eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System ...

JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10.20... Page 34 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011which declaration was made for acquisition of 589.188 hectares land of village Patwari. Similar notifications undersection 4 read with Sections 17(1), 17(4) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued with regard todifferent villages. Several writ petitions were filed challenging the land acquisition which writ petitions came forhearing before the Division Bench on 26.7.2011.One of the submissions made before the Division Bench was that the State had wrongly invoked the provisions ofSections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act hereinafter referred to as ''Act' and the right of objectionunder section 5A was wrongly dispensed with hence, the entire acquisition proceedings deserved to be set aside.The petitioners placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 19.7.2011 passed in writ petitionNo. 17068 of 2009 Harkaran Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others in which judgment the Division Bench of thisCourt held that invocation of the provisions of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act was not justified and relying onthe judgment of the apex Court in Radhey Shyam Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2011) 5 Supreme Court Cases533 and judgment of the apex Court dated 6.7.2011 in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vs.Devendra Kumar reported in 2011 (6) ADJ 480 quashed the notification dated 12.3.2008 and 30.6.2008. LearnedCounsel for the State refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on another DivisionBench judgment of this Court dated 25.11.2008 in writ petition No. 45777 of 2008 Harish Chand and others Vs.State of U.P. and others in which judgment invocation of Section 17(1) and 17(4) was upheld and the writ petitionwas dismissed in which same notifications dated 12.3.2008 and 30.6.2008 were under challenge.Faced with large number of writ petitions challenging the land acquisition by farmers of different villages ofGreater Noida and Noida and noticing two conflicting views expressed by two different Division Benches on thesame notifications, the Division Bench passed following order on 26.7.2011:"Against this background, prima facie we are of the view that a larger Bench is required to be formed for thepurpose of hearing these matters not only in respect of the village in question but also for all the acquisitionmatters in respect of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Greater Noida Industrial DevelopmentAuthority for the ends of justice, to reduce the fume and to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings."In the same order dated 26.7.2011 to protect the interest of the petitioners, the Division Bench passed followingorder."However, petitioners will be protected with their rights in the following manner:(a) Principle of lis pendens will be applicable in these cases. Therefore, whatever steps will be taken by therespondents in the meantime, the same will abide by the result of the writ petitions.(b) Willing petitioners may make applications to the State or the appropriate authority to consider their grievancesand if it is made, the same will be considered carefully upon giving fullest opportunity of hearing to them, ifnecessary with the assistance of the pleader, by 12th August, 2011 and a report to that extent will be placedbefore the Court along with the records of all the acquisition cases on the next date of hearing i.e. on 17th August,2011. Applications, if any, for such settlement out of the Court are totally optional on the part of the petitioners.Rights, if any, of the unwilling petitioners under Section 11-A of the Act will not be infringed.(c) If the petitioners make such applications for settlement out of the Court with the State or the State authority,the same will be considered by them in the line of the Uttar Pradesh Land Acquisition (Determination ofCompensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997, which is commonly known as ''KararNiymawali, 1997'.It is pertinent to note that several applications have been made either by the respective builders and/orpurchasers of flats and/or the banks for impleadment, which have been strongly opposed by the petitioners bysaying that they can not be made parties to these writ petitions as in the cases of land acquisition the land ownersand the requiring bodies, sometime acquiring bodies, are the necessary parties and not others. On the part of oneof the applicants it is submitted before this Court that as per the Rules of this High Court any aggrieved or affectedparty can be treated to be intervenor in any of the proceedings, therefore, no one can be restrained from gettingopportunity of hearing. In these special circumstances, they are required to be heard. However, at this stage wedo not propose to entertain such applications.The matters will appear on 17th August, 2011.Let it be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice/ Hon'ble Senior Judge, as per the Rules and practice of thisCourt, to take an administrative decision about formation of the larger Bench as early as possible, so that thematters can be placed before such larger Bench on the next date itself."