Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:71811-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13915 of 2025 Petitioner :- Satnam Singh Bhati And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Dubey,Chandra Bhan Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- Anjali Upadhya,C.S.C. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. The present petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 27.12.2024 passed by Additional Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar (respondent no. 5) rejecting the claim of the petitioners for payment of ex gratia amount to them for having acquired plot numbers 624, 625, 624, 629, 604-Kha, 627, 628, 630, 640, 562, 568, 569-Da, 565 Da, 567 Da, 604-Ka, 605 Ka, 615, 616, 617, situated in Village Patwari, Pargana and Tehsil Dadari, District Gautam Budh Nagar and for a writ of mandamus commanding the Authorities to treat the petitioners as Pushtaini Kashtakar and pay ex gratia amount to the petitioners for the aforesaid land. 2. The representation has been decided in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 15.2.2024 in the previous writ petition of the petitioners bearing number 67392 of 2013, which is extracted below: - "1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking following relief: "issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the concerned to consider the petitioner as Ancestral Farmer and to pay ex.gratia payment to the petitioner for the land Plot No. 624, 625, 624, 629, 604-Kha, 627, 628, 630, 640, 562, 568, 569-Da, 565 Da, 567 Da, 604-Ka, 605 Ka, 615, 616, 617 situated in the village Patwari, Pargana and Tahasil Dadari, District Gautambudh Nagar acquired by them, within specific period as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, so that justice be done." 2. Sri Alok Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri R.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Authority, submits out that the petitioner was paid entire compensation and, thus, the relief claimed in the petition is not admissible. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner is covered by the judgment of Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Sharma & Others vs. State of U.P. & Others; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 162. 4. Counsel, appearing for Grater Noida, submits that since the petitioner has already withdrawn entire compensation, therefore, he is not entitled to benefit of the said judgment. He further submits that the Authority, if so directed, will still consider the claim of the petitioner and pass a speaking order. 5. Accordingly without expressing any opinion on merits, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make representation to Greater Noida Authority, raising all the issues as raised in the instant petition, alongwith certified copy of the instant order, which shall be decided by the Authority within eight weeks from the date of receipt of representation alongwith copy of the instant order. " 3. The impugned order records inter alia that the land of the petitioners which was subject to acquisition, was situated in Village Patwari. Ex gratia compensation @ 15% was admissible only to farmers of eight villages, which does not include Village Patwari. Even the same was on basis of the policy of the respondent- Development Authority. Since Village Patwari was not covered under the policy, therefore, the claim was not admissible. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent-Development Authority has wrongly rejected the claim for ex gratia amount for reason that the petitioners are not Pushtaini Kashtakars. It is urged that on the said ground, the claim could not have been rejected. 5. Ms. Anjali Upadhya, learned counsel for the respondent-Development Authority, submits that the finding in relation to the petitioners not being Pushtaini Kashtakar, is not germane to the controversy, inasmuch as the relief sought in the present writ petition is only in relation to ex gratia payment and which amount as recorded in the impugned order, is not payable to land of Village Patwari as there was no such policy, nor any order of any court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners concedes that ex gratia amount was paid to land owners of certain villages on basis of policy of the respondent-Development Authority and not under any statutory provision or order of any court. He also could not dispute that the policy of the respondent-Development Authority for payment of ex gratia amount does not cover the lands of Village Patwari. As such, we are of the view that the claim in this regard has been rightly rejected. The additional finding that the petitioners were not Pushtaini Kashtakars and hence also not entitled to ex gratia payment, is therefore not being examined. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order also considers the claim of the petitioners for allotment of 10% developed land in lieu of the land acquired. 8. Undoubtedly, the order also takes into consideration the said aspect, but since the previous writ petition of the petitioners, on basis of which representation has been decided, was only in respect of ex gratia amount and in the present petition also, the prayer is confined to ex gratia amount, therefore, we are not examining the findings recorded in the impugned order in relation to other benefits, if any, admissible to the petitioners, including claim for developed land. Accordingly, we clarify that in case any such claim is made, or in respect of the same any challenge is made, the instant order will not come in way of adjudication of the same. 9. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Jaideep/- Digitally signed by :- JAIDEEP BANERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad