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 38 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011similar details. The applications which has been received for intervening in the main writ petition are of followingapplicants:i.M/s Amrapali Leisure Valley Pvt. Ltd. which claims allotment of plot GH02 area 419519.20 square meters videallotment letter dated 6.5.2010 lease deed dated 11.10.2010.ii.M/s Patel Advance JV, which claims allotment of Plot No. GH 03 in Sector Techzone IV Greater Noida area96,000 sq. meters. Vide allotment letter dated 27.4.2010.iii.M/s Elegant Infracon Pvt. Ltd. which claims allotment of Plot No. GH-06B area 17,700 sq. meters vide allotmentletter dated 18.8.2010.iv.M/s Amrapali Leisure Valley Pvt. Ltd. which claims allotment of plot GH01 area 106196.00 square meters videallotment letter dated 23.4.2010.v.M/s Nirala Infratech Pvt. Ltd. which claims allotment of plot GH04 area 1,00,000 square meters vide allotmentletter dated 23.4.2010.vi.M/s Artha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. which claims allotment of Plot No. 21 Sector-Techzone-IV area 10,000 sq. metersvide allotment letter dated 3.10.2008.vii.M/s Good Enough Education Trust which claims allotment of plot No. 6, Tech. Zone-IV area 41282.74 squaremeters vide allotment letter dated 6.5.2010 lease deed dated 9.3.2009.viii.M/s Amrapali Leisure Valley Pvt. Ltd. which claims allotment of plot GH02 area 419519.20 square meters videallotment letter dated 6.5.2010 lease deed dated 11.10.2010.ix.M/s La Residentia Developers Pvt. Ltd. which claims allotment of Plot No. GH-06 area 97726.62 sq. metersvide allotment letter dated 18.8.2010.x.M/s Amrapali Dream Valley Pvt. Ltd. which claims allotment of plot GH09, Sector-Techzone-IV area 354298.00square meters vide allotment letter dated dated 30.8.2010.All the aforesaid interveners have filed affidavits in support of intervention applications making allegations to thesimilar effect as have been made by M/s Supertech Ltd. claiming substantial investments and development on thespot. It has been pleaded by the respondent no. 4 and other interveners that the allottees were handed overpossession by the Authority and they have carried out substantial development works and invested huge amountand at this stage, the petitioners cannot be allowed to challenge the acquisition proceedings. They havingacquiesced to the acquisition, they are now stopped from challenging the acquisition. It is pleaded by them thatthe respondents obtained the lease deed from the Authority at the time when there was no challenge to theacquisition and at this stage, the petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be dismissed on the ground of lachesalone.We have categorised the writ petitions in different groups, villagewise. Each village of Greater NOIDA and NOIDAhas been allotted one group. In one group if more than one notifications under Sections 4 and 6 are challenged,the same has also been mentioned. Group 1 to 41 relate to different villages of Greater NOIDA and Group 42 to65 relate to villages of NOIDA.There are 14 other writ petitions relating to village Patwari (Group-1) apart from Gajraj, the main writ petition inwhich notification dated 12.3.2008 issued under section 4 read with sections 17(1) and 17(4) and 6 have beenchallenged. The pleadings in the aforesaid writ petition are also to the similar effect. However, pleadings in fewwrit petitions which have been specifically referred by learned counsel need to be noted.Writ Petition No. 62649 of 2008 Savitri Devi Vs. State of U.P. was filed challenging the notification dated12.3.2008 and 30.6.2008 in this Court on 2.12.2008 claiming that petitioner is Bhumidhar of plot No. 687 in KhataNo.625 and had constructed pakka dwelling house over the above noted Araji. It is stated that adjoining plot Nos.695 and 686 have been exempted from acquisition but petitioner's plot has not been exempted. Invocation ofurgency clause has been challenged. It stated that land has been acquired for the purpose of raising multi-storiedbuildings for business purposes.In Writ petition No. 28691 of 2011 Dinesh Kumar Garg and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, the petitioners'
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10.20... Page 39 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011case is that plot No. 407 M Khata No. 111 was purchased by the petitioners by sale deed dated 7.4.2004. Thereis Abadi of the petitioners which is being used for residential purpose and in Khasra 1412 Fasli Abadi ismentioned. It is stated in the writ petition that objections were filed by the petitioners vide letter dated 25.2.2010 tothe Chief Executive Officer for exempting the petitioners' land from acquisition. Information was also obtainedunder the Right to Information Act 2005 and by letter dated 6.10.2010 the petitioners have been informed to theeffect that out of 1.178 hectares of land of plot No. 407, only 0.778 has been proposed for acquisition and rest hasalready been left for Abadi. Reliance has also been placed on interim orders passed in writ petition No. 30914 of2009 Madanpal Vs. State of U.P.