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 46 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011A counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating that possession of the land was taken on 4th September,2004 and 100% tenure holders have received compensation under agreement. The GNOIDA vide letter dated 4thDecember, 2002 forwarded the proposal for acquisition which was forwarded by the Collector on 18th January,2003. The petitioner having voluntarily received compensation, he is not entitled to challenge acquisition after sixyears and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay. The GNOIDA has also filed itscounter affidavit reiterating the pleadings made by the State Government. It has further been stated that theresidential plots under 6% quota has already been allotted. It is also stated that award was declared on 18thMarch, 2005. An application for intervention has been filed on behalf of Mr. Manmohan Bansal who claims to havepurchased a plot from A.T.S. Residential Society which has constructed more than 800 flats in the society. It isstated that various residential colonies have already come up including Army Welfare Housing OrganisationSociety. The applicant prays that writ petition be dismissed on the ground of delay.In Writ Petition No.48209 of 2011 (Shiva Dutta and others vs. State of U.P. and others) notifications dated 2ndMay, 2003 and 21st June, 2003 issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act by which135.73 hectares of land was proposed to be acquired, have been challenged. The declaration under Section 6was issued on 5th June, 2003 and 7th August, 2003, which have also been challenged. By subsequentdeclaration dated 7th August, 2003 the land to the extent of 214.596 hectares was sought to be acquired.Writ Petition No.45072 of 2011 (Kartar Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others) has been filed by 50 tenureholders challenging the notifications dated 2nd May, 2003 and 21st June, 2003 issued under Section 4 read withSections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act as well as the notifications dated 5th June, 2003 and 7th August, 2003. Anintervention application has been filed in the said writ petition by Mr. Manmohan Bansal stating similar facts ashas been stated in Writ Petition No. 46127 of 2011.The writ petitions in Group-15 relate to village Badalpur. In Writ Petition No.42548 of 2011 (Mangat Singh andothers vs. State of U.P. and others) pleadings are complete and the said writ petition is treated to be leading writpetition of village Badalpur. This writ petition has been filed by 50 tenure holders of village Badalpur challengingthe notification dated 20th June, 2007 issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Actproposing to acquire 230.554 hectares land of village Badalpur. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act wasissued on 18th June, 2008 for acquiring the land for planned industrial development. The petitioners claim to beowners and in possession of the plots mentioned in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. The petitioners claim to beusing their land for residential as well as agricultural purposes, which is only source of livelihood for them. It ispleaded that there is no material to indicate that any reputed industrialist of the country or abroad has submittedany plan or project for establishing industry in the said area. The petitioners further submit that there is delay ofabout one year in issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act which itself clearly indicates that there wasno urgency in the matter for dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act. It is further submitted thatissuance of notification is in colourable exercise of power. It is further pleaded that GNOIDA by changing thepurpose of acquisition is now inviting private colonisers/builders to built up private colonies. Discrimination hasalso been alleged that the land of certain influential persons have been released from acquisition. Name of KishanLal, who happened to be Chairman of Zila Panchayat, Gautam Budh Nagar whose land situate in Khasra No.774has been referred. The said Kishan Lal was given land in other plots in the prime location. Further Kishan Lal wasalso permitted to sell the land. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition details of other persons whose lands werereleased has been mentioned. A resolution was also passed by the GNOIDA on 20th December, 2010 foradjusting certain persons whose names were mentioned in the resolution on some other plots. The resolutionnotes that earlier the villagers have made serious demonstration against the acquisition and unless they areadjusted there shall be serious problem. The petitioners' case is that they also raised their objection forrelease/return of the land. The petitioners have also expressed their willingness to return the amount ofcompensation and an application submitted to Deputy Chief Executive Officer on 25th May, 2011 has beenreferred to, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. It is alleged that inquiry under Section5A of the Act was wrongly dispensed with. It is submitted that about 60% of the land has not been developed. Inthe supplementary affidavit, it has been pleaded that the land was not needed for any industrial purpose and thesame is being acquired illegally for establishing colonies to give benefit to certain local leaders of ruling party. Ithas been stated that certain persons have been permitted to lease back and they were also permitted to sell theland. Details regarding said fact has been mentioned in Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit. Thepetitioners' case further is that they are being pressurised to accept the amount of compensation under the 1997Rules. It is pleaded that when the petitioners did not accept the compensation, they were tortured by the localpolice and their signatures were forcibly obtained on the agreement. They were also taken away by the police andproceedings under Section 107/116 of Cr.P.C. were initiated against the petitioners on 13th September, 2007. It ispleaded that petitioners and other tenure holders have received compensation under compulsion and pressure.The petitioners have also amended the writ petition by amending paragraphs 30, 31, 31A, 31B and 31C. It isstated by the petitioners that notifications in question have been challenged earlier in Writ Petition No.35509 of
