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 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
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10.20... Page 51 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011demarcated as Sector 10,11,12 and Sector K.P.-5. Development work in the form of roads, sewerage, drainagewater supply, electricity transmission etc have been done at the cost of Rs.35.75 crores. In Sector 10 and 12 twogroups housing plots were allotted measuring 1,83,060 sq. meter. In Sector K.P.-5 six institutional and 10 I.T.plots have been allotted. Allotment has also been made under 6% scheme.In writ petition no.42200 of 2011 Ajeet Pal and others petitioner claims to be bhoomidhar of plots as mentioned inparagraph-4. The writ petition has been filed by 83 tenure holders. Similar pleadings have been made as hasbeen made in writ petition no.44233 of 2011 - Rishi and others vs. State of U.P. Counter affidavit has been filedby the State as well as the authority making averments to the same effect as has been made in the writ petition ofRishi and and others as above. Application for intervention has been filed on behalf of M/s Sharp Enterprises Pvt.Limited claiming allotment dated 30th August, 2007 for an area of 80,938 sq. meter for I.T. and I.T. enabledservices. Applicants claimed to have paid substantial amount to the authority. Another application for interventionhas been filed by Empire Parks Pvt. Ltd claiming lease deed dated 12th September, 2008 for a plot of 80,941 sq.meter. Payment of Rs.3,89,07,170.00 has also been claimed. Applicant claimed allotment for establishing an I.T.Project. Another application for impleadment has been submitted by NOIDA Extension Flat Buyers WelfareAssociation who claimed to be association of flat buyers in the area.Writ petitions in Group No.25 are of village Murshadpur. In writ petition no.46717 of 2011 Dharam Raj Singh andothers vs. State of U.P. the pleadings are complete which is being treated as leading petition. Writ petition filed by27 petitioners challenged the notification dated 25th June, 2003 under Section-4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) proposing to acquire 322.004 hectare of land for planned development. Declaration under Section-6 wasissued on 22nd July, 2003. Petitioners alleged that there was no material before the State to form an opinion thatinquiry under Section 5-A deserves to be dispensed with. The notification has been issued in colourable exerciseof powers. Petitioners' case is that 100% land of the village was reserved for Night Safari. The petitionersaccepted the compensation under the impression that industries would come. The entire area is lying vacant andthere was no urgency for invoking Section 17 (1) and and 17 (4) of the the Act. In the counter affidavit it hasfurther been stated that 968 land owners being involved hearing and disposing objection would have taken yearstogether due to which inquiry was dispensed with. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the authority repeatingthe same allegations as has been made in the counter affidavit by the State. In the counter affidavit it has beenstated that the area has been demarcated as Sectortech Zone and Night Safari. An area of 42,75,520 sq. meterhas been demarcated as Night Safari.Other writ petitions raise more or less similar grounds which need no repetition.In possession memo dated 20.1.2005 annexed as Annexure- C.A.-1 along with counter affidavit it has beenstated that possession of plot no.28-M area 1.708, plot no. 29-M area 2.263 and plot no. 77 area 9.448, total area13.419 is not being taken which shall be subsequently taken. In paragraph-14 of the counter affidavit filed by theauthority it has been stated that possession was taken on 31.1.2007 whereas petitioners' case is that nopossession has yet been taken since the land is acquired for Night Safari. No sufficient materials were placed forinvoking urgency clause under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act. Petitioners further case is that compensationhas been paid at the rate of Rs.300/- per sq. meter including solatium and interest. The award has been made on30.12.2010.Writ petitions of Group No.-26 relate to village Haibatpur. In writ petition no.41309 of 2011 Jagpal and others vs.State of U.P. since the pleadings are complete hence the same is treated as leading petition. Petitionerschallenge the notification dated 16th July, 2008 issued under Section-4 read with Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of theAct proposing to acquire 240.481 hectare for planned industrial development. Declaration under Section-6 wasissued on 23rd March, 2009. Petitioners claimed that no permission was taken from National Capital RegionalPlanning Board. It is stated that no land of private person can be taken away for the benefit of another privateperson. Petitioner further stated that Section-9 notice was issued on 24th August, 2009 and even before expiry of15 days possession was claimed to be taken on 26th August, 2009 which is against the provision of Section 17(1) itself. It is further stated that total land acquired was 240.481 hectares and the possession was taken only of162.918 and 15.2774 hectares rest of the land has not even taken possession. Although proposal was sent on30th December, 2005 for acquisition but the notification has been issued on 16th July, 2008 that is after aboutthree years which clearly indicate that there was no urgency. The award has been given only on 28th July, 2011.60% land which has been acquired by the authority has neither been developed nor used. There was no validground for dispensation of inquiry under Section-5-A. The counter affidavit has been filed by the authority statingthat possession of the land was taken on 23rd March, 2009 and 11th February, 2010. Out of 2150 land ownerscompensation was received by 1560 land owners. Development work has been carried out and the area has beendemarcated as part of Sector 4 and 16-C. Authority has constructed roads, sewerage, drainage etc. Authority hasspent Rs.78.54 crores in Sector 16-C and Sector 41 respectively. Plots have been allotted in the year 2010. It has
Page 1 and 2: JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
Page 100 and 101:
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
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?