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 194 of 19710/21/2011Writ Petition No. 45230 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45235 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45238 of 2011, Writ PetitionNo. 45283 of 2011 relating to village Khoda, Writ Petition No. 46764 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 46785 of 2011relating to village Sultanpur, Writ Petition No. 46407 of 2011 relating to village Chaura Sadatpur and Writ PetitionNo. 46470 of 2011 relating to village Alaverdipur which have been filed with inordinate delay and laches aredismissed.2(i) The writ petitions of Group 40 (Village Devla) being Writ Petition No. 31126 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 59131of 2009, Writ Petition No. 22800 of 2010, Writ Petition No. 37118 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 42812 of 2009, WritPetition No. 50417 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 54424 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 54652 of 2009, Writ Petition No.55650 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 57032 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 58318 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 22798 of 2010,Writ Petition No. 37784 of 2010, Writ Petition No. 37787 of 2010, Writ Petition No. 31124 of 2011, Writ PetitionNo. 31125 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 32234 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 32987 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 35648 of2011, Writ Petition No. 38059 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 41339 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 47427 of 2011 and WritPetition No. 47412 of 2011 are allowed and the notifications dated 26.5.2009 and 22.6.2009 and all consequentialactions are quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled for restoration of their land subject to deposit ofcompensation which they had received under agreement/award before the authority/Collector.2(ii) Writ petition No. 17725 of 2010 Omveer and others Vs. State of U.P. (Group 38) relating to village YusufpurChak Sahberi is allowed. Notifications dated 10.4.2006 and 6.9.2007 and all consequential actions are quashed.The petitioners shall be entitled for restoration of their land subject to return of compensation received by themunder agreement/award to the Collector.2(iii) Writ Petition No.47486 of 2011 (Rajee and others vs. State of U.P. and others) of Group-42 relating to villageAsdullapur is allowed. The notification dated 27.1.2010 and 4.2.2010 as well as all subsequent proceedings arequashed. The petitioners shall be entitled to restoration of their land.3. All other writ petitions except as mentioned above at (1) and (2) are disposed of with following directions:(a) The petitioners shall be entitled for payment of additional compensation to the extent of same ratio (i.e.64.70%) as paid for village Patwari in addition to the compensation received by them under 1997 Rules/awardwhich payment shall be ensured by the Authority at an early date. It may be open for Authority to take a decisionas to what proportion of additional compensation be asked to be paid by allottees. Those petitioners who have notyet been paid compensation may be paid the compensation as well as additional compensation as orderedabove. The payment of additional compensation shall be without any prejudice to rights of land owners undersection 18 of the Act, if any.(b) All the petitioners shall be entitled for allotment of developed Abadi plot to the extent of 10% of their acquiredland subject to maximum of 2500 square meters. We however, leave it open to the Authority in cases whereallotment of abadi plot to the extent of 6% or 8% have already been made either to make allotment of the balanceof the area or may compensate the land owners by payment of the amount equivalent to balance area as peraverage rate of allotment made of developed residential plots.4.The Authority may also take a decision as to whether benefit of additional compensation and allotment of abadiplot to the extent of 10% be also given to ;(a) those land holders whose earlier writ petition challenging the notifications have been dismissed upholding thenotifications; and(b) those land holders who have not come to the Court, relating to the notifications which are subject matter ofchallenge in writ petitions mentioned at direction No.3.5. The Greater NOIDA and its allottees are directed not to carry on development and not to implement the MasterPlan 2021 till the observations and directions of the National Capital Regional Planning Board are incorporated inMaster Plan 2021 to the satisfaction of the National Capital Regional Planning Board. We make it clear that thisdirection shall not be applicable in those cases where the development is being carried on in accordance with theearlier Master Plan of the Greater NOIDA duly approved by the National Capital Regional Planning Board.6. We direct the Chief Secretary of the State to appoint officers not below the level of Principal Secretary (exceptthe officers of Industrial Development Department who have dealt with the relevant files) to conduct a thoroughinquiry regarding the acts of Greater Noida (a) in proceeding to implement Master Plan 2021 without approval ofN.C.R.P. Board, (b) decisions taken to change the land use, (c) allotment made to the builders and (d)
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10....http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.doPage 195 of 19710/21/2011indiscriminate proposals for acquisition of land, and thereafter the State Government shall take appropriate actionin the matter.All the writ petitions are decided accordingly. No costs.Let the original records be returned to the learned Chief Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for theAuthority.Dated: 21.10.2011L.A./Rakesh/SB(Judgment reserved on 30.09.2011)(Judgment delivered on 21.10.2011)Court No. - 21Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37443 of 2011Petitioner :- Gajraj And OthersRespondent :- State Of U.P. And OthersPetitioner Counsel :- Pankaj Dubey,Tahir HusainRespondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,C.B.Yadav,Dhruv Agarwal,J.N. Maurya,L.Nageshwar Rao,M.C. Chaturvedi,M.C.Tripathi,Manoj Kumar Singh,Navin Sinha,Nikhil Agarwal,Nishant Mishra,Ram Krishna,Ramendra PratapSingh,Ravi Kant,Ravindra Kumar,S.P. Gupta,Santosh Krishnan,Suresh Singh,Y.K. SrivastavaWITHOTHER CONNECTED WRIT PETITIONSHon'ble S.U. Khan,J.I fully agree with the entire judgment delivered by brother Ashok Bhushan, J., however I would like to addsomething of my own which is as follows:Land Acquisition is no more a holy cow. At present it is a fallen ox. "Everybody is butcher when the ox falls." Thecorrectness of this phrase is best illustrated by this bunch of more than 1000 writ petitions (about half of which areto be decided after this judgment) almost all of which have been filed after 06.07.2011 (the date on whichjudgment of the Supreme Court reported in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Vs. Devendra Kumar,2011 (6) ADJ 480 was delivered) challenging land acquisitions in North Okhla Industrial Development Area(NOIDA) and Greater NOIDA. Almost all the acquisitions since formation of NOIDA through notification dated17.04.1976 under U.P. Industrial Area Development Act of 1976 (which received the assent of the Governor on16.04.1976) have been challenged. In all the writ petitions, barring few, there are several petitioners. Totalnumber of petitioners is more than ten thousand. Even during continuance of arguments in this Full Bench scoresof similar writ petitions were filed before the Division Bench concerned daily and all were sent to this Full Bench.Similar petitions are being filed till date. It is not opening of flood gate. It is tsunami. It has helped us inunderstanding the problem in its entirety. Hearing individual challenge to a particular acquisition is like judging anelephant by a blind man, touching a particular part of elephant's body (in the proverbial story of the elephant andsix blind men). Some may mistake it for a wall, some for tree trunk, some for rope etc.Till a couple of years before, it was considered almost indecent to suggest that acquisition of land might bequashed by higher judiciary. That was one extreme. Quashing of the acquisition lock, stock and barrel will be fullswing to the other extreme. To keep a pendulum clock working gentle swinging of its pendulum is necessary.Stopping of pendulum denotes that the clock is not working. However wild swings damage the clock. The wilderthe swings the greater the damage. "Our age knows nothing but reaction, and leaps from one extreme toanother." Reinhold Niebuhr, Americal philosopher quoted by Times of India above the editorial under ''A thoughtfor today' dated 18.05.2011.Life of law is experience (O.W. Holmes). However, spirit of law is BALANCE.
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:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145: 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?