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 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
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10....http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.doPage 187 of 19710/21/2011filed by the State, it has been stated that possession of the land was taken on 14.9.2009. It was also stated in thecounter affidavit filed on 14.9.2011 that no award has yet been prepared in so far as acquisition of village Dewla isconcerned. In the counter affidavit filed by the State as mentioned above, the State has brought on recordPrapatra Sankhya 16 which is prepared of assets which is noted in the survey before initiating proceedings forland acquisition. The said Prapatra Sankhya 16 has been filed as Annexure C.A. 6 in the counter affidavit. It isrelevant to note that in plot Nos. 129,149,158,159,161 which are plots included in the declaration under section 6Tosha Picture Tube and Constructions has been mentioned.The Authority along with Supplementary affidavit-4 has filed details of village Dewla in which it has been statedthat in the village in question only 19% land owners have accepted compensation under agreement and "a sum ofRs. 150.37 lakhs have been incurred on the development within the un-acquired land of the village abadi" A charthas been filed in the folder where summary of village Dewla has been given which clearly indicates that noallotment of any plot has been made and area under recreational green is under process of planning. It is usefulto quote the aforesaid summary of village Dewla given in folder along with supplementary affidavit-4:DetailsArea in (Sq m)Sector NameScheme NameAllotted areaUnallotted areaNos of allotted plotsNos of unallotted plotsNos of plots on which building plan sanctionedNos of plots on which completion has been issued.Area under abad and abadi expansion256700.91Non saleableArea under M.P. Road91206.00Non SaleableArea under Recreational Green1150599.09Under process of planningTotal.1498506.00From the materials which are on record with regard to Dewla in this writ petition as well as in the leading writpetition and another writ petition, it is clear that neither any third party rights have been created in this village norany substantial development has been made In the note which has been submitted by the Authority under folderalong with Supplementary affidavit-4 with regard to development, following has been stated in paragraph 5:" 5.The Authority has incurred a total expenditure of Rs. 150.37 lakhs upto July 2011 on the development. A sumof Rs. 150.37 lakhs have been incurred on the development within the un-acquired land of the village abadi"Thus the development which is claimed by the Authority is within the unacquired land of the village abadi.Another writ petition which needs to be noted in this context is writ petition No. 57032 of 2009 ManaktalaChemical (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others which was filed in this Court on 29.10.2009. An interim orderwas also passed directing the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to possession as on date. Thepetitioner's case in the writ petition is also that the petitioner is a registered company which is using the plots inquestion for industrial purposes. The factory claims to be in existence over it. Reliance has also been placed onsurvey report dated 8.11.2007 which has been filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition (as referred to above, while
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:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137: JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
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?