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 156 of 19710/21/2011In Writ Petition No.47502 of 2011 (Jugendra and othes vs. State of U.P. and others) of village Tusiyana followinghas been pleaded in paragraphs 11 and 31:-"11. It is now well established that the State Government, Greater Noida Authorities, Bulders and the Colonizershave hatched a conspiracy to deprive the farmers of their lands by malafide and colourable exercise of powers ofso called ''eminent domain' and thereby snatching away the lands of the farmers that being allotted to the buildersand colonizers and in the process to earn huge money therefrom.31. That, it has now come on record that it is for the benefit of certain individual that the large population offarmers and entrepreneurs are put to sword and are mad to suffer on account of malice of the respondents. In thiscontext it may not be lost sight that various farmers and entrepreneurs have lost their land and although they havebeen paid some compensation but the said compensation could not be equated with an alternative arrangementfor a recurring source of income. It is a matter of common knowledge that on account of such acquisition anddepriving the local youth in meaningful activity of engaging themselves in some business including business inindustrial sector, the local youth is finding its future rudderless and are now frequently engaging themselves incriminal activities and that it is for this reason that murders and kidnapping etc. galore in that part of the world.Planned development ''of the society' should be matter of concern for the State and not benefit of ''certainindividuals'. The acquisition proceedings result in pocketing of huge profits in the limited few by depriving the bulkof population either of their residential abode or their source of livelihood. Averments relating to advancements,development and such other ''colourful phrases' is in effect of camouflage and is a false perspective ofdevelopment. It may be noticed that the acquisition of petitioners land would not only deprive them of theirproperty and business but also result in depriving the person who have been working with the petitioners of theirright of livelihood."In Writ Petition No.37119 of 2011 (Dal Chand and others vs. State of U.P. and others) of village Roja Yakubpur,following was stated in paragraphs 7, 11 and 12:-"7. That the purpose for which the land of petitioners is sought to be acquired as per the notification is PlanIndustrial Development through the Authority which, on the fact of it, is incorrect and is, in fact, a camouflage. Itmay be stated here that State Government wrongly and illegally mentioned in the notification that the land is beingacquired for Plan Industrial Development through the Authority while, in fact, the land is sought to be acquired forthe purposes of transferring the same to private builders (in the present case respondents No.3 to 8) forconstruction residential colonies/flats. Thus the entire exercise which has been done is colourable exercise ofpowers and on this ground alone the impugned notifications and acquisition proceeding pursuant thereof, areliable to be quashed.11. That, however, the land which was acquired Plan Industrial Development by invoking urgency clause U/s. 17(4) of the Act and the inquiry as contemplated U/s. 5of the Act was dispensed with in the acquisition proceeding.The land acquired is not used for Plan Industrial Development through Authority and it is not used for the purposefor which it was acquired and is transferred to Respondent No.3 to 8 for the purposes of constructing residentialflats."12. 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 namely Amarpali Leisure Valley Developers Pvt. Ltd.for the development and marketing of Group Housing Pockets/flats/plots. A photocopy of the said lease deeddated 28.07.2010 is being filed as ANNEXURE-4 TO this writ petition."In paragraphs 13 to 17 of the said writ petition, details of allotments and lease deed dated 25th February, 2011 infavour of M/s. Amrapali Dream Valley Private Limited for an area of 354299 square meters, lease deed dated 17thFebruary, 2011 in favour of Amrapali Centurian Park Private Limited for an area of 272916 square meters, leasedeed dated 11th October, 2011 in favour of M/s Supertech Ltd. for an area of 85202.37 square meters, leasedeed dated 2nd April, 2011 in favour of Omar Nests Pvt. Limited for an area of 86037 square meters and leasedeed dated 3rd November, 2010 in favour of M/s Rajesh Projects (India) Limited for an area of 74731.24 squaremeters have been referred to and pleaded.Pleadings to the same effect have been made in almost all the writ petitions and reference of transfer to privateparties of substantial area of land acquired has been made.Learned counsel for the respondents although contended that there are no pleading or material to even allegecolourable exercise of power by the GNOIDA or the State Government but the said contention cannot beaccepted. The interveners have already filed applications and affidavit giving details of allotment which clearlysubstantiate the pleading that there has been mass transfer of acquired land to private builders by the GNOIDA