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10.20... Page 47 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/20112008 which writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 4th September, 2009 against which judgment specialleave to appeal has been filed before the Apex Court which is pending consideration. It is further stated that therespondents have acquired the land in colourable exercise of power and the valuable land is being used forconstructing big parks leaving green belt. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating that possession ofthe land was taken on 18th July, 2009 of 226.291 hectares land. It is stated that 86% compensation has alreadybeen disbursed. The award has also been declared on 19th August, 2011. It is stated that after following dueprocedure the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act was dispensed with. Under the 1997 Rules, out of totalacquired land of 230.554 hectares, compensation has been received for an area of 182.9985 hectares. Thepetitioners having entered into an agreement, they have relinquished their right to challenge the notification. Anyabadi constructed by the petitioners was without permission of the GNOIDA. The writ petition suffers from delayand laches. The State has already issued a Government order dated 24th April, 2010 regarding lease back forpurpose of abadi and a Committee has been constituted to examine different claims. The notifications impugnedhave already been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 4th September, 2009in Writ Petition No.35509 of 2008 (Munshi Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) reported in 2009(8) ADJ 360. Acounter affidavit has also been filed by respondent No.3 stating that notifications have already been upheld by aDivision Bench of this Court in Munshi Singh's case (supra). It is denied that land has been allotted to profitcolonisers or builders in village Badalpur. It is, however, admitted that by way of settlement of the grievances ofthe land owners certain land was leased out to land owners. The leases granted to various land owners havebeen mentioned in paragraphs 9 and 11 of the counter affidavit of the State. The village Badalpur has beennotified as part of the industrial development area way back in the year 1996. The allegation that petitioners arestill in possession has been denied. Under the 1976 Act allotment to private builders is not prohibited.In Writ Petition No.45558 of 2011 (Smt. Savitri Devi vs. State of U.P. and others) aforesaid notifications of villageBadalpur have been challenged. The petitioner's grievance is that her Plot No.744 area 150 square yard has notbeen exempted whereas the respondents have exempted plots of others in the same Plot No.744. In Writ PetitionNo.43870 of 2011 (Madhuri Saxena and others vs. State of U.P. and others), petitioners' case is that petitionersintended to open an Old Age Day Care Centre on the plot which was purchased by the petitioners on 30thOctober, 2006. It is submitted that petitioners made representations on 4th August, 2008, 2nd June, 2009 and27th April, 2011 for exemption of their plot which have not yet been accepted. It is further stated that therespondents have adopted pick and choose policy insofar as petitioners' land has not been exempted and land ofsimilarly situated persons have been exempted from acquisition in the same plot. In Writ Petition No.45454 of2011 (Likhkhi and others vs. State of U.P. and others) more or less similar grounds have been taken forchallenging the acquisition.The writ petitions in Group-16 relate to village Sadopur. In Writ Petition No.46026 of 2011 (Umesh Chaudhary andothers vs. State of U.P. and others) pleadings are complete which is being treated as leading writ petition ofvillage Sadopur. The writ petition has been filed challenging the notification dated 31st August, 2007 issued underSection 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act for acquisition of area 142.160 hectares of village Sadopur.The declaration under Section 6 was issued on 30th June, 2008. Petitioners' case is that although more than fouryears have elapsed from the acquisition but no development has taken place. It is further stated that in Khasraabadi of the petitioner exists. There was no ground to invoke urgency clause while issuing notification underSection 4 of the Act. In the counter affidavit filed by the State it has been stated that possession was taken on16th February, 2009 and award was declared on 13th July, 2010. About 74% of the compensation has alreadybeen disbursed in accordance with the 1997 Rules. It is pleaded that there was sufficient materials before theState Government for dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act. Apart from payment ofcompensation, 6% abadi plot is also allotted subject to minimum of 120 square meters and maximum of 2500square meters. A short counter affidavit has also been filed by the GNOIDA in which it has been stated thatnotifications under challenge have already been upheld by this Court vide its judgment in Munshi Singh's case(supra). The other writ petitions of this village raise more or less similar grounds challenging the notificationswhich need no repetition.The writ petitions of Group-17 relate to village Gharbara. In Writ Petition No. 46767 of 2011 (Satbir and others vs.State of U.P. and others) pleadings are complete and this writ petition is treated as leading writ petition of villageGharbara. In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 3rd October, 2005 issuedunder Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) proposing acquisition of 59.561 hectares land of villageGharbara. The declaration under Section 6 was issued on 20th December, 2005. Petitioners' case is that therewas no occasion to invoke urgency clause for planned industrial development. Petitioners' case further is that theyhave accepted the compensation under the impression that the land is acquired for planned industrialdevelopment whereas the GNOIDA has acquired the land and transferred the same to private builders forbusiness purpose. One of the lease deed dated 21st July, 2006 executed in favour of M/s R.C. Info SystemPrivate Limited has been brought on the record by which lease of 1,08,057 square meters has been executed for
Page 1 and 2: JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
Page 96 and 97:
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
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?