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 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