& others dated 16.7.2009 by which order direction was issued for maintainingstatus-quo. Challenge to the notification of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) has also been raised stating that there is nojustification for dispensing with the inquiry under section 5A.In writ petition No. 32236 of 2011 Satpal Vs. State of U.P. and others almost identical pleadings have been madeas has been made in the main writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner no. 15 and16 have not accepted even the additional compensation offered by the authority after the order of this Court dated26.7.2008. In writ petition no. 39584 of 2011, Khem chand Vs. State of U.P., similar pleadings have been madeas made in the main writ petition. It has been additionally stated that petitioners no. 1 to 6 have not acceptedadditional compensation. In writ petition No. 39584 of 2011 an intervention application has also been filed byNoida Extension Flat Buyers Welfare Association in which application, it has been stated that writ petition filed bythe petitioner is not maintainable in view of the delay and laches the original tenure holders are not entitled forrestitution of possession. It was pleaded that flat buyers who are members of association having faith and beliefregarding the marketable title in the land of the builders have booked flats after taking due care and any orderquashing the notification shall take away the rights of the members of the association causing loss to them. It ispleaded that there is acute need of residential units in NCR. A counter affidavit has also been filed by SupertechLimited reiterating the similar pleadings as made in the main writ petition.The writ petitions in Group-2 are the writ petitions of village Sakipur. Writ petition No. 47157 of 2011 RajendraSingh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others relating to village Sakipur has been filed challenging thenotifications dated 31.12.2004, issued under section 4 proposing to acquire 311.3140 acres of land of villageSakipur. Declaration under section 6 was issued vide notification dated 5.9.2005. Similar pleadings have beenmade in the writ petition challenging the notifications. The petitioners have pleaded that petitioners being lawabiding citizen were under impression that the State Government has acquired their land for the public purposehence, they did not come earlier to challenge the notifications. However, latter petitioners came to know that thevery purpose of acquiring the land namely; planned industrial development has now been changed by therespondents by carving plots and the land has now been transferred to private builders for the purpose ofcommercial complexes and residential under the group housing scheme. The petitioners have annexed one of thelease granted by Noida Authority to one M.I. Builders Pvt Ltd. vide lease deed dated 28.3.2007. It has also beenpleaded that the entire acquisition proceedings have lapsed since the award has not yet been declared. Reliancehas been placed on the judgment of the apex Court in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Vs.Devendra Kumar and others (supra) . It has been pleaded that under the impression that land is needed for publicpurpose namely planned industrial Development by the Authority, the petitioners accepted the acquisition for thesaid public purpose but in view of the change of land use, the entire acquisition proceedings deserve to bequashed. Reference to writ petition No. 42631 of 2011 Mam Chand Vs. State of U.P. has also been made bywhich writ petition parties were directed to maintain status quo by interim order dated 20.8.2009. It is pleaded thatnotification seeking to acquire the land is in colourable exercise of power. It is pleaded that without application ofmind, section 17(1) and 17(4) was invoked by dispensing the inquiry. Counter affidavit has been filed by the StateGovernment stating that petition has been filed with great delay and is highly barred by time. It has been pleadedthat after issuance of notice under section 9, the possession was transferred on 31.12.2005, 7.3.2008 and28.1.2011. Out of 649 affected tenure holders 490 tenure holders have already accepted compensation afterexecuting the agreement. The award has been declared under section 11 on 6.8.2011. Copy of certificate issuedby the Collector for invoking the urgency clause has been annexed along with the counter affidavit. Copy of theaward has also been filed. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the Authority, the respondent no. 3, in which ithas been stated that the possession was handed over to the respondent no. 3 on 13.12.2005, 7.3.2008 and28.1.2011. It is further pleaded that the land owners to the extent of 87% have received compensation under theagreement. With regard to various development works it was stated that in Sector Zeta-I five group housing plotswere allotted in the year 2006. In Sector Zeta II, 125 residential plots and Sector Delta II, 700 residential plots andSector Delta-III, 290 residential plots have been allotted. The writ petition has been filed with great delay.Intervention application has also been filed in the writ petition on behalf of M/s Omex Ltd. which claimed allotmentof land in village Sakipur. In other writ petitions of the village Sakipur challenge to the same notifications havebeen made by raising more or less similar grounds of challenge which need no repetition.The writ petitions in Group 3 are the writ petitions relating to village Ghora Bachheri. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
Page 1 and 2: JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
Page 37: JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
Page 88 and 89:
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?