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 42 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011and electricity transmission lines. Group housing development work has also been done. The writ petition hasbeen filed with delay.Writ petitions in Group 6 relate to village Tusiyana. Writ petition No.42324 of 2011, Kunwar Pal Bhati and othersvs. State of U.P. and others, is being treated to be the leading writ petition. The petitioners claim to be thebhumidhars of different plots of village in question. Notification under Section 4 of the Act read with Sections 17(1) and 17 (4) of the Act had been issued on 10.04.2006 by the State Government proposing to acquire 379.001hectares of land of the village for planned development in district Gautam Budh Nagar through Greater NoidaIndustrial Development Authority. The petitioners claim to have constructed dwelling units and earning theirlivelihood by carrying agricultural activities. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 30.11.2006.Petitioners claim to be in possession of their land and carrying on agricultural activities. It is pleaded thatinvocation of urgency clause under the provisions of Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Act was without any basisand without sufficient material. Dispensation of enquiry under Section5A of the Act has been made in routinemanner. It is further pleaded by the petitioners that the Authority is calling for negotiation only those persons whohave filed writ petition in the High Court. Award under Section 11 of the Act has been issued on 27.04.2010.Counter affidavit has been filed by the Authority stating that possession was taken on two different dates, i.e.02.02.2007 and 25.03.2008. It is further stated that out of 379.001 Hectares of land, compensation in respect ofan area of 260.854 hectare has been disbursed and accepted by the land owners. Out of 970 tenure holders 787have accepted compensation. Development work has been done in the area and the area has been demarcatedas Sector KP-5 and Ecotech-3. The Authority has constructed roads, laid down sewer lines and electricitytransmission lines, and made allotment of group housing work. I.T. and Institutional plots have also been allottedbetween 2007 and 2011. The petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavit, stating that the area acquired in the year2006 remains vacant. Allotment to certain builders was made in the year 2009 and 2011. It is further pleaded thatthe petitioners were given assurance that the industries would be set up in their land, under which assumption,the petitioners never approached the court of law and had taken compensation whatever was given to them, sincethey were under the impression that after establishment of industries, their children would get employment andearn their livelihood. It is further pleaded that industries were established only in the year 1998, and thereafterthere is no whisper of any industry being established in the village. It is further stated that the area which has nowbeen demarcated, is for residential colonies to such persons, who would have no concern with the establishmentof industry. Now it would be very difficult that any industry would be established, as the Authority itself would notgive permission to industries to come up in the residential colonies. Application for intervention has also been filedby the Greater Noida Extension Flat Buyers Welfare Association.In writ petition No.45672 of 2011, Adesh Chaudhray vs. State of U.P. and others, similar allegations have beenmade. It has been further pleaded that in village Patwari, the land owners have been given additionalcompensation of Rs.550/- per sq. yard, which was also publicized in the newspaper dated 07.08.2011. Case ofthe petitioners is that they have been discriminated by not giving additional compensation. It is stated that the landof the village remains unused and is not being used for the purpose for which it was acquired. Writ petitionNo.47502 of 2011 has been filed by 76 petitioners challenging the aforesaid notifications dated 10.04.2006 and30.11.2006. Petitioners have pleaded that after taking possession of the land so acquired under the allegedplanned development scheme, entire land has been allotted to property developers and building colonizers. Copyof the allotment order dated 14.08.2007 has been filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The fact of allotmentthrough letter dated 14.08.2007 came to be knowledge of the petitioners in the third week of July, 2011, andthereafter copy of the letter was obtained on 08.08.2011. Petitioners have further pleaded that they were given tounderstand that the land acquired would be used for industrial development, which would provide the youths ofthe village employment and taking of their land would not financially affect their family. It is alleged that therespondent Authority has hatched conspiracy of depriving the farmers of their land under mala fide and colourableexercise of power. The petitioners Nos. 18 and 24 have not received compensation so far. The others havereceived compensation at the rate of Rs.850/- per sq. yard. It is further alleged that the acquisition proceedingshave resulted in pocketing of huge profit limited in few by depriving the bulk of population of their residential abadiand their source of livelihood in the name of development, which is a form of camouflage and false prospective ofdevelopment.Writ petitions of Group 7 relates to village Dabra. Writ petition No.45450 of 2011, Phundan Singh and others vs.State of U.P. and others, has been filed challenging the notification dated 31.10.2005 issued under Section 4 readwith Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Act. By means of the aforesaid notification land measuring 121.8506hectares was proposed to be acquired. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 01.09.2006. Writpetition has been filed by 49 tenure holders. Petitioners' case in the writ petition is that when their land wasacquired, there was no demand for establishing industry in the area. Further the respondents had also noapproved scheme or project to establish industry and develop the area as industrial area. Respondent No.3 at thetime of acquisition was in possession of vacant land, which was sufficient for development. There is sufficient
