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 130 of 19710/21/201128. Section 27 provides that the provisions of the NCR Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistenttherewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of anylaw other than the NCR Act; or in any decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority.23. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Respondents, vide its resolution dated 19.04.2005,had authorized the NCRPB to prepare Sub-regional plan of construction of the Leather City Project at Hapur inthe district of Ghaziabad for the HPDA. Subsequently, the NCRPB issued a draft Sub-regional plan, wherein theLeather City Project was not mentioned. The Respondents had made several requests to NCRPB to includeLeather City Project but No. reply granting approval has come in terms of Section 19(2) of the NCRPB Act.Section 19 of the NCRPB Act contemplates the grant of approval by the NRCPB, and finalization by the StateGovernment, of the Sub-Regional Plan if it is in consonance and consistent with the Regional Plan for theNational Capital Region. Furthermore, Section 29 of the NCRPB Act contemplates that the State Governmentshall not undertake any development activity, which is inconsistent with the Regional Plan for the National CapitalRegional. Also, Section 27 of the NCRPB Act has overriding effect on any other inconsistent law or instrument.The overall scheme of the NCRPB Act contemplates common plan, coordination and harmony in the formulationof policy of land uses and development of infrastructure in the National Capital Region. Therefore, in our opinion,the acquisition of land in the absence of express approval in terms of Section 19 and operation of Section 27 ofthe LA Act renders the entire acquisition proceedings illegal and hence vitiated."Shri Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Authority sought to distinguish the above judgmentstating that the Authority in the said case had passed a resolution authorising the NCRP Board to prepare theSub-Regional Plan for construction of Leather Project at Hapur, hence the said case is distinguishable since inthe present case Greater Noida Authority has not passed any such resolution. The above submission ismisconceived. The preparation of "Sub-Regional Plan and approval by the NCRP Board is not at the option of theAuthority, rather it is the obligation under the Statute. More so, from the facts as noticed above, it is clear that theAuthority vide its resolution approving the various amendment in the draft Master Plan-2021 and the StateGovernment through its letters as noted above had requested the NCRP Board to grant approval to draft MasterPlan-2021 as amended and the State Government after approving proposed amendments had forwarded thedraft Master Plan 2021 sent by Greater Noida Authority to the N.C.R.P. Board for its inclusion in the Master Plan2021, which is clearly a request for approval of Master Plan 2021. Thus, the distinction as drawn by Shri RavindraKumar, learned counsel for the Authority is non-existent. Furthermore, when the Authority and the StateGovernment are forwarding Draft Master Plan 2021 to the N.C.R.P. Board for approval and subsequently againforwarded the Master Plan 2021 after incorporating amendments pertaining to land use to the N.C.R.P. Board forapproval as noted above, it is not open for the Authority to contend before us that the Master Plan 2021 framed byit needs no approval from N.C.R.P. Board.Now, the provisions of Section 40 of the NCRPB Act,1985 needs to be considered.Section 40 of the NCRPB Act, 1985 provides that Acquisition of land shall be made by the Government of theconcerned participating State where necessary to give effect to any Regional Plan, Functional Plan, Sub-RegionalPlan or Project Plan.Section 40 of the NCRPB Act, 1985 has to be interpreted in a manner so as to promote the object of the Act.When the land use in the NCR Region is controlled by various plans as contemplated by the NCRPB Act, 1985the acquisition of land has also to be in line and conformity with the aforesaid Act, 1985. This can be illustrated bygiving a small example i.e. supposing an area in the NCR is reserved for agricultural use and actual agricultural istaking place in the said area, any exercise by the Authority to acquire land for residential purpose shall be simplyprohibited. The Authority in the present cases have indiscriminately proceeded to acquire the land in the name ofPlanned Industrial Development. In event where agriculture is the reserved purpose acquiring the land of theagriculturist shall be with no object since the Authority itself shall not carry on agriculture and there shall be nopurpose to create hindrance in the right of the agriculturists to carry on their agriculture in the said area.At this juncture, it is also to be noted that in the Regional Plan-2021, the NCRP Board has expressed concern andalarm on conversion of agricultural land to other uses indiscriminately. The Board in paragraph 17.3.1. hasnoticed large scale conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural land. It is useful to quote paragraph 17.3.1:"17.3.1. Large-scale Conversion of Agricultural Land to Non-Agricultural Use.The land use analysis indicates that from 1986 to 1999, the land under agriculture shrank by 8.12% i.e., from87.64% to 79.52%. This drop of 8.12% is considerable when compared with the proposed drop of only 3.8%(87.64% to 83.84%) stated in Regional Plan-2001. This has resulted not only into over-conversion of agricultureinto non-agriculture land but also non-conformity with the proposed settlement pattern of the Regional Plan-2001."
