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 54 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011Another writ petition of this group which need to be mentioned is writ petition no.38184 of 2011 Padam Singh andothers vs. State of U.P. challenging the same notifications. It is pleaded that the Khasra no.6 is being used forresidential and agricultural purposes and the said land was entitled to be exempted from the acquisition. Thenotification under Section-4 was issued with delay. No award having been made within two years, the acquisitionshall lapse. Land use has been changed. It has further been stated that there is no justification for dispensing withthe inquiry under Section5-A. Acquisition proceedings are void and suffers from malafide and non-application ofmind. The respondents have changed the purpose of acquisition and the land is being used for residentialcolonies by allotting the same to private builders. Applications for intervention has been filed by NOIDA FlatsBuyers Association as well as by M/s R.N.A. Software Park Private Limited and M/s Super Tech Limited. M/sAdvance Compusfost Pvt. Limited has also filed an intervention application and by one by M/s Amrapali CenturianPark Pvt. Limited which all have been heard. Other petitioners of this group raises more or less similar grounds ofchallenge to the notifications which need no repetition.The writ petitions in Group-31 relates to village Luksar. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46412 of 2011 (Veerpal andothers Vs. State of U.P. and others), pleadings are complete, as such aforesaid writ petition is being treated asleading writ petition for this Group. Aforesaid writ petition has been filed by 35 petitioners challenging theNotification dated 11.07.2008 issued under Section 17 (1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing toacquire 181.300 hectare of land of village Luksar. Declaration under Section 6 of the aforesaid Act was issued on29.01.2009. Petitioners case in the aforesaid group of writ petitions is that petitioners are owner and bhumidhar ofthe land as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. Petitioners case is that Sections 17(1) and 17(4) wasinvoked by the respondents without applying their mind since there was no urgency for planned IndustrialDevelopment. Petitioners were under bonafide belief that their land have acquired to serve the public purpose.Acquiring authority being in dominating position, petitioners were left with no other option but to accept thecompensation. However letter on petitioner came to know that the very purpose of acquiring their land has nowbeen changed by the respondents by playing fraud on the statute and the land is being transferred to privatebuilders for the purposes of constructions of commercial complex and residential houses and towers under theGroup Housing Scheme, hence petitioners have now challenged the impugned Notification. No award has beenpassed within two years , as such acquisition in question has lapsed. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Statestating that after publication of Notification in question possession of the land was taken on 09.03.2009 and about98% tenure holders have accepted the compensation and award has been declared on 27.08.2011 and theproposal of acquisition of 181.300 hectares of land was submitted by the Greater Noida Authority vide letter dated18.01.2006 which was forwarded to the Collector, Gautam Budh Nagar vide letter dated 09.05.2008. StateGovernment after considering the material placed before it dispensed the inquiry under Section 5 A and paymentof compensation was made in accordance with 1997 Rules. Writ petitions were filed with delay. Counter affidavithas also been filed by respondent no. 3 reiterating the pleas taken by the State in its counter affidavit. It hasfurther been stated that development works were carried out in the area and on area of 3436.40 hectares hasbeen allotted to P.A.C., District Jail under 6% scheme the villagers have also been allotted. Petitioners havingaccepted the compensation, they cannot challenge acquisition. Section 11 A is not applicable in the present case.Other writ petitions of the aforesaid village raises more or less same grounds which need no repetition.The writ petitions in Group-32 relates to village Badpura. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36047 of 2010 (RameshChandra Vs. State of U.P. and others), pleadings are complete, as such aforesaid writ petition is being treated asleading writ petition for this Group. Aforesaid writ petition has been filed challenging the Notification dated20.10.2001 issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act of plat no.102 M area 0.7500 acre situated in village Badpura and the declaration under Section 6 was issued 03.12.2009issued. Notice was published by respondent no. 2 in the newspaper on 19.06.2009 proposing to purchase land onthe basis of agreement by tenure holders in which rest of plot no. 102M was notified. Petitioner claims that hisland is on the G.T. Road covered with boundary wall and several constructions. Interim order was passed by thisCourt on 05.07.2011 directing to maintain status quo with regard to possession of land in question. Petitioner filedobjection for giving therein market value of the land. Award has been issued on 31.03.2009 fixing Rs. 74.50 persquare yard. Award having being made after two years after publication of declaration under Section 6, as suchentire acquisition has lapsed. In the counter affidavit filed by the State it has been stated that possession of theland was taken on 16.03.2002. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that land was acquired forPlanned Industrial Development more specifically for constructions of approach road, Railway Over Bridge.Urgency clause was rightly invoked. Writ petition has been filed with delay. Section 11 A is not applicable. In thecounter affidavit filed by the Authority it has been stated that petitioners themselves have not come forward toaccept compensation. Possession of plot in question was taken in the year 2001. Writ petition has been filed withgreat delay.In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32225 of 2010 ( Vijendra Kumar Garg and others Vs. State of U.P. and others)same notification has been challenged in which interim order was passed by this Court on 27.10.2010 directing