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10.20... Page 43 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011delay in issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act, which clearly indicates that there was no urgency forinvoking the provisions of Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Act, which were arbitrarily invoked. The petitioners'land is still vacant and they are in possession. There was no sufficient material before the State Government todirect for dispensation of enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. In the counter affidavit fled by the State, it has beenstated that the possession was taken on 31.01.2007 and award has been declared on 23.07.2011. It is furtherstated that in accordance with 1997 rules out of 552 land owners 490 have accepted compensation. There wassufficient material for dispensing with the enquiry. Possession memo dated 31.01.2007 has also been filed asAnnexure with the counter affidavit. Details of construction of different flats have been mentioned in Prapatra-16,which has been filed as Annexure-C.A.-3 to the counter affidavit. Counter affidavit has also been filed by theAuthority reiterating the above pleadings. Under 6% residential scheme 192 flats have been allotted to thevillagers.Writ petitions in Group 8 relate to village Dadha. Writ petition No.46160 of 2011, Ranveer Dadha and others vs.State of U.P. and others has been filed challenging the Notification dated 31.12.2004 issued under Section 4 readwith Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Act by the State Government, under which 83.084 hectares of land wassought to be acquired. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 01.07.2005. Petitioners' case in thewrit petition is that they are still in possession of their land and doing agricultural activities. The respondents arealleged to have taken possession on 28.12.2005, 3.05.2006 and 29.01.2011, whereas petitioners are still inpossession of their land. The award having not been issued within two years of the notification, under Section 11Aof the Act, entire land acquisition proceedings stood lapsed. It is stated that joint objection was filed on25.07.2008 praying for exemption of land for abadi purpose. It is stated that similarly placed persons were givenbenefit by exempting and regularizing their land Reference of writ petition No.54028 of 2006, Kishan Singh vs.State of U.P. and others has been made, in which writ petition same notification was under challenge, and theDivision Bench vide its order dated 19.09.2005 had directed the parties to maintain status-quo. Counter affidavithas been filed by the State, stating therein that the writ petition has been filed with delay of 6 years; as such itdeserves to be dismissed. Possession of land was taken on 28.12.2005. Award had been given on 15.05.2009Compensation has been received by all the tenure holders. It is stated that there was sufficient material before theState Government to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. Relevant proposals were submittedby the Collector. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the Authority. Apart from reiterating the pleadings asmade by the State, it has been stated that under the residential scheme669 plots have been allotted. I.T. andInstitutional plots have been allotted between 2006 and 2011. Residential plots under 6% scheme have also beenallotted.In writ petition No.44181 of 2011, Dharam Pal and others vs. State of U.P. and others, same Notifications havebeen challenged. Writ petition has been filed by 27 persons. It has been further pleaded that for the satisfaction ofthe State there should be some material in support of the demand of land for public purpose. There is noevidence that any reputed industrialist of the country or abroad had approached the respondents or therespondents themselves have any plan or project for establishing industry. Respondent No.3 had no plan orproject to establish any industry in the area. Issuance of Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act arecolourable exercise of powers for acquiring the land from the farmers without any concrete plan to develop thearea and establish the industry. The respondents have also changed the purpose of acquisition and some part ofthe land has been given to the private builders to construct the residential premises, and lease deed dated08.02.2007 has been executed in favour of one M/s Steeler Sprint Private Limited. Petitioners were givencompensation at the rate of 270.50/- per sq. yard. Award was declared on15.05.2009. there was no urgency inthe matter, which required dispensation of enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. Counter affidavit has been filed bythe State, repeating the same pleadings as mentioned in the counter affidavit filed in writ petition No.46160 of2011.In writ petition No.45345 of 2011, Chand and others vs. State of U.P. and others, same notifications have beenchallenged. Apart from other pleadings, it has been stated that there was no project or plan with the respondentsto establish the industry in the area nor was there any material that any reputed industrialist of the country hadapproached the respondents and submitted any plan or project for establishing their industry in the said area.90% of the acquired land is being used for construction of residential colonies.Writ petitions of Group 9 relate to village Roza Yakubpur. Writ petition No.37119 of 2011, Dal Chand vs. State ofU.P. and others, in which pleadings are complete, is being treated as leading writ petition. Petitioners claim to bebhumidhars in possession of plots as detailed in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. Notification under Section 4 ofthe Act was issued on 31.08.2007, invoking the provisions of Sections 17 (1) and 17(4) of the Act, proposing toacquire 484.836 hectares of land of the village in question for planned development. Notification under Section6of the Act was issued on 27.02.2008. Petitioners' case in the writ petition is that the land of the petitioner sought tobe acquired as per the notification for planned development is in fact camouflage. It is stated that in fact the land
Page 1 and 2: JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
Page 41: JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
Page 92 and 93:
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
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?