Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142940-DB HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ***** (SL No.94) Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30065 of 2011 Petitioner :- Smt. Shakuntala Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- H.N. Shukla,R.R. Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Ramendra Pratap Singh Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Ms. Anjali Upadhya, learned counsel appears for the Greater Noida Development Authority. 2. The instant writ petition was filed in the year, 2011 for a direction commanding respondents to ensure payment of compensation of their land which was acquired, at the present market rate. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the land marked as Plot No. 352 of Khata No. 202 (150 Sq. Yards) situated in Village- Luksar, Pargana- Dankaur, Tahsil, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar which was purchased by him through registered sale deed dated 24.01.2007 from one Shyam Lal. Later on, the name of Shyam Lal got expunged and in his place, petitioner's name has been duly recorded in the revenue records on 17.01.2008. He submits that a notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Act, 1894 was issued on 11.07.2008 against the same plot of land followed by a subsequent notification under Section 6 read with Section 17(1) of Act 1894, dated 29.01.2009. He submits that the Authority has not complied with the procedure established by law and no opportunity to file objection was given to the petitioner before taking possession. He further submits that as per Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the acquisition should be for the public purpose but his land was acquired without following the due procedure. 4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the state respondents has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and laid emphasis on paragraph 23 of the counter affidavit, wherein, it had been indicated that initially the payment of compensation was made in terms of the U.P. Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award) Rules 1997 (hereinafter referred as 'Rule, 1997'). Out of 255 affected tenure holders in the said notification, most of the tenure holders entered into an agreement with the Authority and taken compensation accordingly. Later on, for all those tenure holders, who had not entered into an agreement with the Authority, an award was also made under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1894 on 27.08.2011. He submits that the proceeding is pending since 2011 and meanwhile much water has flown. The acquisition of land pertaining to villages of Greater Noida Authority had been considered by the Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj and another vs. State of U.P. and others : 2011 (11) ADJ Page 1, wherein, the acquisition has been approved considering the land acquired for planned development. He submits that the instant acquisition proceeding qua village Luckshar, Pargana Dankaur, Tehsil and District Gautam Buddh Nagar was also considered by this Court in Gajraj (supra). 5. Mrs. Anjali Upadhyay, learned counsel for Greater Noida Development Authority does not dispute the admitted facts. 6. We have considered rival submission and perused the record. We find that the instant proceeding is pending since 2011. The acquisition took place under the old Land Acquisition Act 1894. The petitioner had initially preferred the writ petition only for a direction commanding the respondents to ensure payment of compensation to the tenure holders at the market rate. It is not in dispute that the instant notification had already been considered by the Full Bench in Gajraj (supra). For ready reference, the paragraph 77 of Gajraj (supra) is WRIC No. 30065 of 2011 2 reproduced as under:- “77. The writ petitions in Group-31 relates to village Luksar. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46412 of 2011 (Veerpal and others v. State of U.P. and others), pleadings are complete, as such aforesaid writ petition is being treated as leading writ petition for this Group. Aforesaid writ petition has been filed by 35 petitioners challenging the Notification dated 11.07.2008 issued under Section 17 (1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire 181.300 hectare of land of village Luksar. Declaration under Section 6 of the aforesaid Act was issued on 29.01.2009. Petitioners case in the aforesaid group of writ petitions is that petitioners are owner and bhumidhar of the land as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. Petitioners case is that Sections 17(1) and 17(4) was invoked by the respondents without applying their mind since there was no urgency for planned Industrial Development. Petitioners were under bonafide belief that their land have acquired to serve the public purpose. Acquiring authority being in dominating position, petitioners were left with no other option but to accept the compensation. However letter on petitioner came to know that the very purpose of acquiring their land has now been changed by the respondents by playing fraud on the statute and the land is being transferred to private builders for the purposes of constructions of commercial complex and residential houses and towers under the Group Housing Scheme, hence petitioners have now challenged the impugned Notification. No award has been passed within two years, as such acquisition in question has lapsed. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating that after publication of Notification in question possession of the land was taken on 09.03.2009 and about 98% tenure holders have accepted the compensation and award has been declared on 27.08.2011 and the proposal of acquisition of 181.300 hectares of land was submitted by the Greater Noida Authority vide letter dated 18.01.2006 which was forwarded to the Collector, Gautam Budh Nagar vide letter dated 09.05.2008. State Government after considering the material placed before it dispensed the inquiry under Section 5 A and payment of compensation was made in accordance with 1997 Rules. Writ petitions were filed with delay. Counter affidavit has also been filed by respondent WRIC No. 30065 of 2011 3 no. 3 reiterating the pleas taken by the State in its counter affidavit. It has further been stated that development works were carried out in the area and on area of 3436.40 hectares has been allotted to P.A.C., District Jail under 6% scheme the villagers have also been allotted. Petitioners having accepted the compensation, they cannot challenge acquisition. Section 11 A is not applicable in the present case. Other writ petitions of the aforesaid village raises more or less same grounds which need no repetition." 7. It is no more res integra that at as soon as the notification under the Act, 1894 is issued, followed by the declaration of award and subsequently possession is also acquired, the land gets vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Furthermore, it is also an admitted position that the tenure holders are entitled for additional 64.7% of the compensation. We are of the considered opinion that rightful claim of petitioner may not be negated. 8. Be that as it may, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with an observation that in case the petitioner moves an appropriate application for according compensation and additional compensation in the light of Gajraj (supra) within three weeks before the Competent Authority, we hope and trust that the same may be dealt with in accordance in the light of Gajraj (supra) within three months, provided there is no other impediment. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Shubham Arya (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) WRIC No. 30065 of 2011 4 Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad