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 48 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011setting up I.T. industry. An application for intervention has been filed on behalf of M/s Paramount Towers Limitedalong with an affidavit which claim to have been allotted a plot vide letter dated 12th March, 2010 being Plot No.GH-06 area 51000 square meters under Group Housing Scheme. The applicant claims that on 11th May, 2010lease has been executed. The applicant further claims that constructions have been started on the plot. Theapplicant in the affidavit has also referred to settlement between the GNOIDA and the farmers of village Patwariafter the order of this Court dated 26th July, 2011 in the main writ petition. The applicant has also annexed thenewspaper report indicating that farmers of village Patwari shall get Rs.550/- per square yard as additionalcompensation and 8% abadi land.In Writ Petition No. 46742 of 2011 (Brahm Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) apart from other grounds it hasbeen stated that compensation has not been accepted for Plot No.589. In Writ Petition No.48067 of 2011(Niranjan vs. State of U.P. and others), the petitioner has challenged only the notification dated 23rd March, 2009(Annexure-1 to the writ petition). In Writ Petition No.48068 of 2011 (Niranjan vs. State of U.P. and others), thepetitioner has challenged the the notification dated 20th December, 2005 issued under Section 6 of the Actacquiring 59.56 hectares land of village Gharbara. Petitioner's case is that compensation at the rate of Rs.800-880 square meter is proposed whereas the respondents are selling the land at the rate of 12000-18000 persquare feet. In Writ Petition No.48071 of 2011 (Mahipal and others vs. State of U.P. and others), the petitionershave challenged the notification dated 2nd May, 2003 issued under Section 4 proposing to acquire 124.003hectares land of village Gharbara. The declaration under Section 6 has been issued on 16th June, 2003.The writ petitions of Group-18 relate to village Chhapraula. In Writ Petition No.46775 of 2011 (Jai Pal And Othersvs. State of U.P. and others) pleadings are complete which is treated as leading writ petition of villageChhapraula. This writ petition has been filed by 48 tenure holders challenging the notification dated 12th March,2008 issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act proposing acquisition of 68.129hectares land of village Chhapraula. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 3rd February,2009. The State Government by Government order dated 8th September, 1997 and 9th February, 2005 hasissued specific directions to the acquiring bodies not to include the land covered by abadi in the acquisition and incase it is utmost necessary for acquisition displaced person be given comparable land. The petitioners claim to bein actual possession of the land. It has been pleaded that it has become fashionable to discriminatingly apply theprovisions of Section 17(4) of the Act in every case of acquisition. The land has been allotted to private builderswhereas the purpose of acquisition was planned industrial development. In the counter affidavit filed by the Stateit has been stated that possession of the land was taken on 9th March, 2009 and award was declared on 21stMarch, 2011. Copies of the possession memo and award have been brought on the record. According toparagraph 24 of the counter affidavit, the land use of part of Sector Tech Zone was changed from institutional toresidential and similarly land use of part of Sector Echotech-13 was changed from industrial to institutional whichchanges were approved by the Board on 11th February, 2010 and also the same were approved by theGovernment on 30th March, 2010. The compensation has been disbursed to the extent of 76%. An application forintervention has been filed on behalf of M/s Marion Biotech Private Limited which claim allotment of land byallotment letter dated 31st March, 2011 of an area of 10,000 square meters as an industrial plot in Echotech-16.The applicant claims that 200-300 persons shall be employed in the project.In Writ Petition No.47068 of 2011 (Permanand and others vs. State of U.P. and others), the petitioners havechallenged the notification dated 18th September, 2000 issued under Section 4 of the Act proposing to acquire56.4984 acres land of village Chhapraula for planned industrial development. The petitioners claim to be ownerand in possession of the plots mentioned in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. It is pleaded that although urgencyclause was invoked but even after 11 years nothing has been done on the spot whereas award was also declaredon 14th June, 2002. Petitioners claim to be in actual physical possession. A short counter affidavit has been filedby the GNOIDA stating that industrial Sectors Echotech-14, 15 and 16 were developed and allotment of industrialplots have been made. An application for intervention has also been filed on behalf of M/s Supertech Pre CastTechnologies Private Limited which claimed that large number of industries were given allotment. List of industrieswhich were allotted land in village Roja Yakubpur has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. It is statedthat development falls in the area known as Roja Yakubpur and Chhapraula. In Writ Petition No.46776 of 2011more or less similar grounds have been taken as have been taken in Writ Petition No.46775 of 2011 which needno repetition.The writ petitions of Group-19 relate to village Khairpur Gurjar. In Writ Petition No.46021 of 2011 (Jagdeep Singhand others vs. State of U.P. and others) pleadings are complete, which is treated as leading writ petition of villageKhairpur Gurjar. Notification dated 8th November, 2007 issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and (17(4) of the Act proposing to acquire 334.3417 hectares land of village Khairpur Gurjar has been challenged. Thedeclaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 7th July, 2008. The petitioners' case is that there was nosufficient ground for invoking urgency clause. There is delay of 8 months in issuing notification under Section 6 of
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10.20... Page 49 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011the Act. The land covered under the notification is still laying vacant. No award having been given in two years,the acquisition has lapsed. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating that possession of the land wastaken on 11th October, 2008 and about 78.50% of tenure holders have accepted compensation under agreement.The award has been issued on 25th July, 2011. There being delay, the writ petition need not be entertained. Theother writ petitions of this group raise more or less similar grounds which need no repetition.The writ petitions of Group-20 relate to village Ajayabpur. In Writ Petition No.46671 of 2011 (Om Prakash aliasOmi and others vs. State of U.P. and others) pleading are complete which is being treated as leading writ petitionof this village. The petitioners, who are 27 in number, have challenged the notification dated 29th September,2005 issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act proposing to acquire 37.3080 hectaresland of village Ajayabpur. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 20th December, 2005. Thepetitioners claim to be bhumidhar and in possession of the plots as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the writ petition.The petitioners' case is that abadi exists on the petitioners' plots and they have been discriminated insofar as theirplots have not been left from acquisition. There was no urgency for invoking Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act.The award having not been made within two years, the acquisition has lapsed. A counter affidavit has been filedon behalf of the State stating that possession of the land was taken on 1st June, 2006 and about 95% tenureholders have accepted compensation under agreement. The award has also been declared on 25th August,2009. There was sufficient material before the State for invoking urgency clause. The petitioners having comewith delay, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The petitioners are not continuing in possession andaverments to the contrary are incorrect. Section 11-A of the Act is not application in view of the law laid down bythe Apex Court in the case of Satendra Prasad Jain vs. State of U.P. reported in (1993)4 SCC 369. A counteraffidavit has also been filed by GNOIDA in which apart from repeating the pleadings as taken in the counteraffidavit of the State, it has been stated that writ petition having been filed after six years of Section 6 declaration,deserves to be dismissed. The urgency clause was invoked due to valid reasons since there being 185 landowners, going through normal procedure providing them right to file objection would have taken very much time.The residential plots under 6% scheme has been given to tenure holders. The allotment of land to builders doesnot militate against the concept of planned industrial development. The Writ Petition No.46128 of 2011 (SurendraSingh Bhasti vs. State of U.P. and others) challenges the same notifications on more or less similar groundswhich need no repetition.The writ petition of Group-21 relates to village Namauli in which only one writ petition being Writ Petition No.46418of 2011 (M/s Bansal Estate Private Limited vs. State of U.P. and others) is there. In the said writ petition petitionerhas challenged the notification issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act dated 11thMarch, 2008 proposing to acquire 97.317 hectares land of village Namauli. The declaration under Section 6 wasissued on 12th June, 2008. The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to exclude theabadi of the petitioner situate over Plots No.22, 43, 44 and 90. The petitioner's case is that the said plots were gotdeclared as non agricultural land by order of Sub Divisional Officer passed under Section 143 of U.P. ZamindariAbolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 in the year 1991 and the said plots were purchased by the petitioner'scompany for purpose of plotting and sale. The proposal for acquisition was sent in the year 2003 and thenotification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in the year 2008. The land use of the land in question wasinstitutional. It is stated that declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been issued with a view to promote interestof private developers. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating in paragraph 11 that possession ofthe aforesaid land could not be taken due to various interim orders passed by this Court in various pending writpetitions. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the land under acquisition was a land which was effectedby ceiling proceedings. The land of adjoining villages has already been acquired and possession has also beentaken. The part of land of village Namauli has already been acquired and certain plots were directly purchasedfrom tenure holders. An application for intervention has been filed by M/s Wegmans Industries Private Limitedclaiming lease deed dated 14th February, 2005 for an area of 40,011 square meters for I.T. Industry and I.T.Enabled Services. An order was passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) on 20thJanuary, 2006 that the land shall vest in the State free from all encumbrances. A counter affidavit has also beenfiled by the GNOIDA.The writ petitions of Group-22 relates to village Jaitpur Vaishpur. In Writ Petition No.46399 of 2011 (Mange Ramand others vs. State of U.P. and others) pleadings are complete which is being treated as leading writ petition ofthis village. By this writ petition notification dated 29th January, 2003 issued under Section 4 read with Sections17(1) and 17(4) of the Act for acquisition of 304.5154 hectares land has been challenged. The declaration underSection 6 of the Act was issued on 28th February, 2003. The petitioners, who are 13 in number, claim to betenure holders recorded in revenue record. It is pleaded that although more than 4 years have elapsed butnothing has been done on the spot and instead of using the land for industrial purpose, the same has been sold toPurvanchal University, Paras Nath Developers, Niti Shree Developers, Unitech Developers and Ansal Group. Acounter affidavit has been filed by the State stating that possession of the land was taken on 7th May, 2003 and
Page 1 and 2: JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
Page 98 and 99:
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?