eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System ...

JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10.20... Page 50 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011about 93% of tenure holders have accepted compensation under the 1997 Rules. The award was declared on23rd July, 2009. The Additional District Magistrate has authorised an Ex-Amin to take possession of the land indispute. There was sufficient materials available with the State Government to justify invocation of urgencyclause. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the GNOIDA reiterating almost same facts which have beenstated in the counter affidavit of the State. The other writ petitions of this group raise more or less similar groundsof challenge which need no repetition.The writ petitions of Group No.23 relates to village Mathura Pur. In writ petition no.46744 of 2011 - Vinod Kumarvs. State of U.P. the pleadings are complete hence the same is being treated to be as leading petition. Thepetitioner challenges the notification dated 3.10.2005 issued under Section-4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4)of the Act proposing to acquire 122.2699 hectares of land of village Mathura Pur. Declaration under Section-6was issued on 31st July, 2006. Petitioner claims to be owner of plot nos. 217 and 218. The land has beenacquired for the purposes of planned industrial development. Petitioner was under the impression that the land isneeded for the public purpose namely planned industrial development hence accepted the compensation underthe agreement. The land was acquired for the planned industrial development and thereafter transferred to privatebuilders for residential purposes which clearly proves that the respondents have acquired the land under colourable exercise of power. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating that possession was taken on27.10.2006 and the award has been made on 25.9.2009. The recommendation of the Collector for acquisition ofland was received by letter dated 15.2.2005. Sufficient justification was given for invoking urgency clause.Relevant certificates were send alongwith recommendation which has been annexed alongwith counter affidavit.Possession memo dated 27.10.2006 has also been filed alongwith counter affidavit. Out of 436 tenure holders425 tenure holders have accepted the compensation after executing the agreement. The inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act has been dispensed with. Petitioner has filed the writ petition with delay. A counter affidavit has alsobeen filed by the authority repeating the same averments as has been made by the State Government. Aftertaking possession development work was carried out and the area has been demarcated by omricron 1, 2 and 3the authorities have developed green belts and carried out group housing development work. Under the individualresidential norm 1708 plots have been allotted and under group housing scheme three plots were allotted. Twoinstitutional plots were also allotted and under 6% scheme allotment has also been made. Other two petitionschallenging the same notification more or less on the same grounds being writ petition no. 46422 of 2011 and46669 of 2011 have been filed on similar grounds which need no repetition.The petitions under Group No. 24 relate to village Saini. In writ petition no.44233 of 2011 Rishi and others vs.State of U.P. and others pleadings are complete which is being treated as leading petition. The petition has beenfiled by nine petitioners who claim themselves to be owner and in possession over bhoomidhari plots mentionedin paragraph-3 of the writ petition. Petitioners claimed the land to be fertile and the same is being used foragricultural purposes, which is the only source of their livelihood. There is no project or plan of the Authority forestablishing planned industry in the area. There is no evidence that any reputed industrialist of the country orabroad have approached the respondents and submitted any plan or project for establishing any industry.Respondent no.3 also has no plan or project of its own to establish any industry. The notification dated24.10.2005 issued under Section-4 read with Section 17 (1) and 17 (4) of Land Acquisition Act proposing toacquire 309.008 hectare land of village Saini has been challenged. The declaration under Section-6 was issuedby notification dated 30th June, 2008. Till date neither any industry has been established nor the land has beenacquired for such purposes. Total area of land which was acquired, about 90% of the same has been allotted forconstruction of residential colonies and private builders and coloniers. Only negligible portion of the land is beingused for industrial purposes. No award having been given within two years the entire acquisition has lapsed. Forthe last more than ten years number notifications have been issued but the land so acquired has not yet beenused for the purposes for which it was acquired. Dispensation of inquiry under Section - 5-A was not in routinemanner and without application of mind.Writ petition nos. 18303 of 2009, 17478 of 2009, 42386 of 2010 and 24261 of 2011 have been filed challengingsimilar notification in which this court granted interim order directing for maintaining status quo. Some of thepetitioners are still in possession of their land and they have not received compensation and they are approachingrespondent nos. 2 and 3 for amicable settlement so that their land may be released. A counter affidavit has beenfiled by the State stating therein that after publication of notification the possession was taken on 30th October,2006 for an area of 299.655 hectares. Out of 952 tenure holders 782 has received compensation under 1997Rules. Award has been declared on 2nd August, 2011. Recommendation was received for acquisition of landhaving relevant document from the Collector. The writ petition is barred by latches since petitioner has filed itwithout properly explaining the delay the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Petitioners themselves havingentered into an agreement for receiving compensation, they have no right to challenge the acquisition. The inquiryunder Section- 5-A was dispensed with on relevant material. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the Authority.It is stated that after taking possession the authority has carried out the development work and the area is