eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10....http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.doPage 122 of 19710/21/2011plans as are mentioned in the 'definition' clause of the Act and references to which are reiterated subsequently inthe Act, for review, approval or consultation with the Board within the meaning of Section 8, for discussion UnderSection 12, for modifications to be considered Under Section 14, review and revision Under Section 15 and thenpreparation of the National Plans, Sub-Regional Plans and Project Plans under Chapter v within the meaning ofSections 16, 17, 18 and 20.One stipulation is inescapable that unless the National Capital Region Planning Board gives the green signalnothing can go ahead. The necessary implication of this is also that at every stage in reference to the plans,aforesaid, each constituent State as part of the National Capital Region Plan has to keep a close consultationwith, the federal agency which is the Board.The Petitioners challenge the acquisition of certain areas for the development of Greater Noida, particularly ofvillage Tugalpur and Rampur Jagir.Prima facie upon perusal of the record and upon hearing the parties, the Court at present is not satisfied that thecontention of either parties can be objectively considered without the development plans attaining finality withoutconsultation of the National Capital Region Planning Board.On behalf of Greater Noida much emphasis was laid on certain correspondence which was exchanged betweenthe Chairman of the Greater Noida and the Member Secretary of the Board. Yesterday after submissions weremade by Member Secretary and today by Counsel for the Board, Mrs. Sheila Sethi it is clear that the Board hadnot had an occasion, as of date to approve any detailed development plan for the simple reason that these haveneither been submitted nor has there been any occasion for the Board to scrutinise these plans which have yet tobe sent to the Board. In these circumstances and on the statement which has now come from the National CapitalRegion Planning Board the doubts of the Court have not been unfounded.The issues which remain in the petition are, to the effect, that a possibility cannot be ruled out that of theacquisition of land which have been made, it may be a subject of scrutiny by the National Capital Region PlanningBoard and possible the merits and the purpose of the acquisition may need a revision. The claim of some of thePetitioners that they have a certificate of an appropriate authority Under Section 143 of the U.P. ZamindariAbolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 may not be of much help because if the conforming use of the area isagriculture, and the Regional Plan 2001 respects agricultural areas any diversion from the conforming use tourbanisation may violate the spirit of Regional Planning 2001.The question is the scope of these proceeding on a writ of certiorari by the High Court. One authority whosebusiness it is to go into these matters has yet to engage its attention to it. This is the N.C.R.P., an authorityspecially vested with functions to discharge Its obligations under the Act. Clearly before the Court, today, there isno document to verify that the plans on which the Greater Noida may yet proceed have the seal of approval bythe National Capital Region Planning Board and this aspect stands confirmed by the submission which was madeon behalf of the Board by its Member Secretary, yesterday, and its learned Counsel today.The National Capital Region Planning Act, 1985 Under Section 27 in no uncertain term makes it clear that theprovision of Act, aforesaid, shall have effect notwithstanding any other law. This implies that the Board whileexamining this matter must have absolute discretion notwithstanding that a notification Under Section 4 of theLand Acquisition Act has been issued. The Board may thus, examine the Plans of Greater Noida, In contest,without inhibition and come to an independent decision while scrutinising plans lot-development of Greater Noida,suffice it to say that the reservations which have been provided to the Board Under Section 27 could not bereservations for a High Court when matters are examined under a prerogative writ.Thus, to permit aspects, in context, to be examined by the Board, the Court adjourns these proceedings for aperiod of two months to enable the Board to approve, review, consult, affirm or confirm the plans which are thesubject-matters of these writ petitions In total freedom notwithstanding that a notification has been issued foracquisition of land by the State of Uttar Pradesh or for that matter that these proceedings are pending before theHigh Court. The only guidance which this Court gives to the Board is to give effect to the intentions of the Act cocoordinating,monitoring and scrutinising the implementation of the plans and for harmoniously building urbanplanning with excellence without disturbing the ecological balance of nature and by respecting the green cover,agriculture and not abdicating either in favour of urbanisation but with a dedicated effort to respect the forests andstrive to retain the balance of nature and ecology and at every given occasion not loosing the perspective in so faras the Board it concerned in these matters, of the fundamental duties as enshrined in Article 51A (g) (h) and (j)read with 48A of the Constitution of India."Subsequently, when the matter was heard again by the division Bench, Court noted the statement of theChairman of the Greater Noida that plans were submitted and the process under the Act, 1985 was complete.The Division Bench further held following in paragraphs 13 and 14 and ultimately issued direction in paragraph 21which are quoted below:13. A very pertinent question arises whether taking recourse to Section 5A would have been a composite exercise
