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 186 of 19710/21/2011Respondents may file counter affidavit within one month. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within three daysthereafter.Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged notification dated 26.5.2009 issued under Sections 4 of LandAcquisition Act and Notification dated 22.6.2009 under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act.Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that in view of the decision of Apex Court in M/s. Essco FabsPrivate Limited and another Vs. State of Haryana and another (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 377 the authority isrequired to record his satisfaction as to why applicability of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act is to bedispensed with. The Apex Court has held in Sethi Auto Service Station and another Vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority and others (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 180 that on the noting of the authorities the StateGovernment's satisfaction cannot be inferred and the State Government is required to record its own independentreasons for invoking the urgency clause. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the petitioners are entitled for interimorder.Learned counsel for the petitioners has further urged that in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in MunshiSingh and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1150 for dispensing with an enquiryunder Section 5A, mere mention of word "Land Development of the Area" is not sufficient and respondents arebound to show that the interested persons were aware of the scheme or were shown the scheme or the masterplan in respect of land development.In this view of argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel is directedto produce the entire records of acquisition on 21.10.2009 to demonstrate that satisfaction has been recorded bythe State Government by applying in its own independent mind and enquiry under Section 5A was dispensed within accordance with law.List on 21.10.2009.Until further orders of this court, parties are directed to maintain status quo."The petitioners' case in the writ petition is that petitioners are owners of plots as mentioned in paragraph 7 of thewrit petition which are recorded in the revenue records in their name. Case of petitioner no.1 is that petitioner no.1 has started its unit which has been manufacturing black and white picture tube in the year 1990. The petitionerno. 1 claims to be registered under the Factories Act with Deputy Director, Factories, Western Zone, Meerut aswell as under the Sales Tax Act. The petitioner no. 1 also claims to have been allotted a import code by the officeof Joint Chief Controller Import and Export since 1988. No objection of U.P. Pollution Control Board was obtainedon 22.10.1990. The petitioner's case is that in the plots owned by the petitioner no. 1 in the village as well as inthe adjoining village Gulistanpur. Factory building, tanker shed, power plant room, LPG tanker plant and otherplants have been constructed. The petitioner also took steps for grant of SEZ status under the Special EconomicZone Act, 2005. The petitioner submitted proposal before the competent authority. The petitioner has annexed inthe writ petition correspondences with the District Magistrate, State Government as well as Govt. of India in thisregard. The letter of Government of India, Ministry of Commerce Industries dated 17.1.2006 has been filed asAnnexure-10 by which the Government of India granted approval in principal subject to obtainingrecommendations of the State Government and certain commitment by the State Government. Correspondencewith the Greater Noida Authority by the petitioner as well as with the State Government has been brought onrecord. The State Government has asked report from Greater Noida. The petitioners had earlier also come to thiscourt by filing writ petition being writ petition No. 49736 of 2007, M/s Tosha International Ltd. Vs. and others Vs.The State of U.P. and others. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 11.10.2007directing the Principal Secretary Industrial Development U.P. Government Lucknow to decide the claim of thepetitioners which was submitted with regard to grant of SEZ status to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted acopy of the order before the Government and the matter is said to be pending. The petitioner in the writ petitionhas also referred to two earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioners in this Court with regard to acquisition of landof different plots belonging to the petitioners in the same area. The petitioner's case is that this Court entertainedthe writ petition and granted interim relief also. The petitioner has pleaded that the State Government hasexempted land belonging to one M/s Arti Roiling Mills from the acquisition proposal whereas the petitioner hasbeen discriminated since the petitioners' industry is also running from 1990.Although in writ petition No. 50417 of 2009, no counter affidavit has been filed by the State despite the order ofthis Court dated 18.9.2009 but the counter affidavit of the State has been filed in the leading writ petition of thevillage being writ petition No. 31126 of 2011 Chaval Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others. In the counter affidavit