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10....http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.doPage 131 of 19710/21/2011Section 40 of the NCRPB Act, 1985 as noticed above has to be given some meaning and purpose. Section 40 ofthe Act, 1985 has to be read as a precondition for participating State to acquire the land, condition being thatacquisition be made in NCR only to give effect to any regional, functional plan, sub-regional plan or project planframed under the 1985 Act.Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that according to the judgments of the Apex Court in Aflatoon &Ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors., (1975) 4 SCC 285 and Bhagat Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, (1999) 2 SCC384, even if there is no plan prepared or the land use as per the existing plan is different there is no restraint onthe Authority to acquire the land.It is useful to quote paragraph 23 of the judgment in the case Aflatoon & Ors. (supra) :"23. The planned development of Delhi had been decided upon by the Govt. before 1959, viz., even before theDelhi Development Act came into force. It is true that there could be no planned development of Delhi except inaccordance with the provisions of Delhi Development Act after that Act came into force but there was no inhibitionin acquiring land for planned development of Delhi under the Act before the Master Plan was ready (see thedecision in Patna Improvement Trust v. Smt. Lakshmi Devi).In other words, the fact that actual development is permissible in an area other than a development area with theapproval or sanction of the local authority did not preclude the Central Govt. from acquiring the land for planneddevelopment under the Acts. Section 12 is concerned only with the planned development. It has nothing to dowith acquisition of property-, acquisition generally precedes development. For planned development in an areaother than a development area, it is only necessary to obtain the sanction or approval of the local authority asprovided in sec. 12(3). The Central Govt. could acquire any property under the Act and develop it after Obtainingthe approval of the local authority. As already held the appellants and the writ petitioners cannot be allowed tochallenge the validity of notification under Section 4 on the ground of laches and acquiescence. The plea that theChief Commissioner of Delhi had no authority to initiate the proceedings for acquisition by issuing the notificationunder Section 4 of the Act as Section 15 of the Delhi Development Act gives that power only to the Central Govt.relates primarily to the validity of the notification. Even assuming that the Chief Commissioner was not soauthorized, since the appellants and the writ petitioners are precluded by their laches and acquiescence fromquestioning the, notification, the plea must be negatived and we do so."It is useful to quote paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Bhagat Singh's case (supra):"19. The next question relates to the contention of the appellants that under the Master Plan for Agra City, theland of the appellants which is proposed for acquisition is in an area where the permitted use is for 'lightindustries' and therefore it will not be permissible to use the acquired land for purposes of a market Yard. It ispointed out that, in fact, later on the permitted use was modified and the land is now shown as 'green belt'. On theother hand, it is submitted for the respondents that if the land is proved to have been acquired for a valid publicpurpose, then the beneficiary of the land acquisition can later on move the authority concerned for change of landuse.20. An analogous issue arose in the case Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi. In that case a notification was issuedUnder Section 4(1) of the Act for acquisition of a vast extent of land for the planned development of Delhi. Thesaid acquisition was questioned. On of the contentions was that for such a purpose, development, action had tobe taken only under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and that too by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi under thatAct and not by the Central Government under the Land Acquisition Act. It was there argued that inasmuch asthere was no Master Plan nor Zonal Plan in existence on the date of notification, the acquisition was bad. ThisCourt rejected objection raised by the owners and observed, after referring to Sections 12 and 15 of the DelhiDevelopment Act. 1957, as follows (para 23):"23.The planned development of Delhi had been decided upon by the Government before 1959, viz., even beforethe Delhi Development Act came into force. It is true that there could be no planned development of Delhi exceptin accordance with the provisions of the Delhi Development Act after that Act came into force but there is noinhibition in acquiring land for planned development of Delhi under the act before the Master Plan was ready.(See the decision in Patna Improvement Trust v. Smt. Lakshmi Devi, [1963] Suppl. 2 SCR 312). In Other Words,the fact that actual development is permissible in an area other than a development area with the approval ofsanction of the local authority did not preclude the Central Government from acquiring the land for planneddevelopment under the Act. Section 12 is concerned only with the planned development. It has nothing to do with
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:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81: JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?