Allahabad High Court
SANDEEP AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petitioners have no legal right to the additional developed Abadi land and the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, Sandeep and four others, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority to allot them 10% of developed Abadi land as per a 2011 Full Bench order in Gajraj v. State of U.P., and additionally 4% developed land in lieu of their acquired land in Dadha village. The respondents relied on a recent judgment in Damber Singh (2025), which affirmed earlier decisions (Mange @ Mange Ram, Runwell India, Khatoon, Savitri Devi) that no vested right exists for such additional allotments once statutory compensation has been paid. The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to the claimed reliefs, as the compensation already provided, including an additional 64.70% over statutory amounts, satisfied the legal requirements. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, following the precedent that the 2011 order was confined to the specific petitioners in that case and not a general rule. The dismissal was based on the lack of legal and factual basis for the petitioners' claim to further developed land.
Issues considered
- What is the legal right of petitioners to claim 10% developed Abadi land under the 2011 Gajraj order?
- Whether petitioners are entitled to 4% developed land in lieu of their acquired land?
- Whether the relief granted in Gajraj v. State of U.P. is binding precedent for subsequent cases?
- Whether the compensation already paid extinguishes any claim to additional developed land.
Subjects
- mandamus
- land acquisition
- developed Abadi land
- compensation
- vested right
- writ petition
- precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 39097 of 2026
Sandeep And 4 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjay Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anjali Upadhya, C.S.C.
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Ms. Ishita Sand holding brief of
Ms. Anjali Upadhya, learned counsel for the Greater Noida Industrial Development
Authority (in short "GNIDA").
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents - authorities either to allot 10% Developed Abadi Land in light of
order dated 21.10.2011 passed by Hon'ble Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court in
case of (Gajraj & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.), 2011 (11) ADJ 1.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and
directing the respondents to allot 4% developed land to the petitioner in lieu of
their acquired land comprising of Khasra No.496m area 0.1630 hectares of
Revenue Village Dadha, Pargana-Dankaur, Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam
Budh Nagar."
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the contesting-respondent has placed reliance
upon a judgement delivered by this Court dated 15.10.2025 passed in Writ-C No.
29560 of 2025 (Damber Singh and another vs. State of U.P. and another) connected
with several other writ petitions and stated that being on similar footing, the similar
treatment may also be given in the instant writ petition. The operative portion of the
judgement reads as follows:-
"30. Judicial propriety demands judicial discipline and thus, we respectfully
agree with the judgments passed in the case of Mange @ Mange Ram (supra)
and Runwell India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein the Division Bench had not found
any good ground to grant the relief as prayed for and dismissed all the writ
petitions. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Khatoon's case (supra) had also held that
the Appellants have neither any legal right and nor any factual foundation to
claim the relief of allotment of additional developed abadi plot. It is also not in
dispute that the State paid all statutory compensation, which is payable under
the Act, to every landowners. Not only that every landowner also got
WRIC No. 39097 of 2026
2
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.
31. 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) and Khatoon (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.
32. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed."
4. Since the controversy involved in the present writ petition is identical to the
aforesaid writ petitions, the present petition is, accordingly, dismissed in terms of the
judgement in the case of Damber Singh (supra).
September 28, 2026
Irshad
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
IRSHAD AHMAD SIDDIQUI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…