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10.20... Page 55 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011the parties to maintain status quo. More or less similar grounds have been taken. It has been stated in paragraph10 of writ petition that petitioner could know about the award only in November, 2009.The writ petitions in Group-33 relates to village Raipur Bangar. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46483 of 2011(Gajraj Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others), pleadings are complete, as such aforesaid writ petition isbeing treated as leading writ petition for this Group. By the aforesaid writ petition petitioners who are 171 innumber have challenged the Notification dated 30.06.2006 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire 180.8114 hectares of land of village Raipur Bangar,declaration under Section 6 was made on 16.01.2007. Petitioners case in the writ petition is that the land wasacquired for Planned Industrial Development whereas land has been given to the private builders who are makingresidential houses and flats. Compensation has been given at the rate of 711/- per square yard but the land hasbeen leased out at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per square yard. Petitioners claim that all those facility given to thevillagers and land holders of village patwari should also be given to the petitioners. Petitioners claim to be entitledfor additional compensation alongwith 16% land. Petitioner no. 169 to 171 are entitled to get residential house plotnos. 284 and 285. There was no occasion to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5A. In the counter affidavitfiled by the State it has been stated that after publication of Notification under Section 6, possession of land wastaken on 15.03.2007 and out of680 tenure holders, 630 tenure holders have already received their compensation.Award has been declared on 25.05.2011. There was sufficient material available for invocation of the urgencyclause. There is delay in filing writ petition. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the Authority taking samepleas as have been taken by the State in its counter affidavit and there was no Abadi in the village of thepetitioners and as petitioners having taken compensation, they cannot challenge acquisition proceedings.In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46645 of 2011 (Atar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) more or less similargrounds have been taken which needs no repetition.The writ petitions in Group-34 relates to village Malakpur. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46289 of 2011 (CharanSingh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others), pleadings are complete, as such aforesaid writ petition is beingtreated as leading writ petition for this Group. Aforesaid writ petition has been filed by 37 petitioners challengingthe Notification dated 02.05.2003 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the LandAcquisition Act, proposing to acquire 382.4593 acre of land of village Malakpur. Declaration under Section 6 wasissued on 02.05.2003. Petitioners claim that land is recorded in their name which is only source of their incomeand they have no other source of their livelihood. There was no demand of any industrialist for establishing theindustry and respondents have no approved scheme or project. Urgency clause was invoked without applicationof mind. Petitioners claims to have filed their respective objection for de-notifying the land which falls in abadi asthey have built their house much prior to issuance of the impugned notifications. Counter affidavit has been filedby the State, stating therein that after publication of the Notification under Section 6 possession was taken on05.08.2004 and out of 295 tenure holders 275 tenure holders have already accepted compensation under theagreement and award has also been declared on 11.09.2009. There was sufficient material before the StateGovernment for invoking urgency claus. Counter affidavit filed by the Authority reiterating the pleas taken by theState Government and it has been stated that writ petitions have been filed with great delay. Further,development work has already taken place and area demarcated sector wise which are institutional Green-1 andEcotech-2. It has further been stated that Notification of village Malakpur was upheld in Civil Misc. Writ PetitionNos. 22875 of 2003 (Om Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) and 24654 of 2003 (Harpal Sing and others Vs.State of U.P. others) vide judgement and order dated 08.12.2008.The writ petitions in Group-35 relates to village Maicha. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44611 of 2011 (Rajendraand others and others Vs. State of U.P. and others), pleadings are complete, as such aforesaid writ petition isbeing treated as leading writ petition for this Group. Aforesaid writ petition has been filed by petitioners, who arefour in number, challenging the Notification dated 17.04.2006 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire 343.5881 hectare of land of village Maicha for PlannedIndustrial Development. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 09.02.2007. Petitioners case is that StateGovernment has not not applied its mind while dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A. No notice underSection 9 was issued to the petitioners and act of taking of possession is the case of clear cut fraud and 80% ofthe compensation has not yet been paid. There is violation of Section 17(3A). Petitioners are still in actualpossession of land and there has been pick and choose policy and some of the plots have been left over fromacquisition and petitioner's plots have been taken into acquisition. No award has been given within two years andacquisition has lapsed. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17363 of 2008 (Veer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) wasfiled challenging the impugned Notification in which this Court granted interim order on 18.08.2008 directing theparties to maintain status quo. Several other writ petitions have been filed challenging the same notification whichare pending. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, it has been stated that after publication of Notification underSection 6 possession of land was taken on 11.04.2007 and about 85% tenure holders have already accepted
Page 1 and 2:
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
Page 3 and 4: JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?