Summary
The Supreme Court rejected claims by landowners who had not joined the earlier acquisition challenges for developed abadi plots on parity with the successful petitioners in Gajraj. The earlier judgment confined mandatory plot allotment to its petitioners and left extension to others to the Authority’s discretion. These appellants had already received the additional 64.70% compensation, but established no legal or factual entitlement to plots.
Issues
- Whether landowners outside the earlier acquisition litigation could demand developed abadi plots under Gajraj and Savitri Devi on parity grounds.
Held
- The earlier direction for developed abadi plots amounting to 10% of acquired land, subject to 2,500 square metres, was confined to the original writ petitioners. For other landholders, the judgment left extension of the benefits to the Authority’s decision; it did not itself confer the same enforceable entitlement. (¶¶ 13, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43)
- The Authority extended the additional 64.70% compensation to these appellants but declined plot allotment. Even contempt proceedings by the original beneficiaries had been dismissed in the circumstances. These appellants established neither the legal right nor the factual basis necessary for mandamus. (¶¶ 18, 36, 44, 45, 46, 47)
- The special relief in Gajraj, affirmed in Savitri Devi, arose from peculiar circumstances and was expressly not a precedent for other cases. Article 14 did not require its extension here: those who litigated and these appellants stood on different footing. Statutory compensation and the additional compensation had already been paid. (¶¶ 48, 49, 50, 51, 52)
Result
Appeals dismissed; no entitlement to additional developed abadi plots established.