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10....http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.doPage 157 of 19710/21/2011against the purpose and object of the 1976 Act and the transfer to private parties is not in conjunction with anyindustrial development, rather it is dehors the object of the 1976 Act. Along with four supplementary counteraffidavit the GNOIDA has given details of allotments, land use, change of land use, area of allotment and otherdetails pertaining to each village of Greater NOIDA. From the materials, which are in shape of folders and part offour supplementary counter affidavit, it is revealed that in following villages the GNOIDA itself has changed theland use converting the land use into residential whereas it was different in the master plan. The details of villagesin which land use was got changed by GNOIDA to enable it to facilitate transfer to private parties, are as follows:-1.Patwari2.Junpat3.Ghori Bachhera4.Chhapraula5.Pali6.Yusufpur Chak Shahberi7.Kasna8.Haibatpur9.Chhipayana Khurd10.Itehra11.Roja Yakubpur12.Bishrakhpur JalalpurWe have already observed, while considering Issue No.1 and 2, that GNOIDA has not correctly comprehendedthe object and purpose of the 1976 Act and its actions have not been in accord to promote the purpose and objectof the Act. Reckless proposals submitted by the GNOIDA for acquiring huge fertile agricultural land of villages ofGNOIDA and NOIDA which remain unutilised for years and ultimately the industrial use of some villages was gotchanged into residential facilitating transfer to private parties indicate that the action of the GNOIDA is not to fulfilthe object of the Act, rather it has been exercising its statutory power for the object which is not contemplated bythe 1976 Act. The GNOIDA has mechanically recommended invocation of urgency clause so that land holderscould not raise any finger regarding the acts and motive of the GNOIDA and it may pursue its plan to carry on itsactivity as it pleases. We have already noticed above that GNOIDA is labouring under misconception that unless itacquires the land under the Land Acquisition Act it cannot carry any development which mindset is not inaccordance with the purpose and object of the 1976 Act. It is true that under Section 6(2)(a) of the 1976 Act thefunctions of the Authority includes acquisition of land in the industrial development area by agreement or throughproceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purposes of the Act. The Authority has not substantiallyresorted other mode prescribed for acquisition i.e. by agreement, rather it has embarked upon acquisition of landin reckless manner. The fact that the land use of the land, which was acquired for industrial development indifferent villages, has been changed into residential clearly indicates that the Authority has not been able toachieve the object of industrial development.Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that by changing the land use there has been no change asthe change of land use of a particular village was compensated by swapping the land. Although under theprovisions of the Act and Regulations 1991 it may be permissible for the Authority to change the land use, but weare not on the above issue. The sequence of events specially the wholesale allotment for residential colonies andthe resolution of the GNOIDA dated 2nd February, 2010 by which it decided to change the land use of the areaadjoining 130 meters road for the purposes of earning more profit clearly indicates that it did not pursue the objectof the Act and acted with the object of earning profit.Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the caseof Sundar Garden Welfare Association and another vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2008(5) ALJ 29. Inthe said case land was acquired for planned industrial development in district Ghaziabad through Uttar PradeshState Industrial Development Corporation, Kanpur. In the aforesaid case, following was laid down in paragraph13:-"13. We are of the view that once the land was acquired and taken over by the requiring body for the purposes ofindustrial development, then it can be public or commercial and residential accommodation connected with thesaid industrial development but it cannot enter into simple housing development scheme performing the job of thedevelopment authorities and Nagar Nigams etc., which are authorised under the U.P. Urban Planning andDevelopment Act, 1973 and colourable exercise other similar Acts."There cannot be any dispute that according to the provisions of the 1976 Act and Regulations land acquired canbe put to different uses as mentioned in Regulation 2 of the 1991 Regulations including agricultural, commercial,industrial, institutional and residential houses but as observed by us while deciding Issue No.1 and 2 other uses
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:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107: JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
show all

eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?