eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System ...

JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10.20... Page 44 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011has been acquired for the purposes of transferring the same to the private builders. Entire exercise has beentermed to be colourable exercise of power. It is pleaded that there is no project on the part of the respondentAuthority for planned industrial development over the said land. By lease deed dated 28.07.2010 an area of106196 sq. meter being flat No.GH-01, Tech Zone-4 has been transferred to M/s Amrapali Leisure ValleyDevelopers Private Limited for group housing. Similarly by lease deed dated 25.02.2001 an area of 354288 sq.meter of plot No.GH-09, Sector Tech Zone-4 has been transferred to M/S Amrapali Dream Valley Private Limited.By another lease deed dated 17.02.2011 an area of 272916 sq. meter land of plot NO. GH-05, Sector Tech Zone-4 has been transferred to M/S Amrapali Centurion Park Private Limited. Likewise by lease deed dated 11.10.2010an area of 85202 sq. meter of land has been transferred to M/S Supertech Limited and by lease deed dated02.04.2011 an area of 86037 sq. meter land has been transferred in favour of M/S Omarnests Private Limited andfurther by lease deed dated 03.11.2010 allotment has been in favour of M/S Rajesh Project Limited of an area of74731 sq. meter. It is stated that although the land of the village in question was acquired by the StateGovernment for planned industrial development, but the same is being utilized for construction of colonies. In therejoinder affidavit, the petitioners have brought on record resolution of the Authority dated 02.02.2010, by which itwas resolved that area adjoining 130 meter road towards Noida be changed from industrial to housing scheme,which shall be in the interest of the Authority. The petitioners have stated that the land is not being used for thepurpose for which it was acquired, rather land use is sought to be changed by resolution dated 02.02.2010. It isstated that the residential purpose is always connected with industries. There was no reason to dispense with theenquiry under Section 5A of the Act. On the material which was with the State Government, no reasonable personcan form an opinion that there was need to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. Under theRight to Information Act, the petitioner was informed that the area of village Roza Yakubpur is included in TechZone-4, Sector-2, Sector 16, Sector 16B, Ichotech-12, Ichotech-13 and Ichotech-15. Petitioners claim that theycame to know in May, 2011 that their land of village in question will not be used for planned industrialdevelopment. Thereafter, they made enquiries and came to know about the lease deeds executed in favour ofrespondent Nos. 3 to 8. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State, in which it has been stated that possessionwas taken on 19.03.2008 and 87.164% of the compensation has already been disbursed. Award was declared on29.11.2010. It has been stated that there was sufficient material forwarded by the Collector, including the relevantcertificates on the basis of which the State Government dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act.Copy of the award has also been brought on record along with the counter affidavit. Under agreement inaccordance with 1997 Rules the land owners were granted compensation of Rs.850/- per sq. yard, whereasunder Section 11 (1) of the Act compensation fixed was Rs.370.37/- per sq. meter.In the writ petition Intervention applications have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.4, 6,8 and 9. Interventionapplication has also been filed on behalf of M/S Prem Industries and M/S Unicure India Private Limited as well ason behalf of M/S Ajnara Realtech Limited and M/S S.G.S. Udyog Private Limited. Private respondents seekingintervention have given details of allotment of various plots to them between 2008 and 2011, details of delivery ofpossession to them and the lease land, details of payments made by them and the developments being carriedout by them. Certain photographs depicting developments have also been annexed along with the counteraffidavit. Impleadment application on behalf of Indrani Merchandise Private Limited, apart from 15 otherapplications along with affidavit have also been filed through Adersh Agrawal and Sri Piyush Shukla, Advocates.The applicants claim handing over of possession in the year 2008 and thereafter copies of the lease deedsgranted to the aforesaid applicants have been annexed, which indicate that most of the aforesaid applicants wereallotted 2100 sq. meters to 5000 sq. meters of land except one Sushil Dung, who was allotted 33362 sq. meter ofland. All the aforesaid applicants claim allotment for industrial purpose. It was further pleaded by the applicantsthat the petitioners are guilty of delay and latches.. About 117 industries have been given allotment in Ichotech-12. The other petitioners have raised more or less the similar submissions, which need not be repeated.Writ petitions in Group 10, which are two in number, relate to village Roza Yakubpur. These are writ petitionNo.45328 of 2011, Harish Chandra and others vs. State of U.P. and others and writ petition No.39385 of 201,Baljeet and others vs. State of U.P. and others . In these two writ petitions Notification under Section 4 of the Actdated 27.02.2008 and notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 30.06.008 have been challenged on similargrounds.Writ petitions in Group 11 relate to village Aimnabad. Writ petition No.43623 of 2011, Chhatar Singh vs. State ofU.P. and others, in which pleadings are complete, is being treated as leading writ petition. This writ petitionchallenges the notification dated 24.08.2006 issued under Section 4 of the Act read with Sections 17 (1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire 100.428 hectares of land of the village in question forplanned industrial development. Petitioner's case is that he is bhumidhar of the land in dispute. Though the landwas acquired for for planned industrial development, but it has been allotted to private builders for construction ofresidential complexes. It is pleaded by the petitioner that after coming to know about the acquisition, he filedrepresentation dated 12.08.2006 praying for exemption of the land on the ground that the aforesaid land was the