eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System ...

JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10....http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.doPage 104 of 19710/21/201112. That vide lease deed dated 28-07-2010 an area of 106196.00 sq. meter of plot No.GH-01, Techzone-IVGreater Noida is transferred in favour of Respondent No.3 Amarpali Leisure Valley Developers Pvt. Ltd. for thedevelopment and marketing of Group Housing Pockets/flats/plots. A photocopy of the said lease deed dated 28-07-2010 is being filed as ANNEXURE-4 to this writ petition.31. That entire acquisition proceeding in the garb of Planned Industrial Development by respondent no.2 is illegaland against provisions of the Act. The petitioners were under bonafide impression that their land of Village RojaYakubpur will be utilised for Planned Industrial Development by Respondent No.2 but the Respondent No.2illegally transferred the land of petitioners to private builders. The land acquired for Planned IndustrialDevelopment, will be used by respondent No.3 to 8 for illegal gain.32. That when petitioners came to know in the last week of May, 2011 that their land of village Roja Yakubpur willnot be used for Planned Industrial Development, they made frantic efforts to know the details and then they cameacross lease deeds (Annexure- 4 to 9) in favour of respondents No.3 to 8 the land acquired for Planned IndustrialDevelopment was transferred to respondents No.3 to 8 for construction of residential flats and respondent no.2realized huge consideration from respondents no.3 to 8. Thus a little delay has been caused in filing instant writpetition which is neither intentional nor deliberate and as such delay in challenging the notifications U/s. 4 and 6 ofthe Act is liable to be ignored."In Writ Petition No.40356/2011, Satish Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, petitioner who belongs to VillageGhoribachera has challenged the notifications issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Act,1894 dated 03/10/2005and 05/1/2006. Petitioner in the writ petition has pleaded that although the land was acquired for PlannedIndustrial Development, however 60 percent of the acquired land has neither been developed nor used forindustrial purpose and the land is still in possession of the resident/villagers. Petitioner has also pleaded in thewrit petition that after the publication of the notification in the newspaper, the land owners objected to theacquisition which objections were however not considered and in fact the objections were refused to beentertained on the ground that acquisition is under the provision of urgency clause and the opportunity of hearingshall not be granted. Peaceful demonstration of the villagers have also been referred to on 13/8/2008, which isclaimed to be published in the prominent newspapers. It is useful to quote the pleadings in paragraphs 23 of thewrit petition:-"23. That it is specifically stated here that the Respondent did not pay any heed to the above mentionedobjections, as the Petitioner were neither been called for personal hearing nor any notice has ever been issuedover the above mentioned objections, by the Respondent authorities. It is also worth to mention here that therespondents had even refused to entertain the objections of the residents/villagers of the village Ghori Bacheraafter publication of Sec. 4 of the Act on the Ground that the acquisition Notification, is under the provisions ofurgency clauses of the Act and the opportunity of hearing shall not be granted by the authorities/respondents tothe concern Villagers/land owner/Agriculturist. It is also important to mention here that thevillagers/residents/Agriculturist of the village Ghoribachera had also protested the arbitrary and unlawful acts ofthe respondents by way of peaceful demonstration, which was brutally crushed by the Lathi Charge and evenFiring, resulting into Six killing of innocent farmers as admitted by the respondents and causing bullet injuries tomore than 400 poor Farmers/land owners/demonstrate including the women, children on dated 13.8.2008, thatthis incident has been widely published in the prominent newspapers of the country as well as State of U.P. Thepetitioner reserves his valuable right to produce the relevant documents before this Hon'ble Court, during thecourse of hearing of the present writ petition."The substance of the pleadings in different writ petitions is to the effect that the petitioners were under the beliefthat the land is being acquired for Planned Industrial Development which shall serve the public purpose andprovide employment to their children due to establishment of several industries in the area. The land ownersaccepted the same as their fate and did not immediately rush to the court. The reason given by most of thepetitioners for coming to the Court is that subsequently when the land was started being transferred to privatebuilders and colonisers it transpired that the land is not being utilised for the purpose for which it was acquiredand instead of industries coming in the area only builders have come up. Petitioners have also pleaded that theauthority has given meagre some of few hundred rupees per square yard to the land owners, but they have beentransferring the land to the builders for hefty amount ranging from Rs. 10,000 to 20,000 per square metre. On theaforesaid ground and other grounds as noticed above, petitioners have approached the Court with delay, but thepetitioners case is that since the facts elaborated above indicate that the respondents have played fraud and theacquisition was in colourable exercise of power, the delay in approaching the Court may not stand in their way ingranting relief to them for which they are entitled in law. It is also relevant to note that in some of the cases in thisbunch there are cases where the petitioners have immediately rushed to this Court and there is no delay in filingthe writ petition for example with regard to Village Patwari which is under challenge, there are some writ petitions