eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System ...

JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10.20... Page 52 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011further been stated in paragraph -19 that initially land use of 16-C was industrial later on land use of 16-C waschanged from industrial to the land under the approval of the Board dated 2.2.2010 which was further approvedby the State Government on 30th March, 2010. The writ petition has been filed with delay which deserves to bedismissed.In writ petition no.37109 of 2011 - Jaipal and others vs. State of U.P. both the above notifications dated 16th July,2008 and 23rd March, 2007 have been challenged on the similar grounds as have been raised in the leading writpetition. It is further pleaded by the petitioners that before the land use was changed the land was allotted to M/sGaursons. M/s Gaursons was allotted about 50 hectares of land.In this group writ petition no.40436 of 2009 was a writ petition which was filed on 4th August, 2009 challenging thenotification dated 16th July, 2008 and 23rd March, 2009. This court while entertaining the writ petition passedfollowing interim order on 7th August, 2009:"Until further orders of this court parties are directed to maintain status quo."Another ground has been taken in the writ petition that no plan has been got approved by National CapitalRegional Planning Board under National Capital Planning Regional Board Act 1985. Reliance of interim orderpassed in writ petition no.17068 of 2009 dated 7th August, 2009 was placed which writ petition has subsequentlybeen allowed by the Division Bench of this Court. In the counter affidavit filed by the authority it has been statedthat possession was taken on 26th August, 2009. It is further submitted that National Capital Regional PlanningBoard Act 1985 does not prohibit acquisition of the land nor any permission is required from the Board. Throughwrit petition no.1592 of 2010 - Satish Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. have also challenged the notificationdated 16th July, 2008 and 23rd March, 2009 in which this court passed an interim order on 26.3.2010:-"As an interim measure without prejudice to the right and contention of the parties, it is directed that till the nextdate of listing, the parties shall maintain status quo as on date with regard to the need and possession overkhasra no.124 area 1.581 hectare of the village Haibatpur Pargana & Tehsil Dadri District Gautam Budh Nagar."Similar grounds have been raised in the writ petition as have been raised in other writ petitions. An application forintervention has been filed on behalf of M/s Saim Abhimanyu Housing Scheme claiming allotment and executionof the lease on 25th November, 2010 for group housing.In Writ petition no.17726 of 2010 challenging the same notification interim order was passed on 2nd April, 2010directing the parties to maintain status quo.In other writ petitions of 2010 included in the group, writ petitions were filed in the year 2010 which are stillpending an interim order was passed which are still continuing. Applications for intervention have also been filedby several interveners claiming allotment of plots.Writ petitions in Group No-27 relates to Chipyana Khurd. Writ petition no.41017 of 2011 - Jagram Singh andothers vs. State of U.P. pleadings are complete hence the same is being treated as the leading petition. Throughthe said writ petition the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 24th July, 2008 issued under Section-4read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) for acquisition of 105.5600 hectares of land of village Chipyana Khurd.Declaration under Section-6 was issued on 29th January, 2009. Petitioners claimed that they have not receivedany compensation and they are also using some of their area of land for abadi purposes. Some plots of villageChipyana Khurd has not yet been acquired which shows discrimination against the petitioner. There was nosufficient material to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5-A. Neither any need nor any material has beenshown by the respondents for acquisition. Purpose for acquisition has subsequently been changed. In the counteraffidavit only proforma has been annexed without any material. Counter affidavits have been filed both by theState as well as by the authority. It has been stated in the counter affidavit of the authority that possession wastaken on 9.3.2009. Authority has carried out development work in the area spending more than Rs.14 crores overthe land of village Chipyana Khurd. Two groups of plots have been allotted. Residential plots have been allottedunder 6% scheme. About 48% of land owner have accepted compensation. An application for intervention hasbeen filed by one M/s Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd who claims allotment of housing plot by lease deed dated 24thNovember 2010 for an area of 2,49,907 sq. meter. M/s Mahagun claims to have made allotment to various otherapplicants and invested substantial amount. Another application for intervention has been filed on behalf of M/sGaursons Parameters Pvt. Ltd claiming lease dated 22nd September, 2010 a group housing plot area 4,54,168sq. meters, the applicants claimed investment and constructions on the plot. Certain photographs showing theconstruction work has also been annexed alongwith the affidavit.