eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System ...

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