HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 39097 of 2026 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 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anjali Upadhya, C.S.C. Sandeep And 4 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 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 WRIC No. 39097 of 2026 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- IRSHAD AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad