eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10.20... 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."
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10.20... Page 35 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011Hon'ble the Chief Justice passed following order on 6.8.2011 on the aforesaid reference "Hon. R.K. Agrawal, Hon.Ashok Bhushan and Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.J.J. are nominated to deal with all connected matters." The Benchwas reconstituted again on 17.8.2011.In view of the aforesaid referring order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the main writ petition being writ petition No.37443 of 2011, Gajraj and others Vs. State of U.P. and others as well as all other connected matters have beenplaced before this Full Bench.We heard learned counsel for the parties on 29.8.2011. In some writ petitions. The allottees/builders, whoreceived the allotment letter by the Greater Noida and Noida hereinafter referred to as ''Authority' were impleadedand several applications for impleadment were filed by various allottees/builders. We after hearing learnedcounsel for the parties by our order dated 29.8.2011 allowed learned Counsel for the State, learned Counsel forthe Authority and other parties to file their affidavits. In so far as the applications for impleadment andinterventions which were filed by various applicants following orders were passed on 29.8.2011." After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the applicants namely; allottes/buildersshall be heard by this Court under Chapter XXII Rule 5A of the High Court Rules without being formally impleadedto the writ petition."Various applications were filed for intervention along with affidavits which were taken on record and we heardlearned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the Authority and learnedcounsel for the interveners. The hearing was completed on 30.9.2011. Along with the main writ petition, there arewrit petitions challenging various similar notifications issued under section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4)and Section 6 regarding 41 villages of greater Noida and 24 villages of Noida. In main writ petition, counteraffidavits, supplementary counter affidavits have been filed both by the State as well as by the Authority. Counteraffidavits by private respondents as well as the intervention applications along with affidavits by severalinterveners have also been filed. Pleadings being complete in writ petition No. 37443 of 2011, the said writ petitionis being treated as main writ petition. In so far as other writ petitions of different villages are concerned, learnedChief Standing Counsel has stated that counter affidavits have been filed by State and Authority at least in onewrit petition of each village which may be treated to be leading writ petition of the said village. Although in someother writ petitions, counter affidavits have also been filed by State and Authority. The writ petitions relating todifferent villages are separately grouped and it shall be suffice to refer to the pleadings of the main writ petition aswell as leading writ petitions of each village along with pleadings of some other writ petitions which were referredto by different learned counsel during the course of hearing for deciding this bunch of writ petitions. The facts asbrought on record in the main writ petition and the reference to the pleadings in the said writ petition are sufficientto comprehend and decide the various issues which have arisen between the parties in these writ petitions.Hence, facts of the case of the main writ petition and pleadings therein shall be noted in some detail.Writ petition No. 37443 of 2011 Gajraj and others Vs. State of U.P. and others have been filed by 27 writpetitioners who claim to be Bhumidhar with Transferable right and owner of different plots of land situated invillage Patwari, Pargana and Tahsil Dadri, District Gautam Buddha Nagar. The notification dated 12.3.2008 wasissued by the State Government under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 notifying that the landmentioned in the schedule is needed for the public purpose namely for the planned industrial development inGautam Buddha Nagar through Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority. It is useful to quote relevantextract of the notification dated 12.3.2008 which is to the following effect:"Under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (Act No. 1 of 1894), the Governor is pleasedto notify for general information that the land mentioned in the Schedule below, is needed for a public purposenamely for the planned industrial development in district Gautambudh Nagar through Greater Noida IndustrialDevelopment Authority.2. The Governor, being of the opinion that the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said Act, areapplicable to said land inasmuch as the said land is urgently required, for the planned industrial development indistrict Gautambudh Nagar through Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and it is as well necessary toeliminate the delay likely to be caused by an inquiry under section 5-A of the said Act, the Governor is furtherpleased to direct under Sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the said Act that the provision of Section 5-A of the saidAct shall not apply"The inquiry under section 5A having been dispensed with vide notification dated 12.3.2008, State Governmentproceeded to issue declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 30.6.2008 to the following effect:
Page 1 and 2: JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
Page 33: JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
Page 84 and 85:
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
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:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
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?