order dated 18.07.2025 passed in Writ-C No. 12782 of 2025,
order whereof is quoted herein under:-

"1. Heard Shri Akshay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Ambrish
Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondent no. 1, and
Shri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction in the nature of
mandamus to the respondent no. 2 to allot remaining 4% of the total acquired land,
after development to the petitioner within stipulated time.
3. In support of the relief claimed, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Balraj Singh and 21 Others
v. State of U.P. and 3 Others (Writ-C No. 9496 of 2025, dated 2.4.2025), wherein the
Court directed the respondent-Development Authority to consider the claim of the
petitioners and pass a reasoned and speaking order with reference to the averments
made in paragraph 14 of the writ petition, within a period of eight weeks. Learned
counsel submits that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the said
judgment, and accordingly prays that the present writ petition may also be disposed of
in similar terms.
4. Per contra, Shri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, has opposed
the prayer and submits that the petitioner is mere fence-sitter who did not challenge
the acquisition proceedings nor was he party to the Full Bench decision in Gajraj
(supra). He contends that the petitioner, at this belated stage, is attempting to claim
benefits under the directions issued in Gajraj (supra) regarding allotment of
developed abadi land to the extent of 4% of his acquired land, subject to a maximum
of 2500 square meters. HE further submits that a similar issue has been considered
and rejected by this Court in Sarjeet Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others (Writ-C No.
16144 of 2023, decided on 2.8.2023), which referred to the earlier decision of this
                                                                  CAPL No. 5473 of 2026
                                     2

Court dated 31.05.2022 in Runwell India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Others (Writ-C
No. 14113 of 2017).
5. Having heard the rival submissions and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds
that the claim made by the petitioners cannot be granted in light of the detailed
reasoning contained in paragraphs 35 to 39 of the decision in Runwell India Pvt. Ltd.
(supra), which is reproduced below for reference:
"35. The grounds urged on behalf of petitioners for claiming 10% developed land
subject to ceiling limit of 2,500 square meters, though appears to be attractive at the
first flush, but are devoid of substance. The submission is that subsequent to the Full
Bench judgement of this Court in Gajraj's case (supra), some of the land
owners/tenure holders challenged the same before the Supreme Court. All the Civil
Appeals/Special Leave Petitions were clubbed together and decided by a common
judgement dated 14.02.2015, as Savitri Devi's case (supra), wherein, in paragraph no.
50, it has been held that in view of the peculiar circumstances, the order passed by the
High Court would not form precedent for future cases. The observation made in
paragraph no. 50 in Savitri Devi's case (supra) reads as under:-
50. Conclusion Keeping in view all these peculiar circumstances, we are of the
opinion that these are not the cases wherethis Court should interfere under Article
136 of the Constitution. However, we make it clear that directions of the High Court
are given in the aforesaid unique and peculiar/specific background and, therefore, it
would not form precedent for future cases."
(emphasis supplied)
36. Subsequent to the judgement in Savitri Devi's case (supra), the Supreme Court in
Khatoon's case (supra), while considering the question as to whether the appellants
therein are entitled to claim additional abadi land in lieu of their acquired land in
terms of the judgement in Gajraj's case (supra) and upheld in Savitri Devi's case
(supra), has held as under:-
"49. That apart, there is no basis for the appellants to press in service the principle
underlined in Article 14 in such cases for the simple reason that firstly, Article 14
does not apply to such cases; and secondly, there is no similarity between the case of
those landowners, who filed the writ petitions and the present appellants, who did not
file the writ petitions. Though the High Court, in Gajraj's case (supra) decided the
rights of both categories of landowners but the cases of both stood on a different
footing. It is for these reasons, the appellants were not held entitled to take benefit of
condition No. 3 (a) and (b) of the case of Gajraj (supra) which was meant for the writ
petitioners therein but not for the appellants. However, the appellants were held
entitled to take the benefit of only condition No. 4 (a) and (b) of the said judgment and
which they did take by accepting the additional compensation payable at the rate of
64.70%.
50. In our view, therefore substantial justice was done to all the landowners including
the appellants, as observed in para 49 of Savitri Devi's case (supra).
37. In view of subsequent judgements of this Court as well as the Apex Court as noted
herein-above, claim of the land owners/tenure holders for allotment of 10% of Abadi
                                                                                                      CAPL No. 5473 of 2026
                                                                         3

                                    land subject to the ceiling limit of 2,500 square meters has been negated, the benefit,
                                    as claimed by the petitioners, cannot be granted.
                                    38. The land owners/tenure holders, whose lands have been acquired under the 1894
                                    Act, are not entitled as a matter of right for allotment of 10% of developed land,
                                    subject to the ceiling limit of 2,500 square meters.
                                    39. In view of the aforesaid, as held by the Apex Court in Savitri Devi's and Khatoon's
                                    cases (supra), the landowners/tenure holders cannot get benefit of the same as the
                                    judgement rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj's case (supra) was in
                                    view of the peculiar facts & circumstances of the case, which would not form
                                    precedent for the future cases and therefore, the benefit cannot be accorded to the
                                    petitioners, who were not before the Court in earlier round of litigation."
                                    6. However, in Balraj Singh (supra), the Division Bench of this Court considered
                                    similar objections raised by the Development Authority and, despite them, directed the
                                    Authority to pass a speaking order with respect to the claim of the petitioners therein.
                                    In the interest of parity and fair opportunity, this Court finds it appropriate to dispose
                                    of the present writ petition in similar terms.
                                    7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment
                                    rendered in Balraj Singh (supra). The respondent-Development Authority is directed
                                    to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the claim of the petitioner, keeping in view
                                    the facts of the case and relevant legal precedents, preferably within a period of eight
                                    weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order."

                                    2. Today, an affidavit has been filed according to which, the claim of the
                                    applicant has been decided on 06.01.2026.

                                    3. Though the learned counsel for the applicant has argued on the merits,
                                    however, this Court is not required to delve into the same as the remedy lies
                                    elsewhere.

                                    4. Accordingly, the contempt application is consigned to record.

                                    5. It may be noted that as per the learned counsel for the applicant, the order
                                    dated 06.01.2026 has been made available and served today itself.

                                    September 23, 2026
                                    N.S.Rathour

                                                                                                     (Vikas Budhwar,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad