eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System ...

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