eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System ...

JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10.20... Page 53 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011In this group writ petition no.18635 of 2009 N.S. Public School vs. State of U.P. was filed on 2nd April, 2009 inwhich writ petition interim order dated 20th August, 2009 was passed directing the parties to maintain status quountil further orders. The said interim order is still continuing. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State in whichit is claimed that possession was taken on 9th March, 2009. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the authority.Application for intervention has been filed on behalf of M/s Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd claiming execution of leasedated 24th November, 2010. Allotment was made to the applicant vide letter dated 23rd July, 2010 for an area246837 sq. meter at the rate of Rs.11,561/- per sq. meter.With writ petition no.18265 of 2005 writ petition no.38537 of 2010, writ petition no. 38360 of 2010, writ petitionno.40668 of 2010, writ petition no.40669 of 2010 and writ petition no.32352 of 2010 have been connected and theinterim orders were passed by this court are still continuing. Other petitions of the group raises similar ground ofchallenge to the notification which needs no repetition.Writ petitions of Group no.29 relate to village Rithori. In this group there is only one writ petition being writ petitionno.46370 of 2011 Jai Prakash and 23 others vs. State of U.P. Notification dated 7th September, 2006 underSection-4 read with Sections 17 (1) and 17(4) has been challenged by which land of village Rithori was proposedto be acquired. Declaration under Section-6 was issued on 31st August, 2007. Petitioners claim to be inpossession of land in dispute. The land use of village is shown as industrial. It is pleaded that there was nomaterial or reason for invoking urgency clause under Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act. Counter affidavit hasbeen filed by the State as well as the authority stating that possession of the land was taken on 17.11.2007 andabout 82% of tenure holders have accepted compensation. Award was declared on 25th August, 2011. In thecounter affidavit filed by the State it has been stated that proposal was sent by the authority to the Collector on10.2.2005 which was forwarded by the Collector by letter dated 15.9.2005 alongwith relevant certificates.Allotment of residential plot under 6% scheme has already been made and sector has been developed by theauthority as per development plan.Writ petitions of Group no.30 relate to village Ithara. In writ petition no.46021 of 2011 the pleading s are completewhich writ petition is being treated as leading petition. By the said writ petition notification dated 31st August, 2007under Section 4 read with Section 17 (1) and 17 (4) proposes to acquire 320.256 hectare of land has beenchallenged. Declaration under Section-6 was issued on 4th July, 2008. Petitioners claim to be bhoomidhar of plotno.509, 511, 512 and 550 which according to they is only source of their livelihood. In fact the land is sought to beacquired for the purposes of transferring the same to private builders for construction of residential colonies. Infactthere was no intention on the part of authority for any planned industrial development. Leases have beenexecuted in favour of several private builders. There is no application of mind while dispensing with the inquiryunder Section 5-A. The document which have been filed alongwith counter affidavit does not show whetherSection 17(1) be invoked or Section 17 (4) be invoked. There is absolutely no application of mind by the State. Infactthere is no request from the authority for dispensation of inquiry under Section 5-A. The recommendation foracquisition was send on 11th August, 2005. After about two years notification under Section-4 was issued.Allotments were made in the year 2010. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State which states that possessionwas taken on 27th August, 2008 and award has been declared on 25th July, 2011. About 73% of the tenureholders have accepted compensation under the agreement. The writ petition is barred by latches. It is furtherpleaded that in-fact the acquisition is for company and should have been made in accordance with LandAcquisition (Companies) Rule 1963. Petitioners came to know in the year 2011 that the land of village Ithara willnot be used for planned industrial development thereafter they made several efforts and came to know aboutexecution of lease in favour of private builders for construction of residential flats. The delay in the aforesaidcircumstances is not deliberate and it ought to be ignored. Petitioners claim to be in possession of the land indispute. Application for interventions have been filed on behalf of M/s R.M.A. Software Park Pvt. Ltd claimingallotment through letter dated 3.10.2008 by which allotment was made on 1 lac sq. meter plot no.18 in SectorTech. Zone-4 for setting up I.T.E.S.Writ petition no.42439 of 2011 has been filed by Rajesh and 71 others challenging the notification dated 31stAugust,2007 and 4th July, 2008. Similar grounds have been taken as has been taken in writ petition of MamilaSharma. It is further pleaded that acquisition proceedings in the garb of planned industrial development is in-factare for private persons. The allottees respondent nos. 3 to 9 have been impleaded. Various persons/companieshave come up by filing intervention applications. We having already permitted allottees/builders to file interventionapplications by our order dated 29th August, 2011 have not issued separate notice to any of the allottees orbuilders. The allottees and builders who have filed application for intervention and represented by the counselhave been heard in detail. In this writ petition intervention applications have been filed on behalf of M/sPanchsheel Built Tech. Pvt. Limited and M/s A.P.V. Reality Limited and M/s R.M.A. Software Park Pvt. Ltd whohave been heard.