Allahabad High Court Dismisses Farmer’s Plea for Additional 4% Developed Land

NOIDA: The Allahabad High Court has rejected a petition filed by a farmer seeking additional developed land as compensation, stating that previous judicial rulings cannot serve as a precedent for fresh claims.

The petitioner, Ram Beer Singh, had requested an additional 4% of developed land, citing the 2011 full-bench judgment in the Gajraj case. He argued that he was entitled to the extra land under the principles established by the Gajraj ruling, as well as a 2016 resolution by the Greater Noida Authority that proposed 10% developed land for all landowners affected by the acquisition.

However, the court dismissed Singh’s plea, referring to Supreme Court judgments and the lack of approval from the Uttar Pradesh state government for such resolutions.

Singh’s land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. Unlike other farmers who had challenged the land acquisition and compensation in the Gajraj case, Singh neither contested the acquisition nor participated in related litigation.

He had already received compensation for his land, including 64.7% additional monetary aid and 6% developed Abadi land, as per the Greater Noida Authority’s policy.

In January 2024, Singh filed a petition demanding an additional 4% developed land. During the hearing, the high court noted that the Gajraj judgment was explicitly limited to those who had challenged their land acquisition in court.

This restriction was further upheld by the Supreme Court in the Savitri Devi case in 2015, which clarified that the Gajraj ruling was “case-specific” and could not be applied universally.

The high court also referred to a 2016 decision by the Uttar Pradesh government rejecting the Greater Noida Authority’s resolution that sought to extend the 10% developed land benefit to all affected tenure holders.

The Greater Noida Authority later withdrew this proposal in 2019 during its 115th board meeting due to the absence of state government approval.

On January 24, the bench comprising Justices Manoj Kumar Gupta and Anish Kumar Gupta reiterated that no claims could be based on the Gajraj judgment in light of both Supreme Court rulings and subsequent clarifications.

The demand for 10% developed land has fueled numerous protests by farmers, who have staged demonstrations outside Noida and Greater Noida Authority offices.

In February 2024, the government formed a three-member committee, led by the Revenue Board chairperson, to evaluate the farmers’ demands. However, this committee also rejected the 10% developed land allocation proposal.

The protests escalated, with hundreds of farmers threatening to march to Delhi. Several demonstrators were arrested and detained in Luksar jail in Greater Noida before eventually being granted bail.

In light of continuing unrest, the government has formed another committee to reassess the demands and determine whether to approve additional developed land for all affected farmers.

The high court, however, has consistently maintained that any additional land allotments require state government approval. It has also emphasized that judgments like the Gajraj case cannot be broadly applied to secure entitlements for individuals who did not meet the specific criteria outlined in those rulings.