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10....http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.doPage 123 of 19710/21/2011where the matter would have been examined on whatever the Petitioners contend as objections not in acquisitionproceedings, but in these writ petitions. There are still many aspects which need to be sorted out and this cannotbe done as a fact-finding spree in the jurisdiction of prerogative writs. Not going into this question will also leave avoid and encourage further litigations and bog planned development. Seeing the totality of the circumstances, ingenerality, the Court Is of the view that where planned development has been undertaken as part of an exerciseas a statutory obligation, the dominant purpose of this planned development is the National Capital Region. ThePetitioners would like to resist this and prevent their property from being wrested out of their hands. The GreaterNoida does not desire to see anything beyond the land acquisition proceedings which has been initiated In Itsfavour. The State of U.P. has taken no interest in these proceedings, planning urban development itself, regardbeing had to the National Capital Region has come to stay. The Petitioners cannot dislodge this exercise. Thereare certain cardinal principles in executing plans within the National Capital Region which are sacrosanct.Confirming uses, whatever they may be, have to be respected. The Petitioners forgot that their abadi is onlyconsequential to agriculture and it cannot stay independently so as to lake up rivalry with planned urbandevelopment. Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, recognises that within anagricultural holding, there may be a habitat. Declaring an area as abadi is not in Juxtaposition to agriculture, it iscompatible with it. Thus, the Petitioners cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings to submit that for the abadiwhich the Greater Noida will develop, they also are entitled a proprietary right in the abadi which has beendeclared by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in their favour Under Section 143. The Greater Noida is developing theregion as a consequential aspect of preventing the construction and asphyxiation of Delhi. Except that thisexercise has a method In Its madness. Delhi cannot be contained and yet it cannot eat up, as a routine the sprawlof what lies in its hinterland.14. But, if agriculture and forestry is a recognised conforming use and it is to be protected and there are severalreferences to this aspect in the report referred to in the order of 27 February, 1996, entitled Urban Plan 2001,itself an off-shoot directly of the Greater Noida under the U.P. Industrial Areas Development Act, 1976, andindirectly of the National Capital Regional Planning Act, 1985, then, the spirit of the sanctity given to these areas,as greens, forests and agriculture, is to be respected. These areas were not meant to disappear, but protectedwith bias towards increasing them. The constitution says so.21. Thus, to remove doubts and further to ensure that planning of the National Capital Region is not jeopardisednor any conforming uses which have been given sanctity within it and further to eliminate racketeering in realestate, let the State Government appoint an officer In the rank of Secretary to the Government, State of U.P., toenquire and ensure certain aspects of:(a) Conforming uses as are part of the National Capital Region, the plans having been approved by the NationalCapital Region Planning Board are given their due sanctity and respect without compromising on themnotwithstanding that industry is being developed..............."The aforesaid Division Bench judgment clearly indicates that the Greater Noida Authority was well aware that themaster plan prepared by it is required to be submitted and approved by the Board. Thus, the submission of ShriRavindra Kumar appearing for the Authority that no approval is required from the Board does not appear to becorrect.In the Supplementary Counter Affidavit which has been filed by the Authority on 20/9/2011, it has been stated thatthe master plan 2021 was approved by the Authority on 09/11/2001 and was submitted to the National CapitalRegional Planning Board. It was also stated in the affidavit that minor suggestions of the Board which do not at allrelate to the land uses were also incorporated.Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Supplementary Counter Affidavit are quoted below:"6.That, without prejudice to what is submitted in para 5 above, it is further submitted that the Greater NoidaIndustrial Development Authority was constituted on 28.1.1991 and the Development Plan, 2001 was prepared inthe year 1991-92 by the School of Planning and Architecture. This Plan was approved by the Greater NoidaAuthority on 4.2.1992. The said plan, though not required under the law, was also sent to the by National CapitalRegional Planning Board, which Board on 01.10.1992 formally approved the same. Subsequently, in the year2001, the Master Plan, 2021was prepared and approved by the Authority in its 40th meeting. Public objectionswere invited and the final approval was granted by the Authority on 09.11.2001. As stated earlier, this plan wasalso submitted to the National Capital Regional Planning Board. The minor suggestions of the NCRPB, which donot at all relate to the land use were also incorporated. This plan was approved by the State Government. Underthe Plan Regulations, it is the Authority which not only formulates the Plan but is also authorised and empowered
Page 1 and 2:
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73: JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
show all

eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?