Moreover, Article 31 of the Constitution provides that any State acquisition of property must only be upon enactment of a valid law, for a public purpose, and upon payment of compensations: High Court of Allahabad

Land dispute is one of the oldest forms of disputes ever recorded in the history of civilized society. The land is nothing but a form of property that is immovable and limited proceedings for the said offence and the same issue was held in the judgement passed by a division bench judge Hon’ble Pritinker Diwaker, J. Hon’ble Dr Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J. In the matter, Bhikari And Others V/s  State of U.P. and Another [WRIT – C No. – 2121 of 2022] dealt with an issue mentioned above.


The petitioners claim to be owners of khata no. 45 khasra no. 328 area 0.158 hectares situate in Village Sorkha Zahidabad, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar which were the subject matter of acquisition proceedings in terms of the notification dated 12.04.2005 issued under Section 4 (1)/17(4), and the notification dated 27.07.2006 issued under Section 6/17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners admit to having accepted the compensation amount.

The contention of the petitioners that irrespective of the fact whether the notifications issued in respect of land acquisition proceedings were under challenge along with the bunch of cases decided by the Full Bench they should be granted the same benefit regarding developed Abadi plot as was granted by the Full Bench is liable to be rejected, for the reason that in the case of Gajraj Singh and others the Full Bench granted relief to the petitioners and to such persons whose earlier writ petitions challenging the notifications had been dismissed or who had not come to the Court challenging the notifications which were subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions, in view of the peculiar facts of the case having regard to the extensive development which had taken place subsequent to the acquisition proceedings, and also that the Supreme Court in the case of Savitri Devi vs. State of U.P. and others2 had made it clear that the directions issued by the Full Bench shall not be treated as a precedent in future cases.

The court perused the facts and arguments presented in the case  The petitioners have admitted to having accepted the compensation in respect of their land which was the subject matter of acquisition. The additional benefit by way of allotment of developed Abadi plot which is sought by the petitioners not being founded on any legally enforceable right no mandamus can be claimed for grant of such benefit.

Click here to read the judgment

Judgment reviewed by Sakshi Mishra

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *