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 56 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011compensation. Award has also been published on 09.08.2011, There was sufficient material before the StateGovernment in invoking urgency clause. Writ petition has been filed with delay. Section 11A is not attracted in thepresent case. Authority has also filed counter affidavit reiterating same pleas as has been taken in the counteraffidavit filed on behalf of State and it has been further stated that authority has so far carried out developmentworks at a cost of Rs. 30.05 crores and allotments were made in the year between 2007-08.The writ petitions in Group-36 relates to village Kasna. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46848 of 2011 (Ajay Pal andothers 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 petitioners, who are eight innumber, challenging the Notification dated 31.12.2004 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4)of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire 406.2448 acres of land of village Kasna. Declaration underSection 6 was issued on 01.07.2005 and award was made on 23.03.2011. Petitioners have prayed for quashingof the aforesaid Notification including award dated 23.03.2011. Petitioners claim that without applying its mindurgency was invoked by the State Government although respondents alleged to have taken possession but thepetitioners are still in possession of land. Petitioner filed objection on 25.07.2008 for exemption of their land fromacquisition. Petitioners claim to have filed several application and reminder. Petitioners further claim that land ofseveral other persons were exempted. Petitioners have also filed supplementary affidavit stating therein that landhas been acquired in colourable exercise of power, after issuance of notification by respondent no. 2 hastransferred huge portion of acquired land to M/s Amrapali Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. by transfer deed dated28.06.2011 and allotment of area one lac sqm. Copy of the allotment dated 31.03.2011 has been filed asAnnexure-SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State, stating that afterpublication of Notification under Section 6 of the Act, possession was taken on 11.04.2007 and about 85%of thetenure holders have accepted compensation under the agreement. Authority has filed counter affidavit reiteratingthe same pleas as has been taken by the State. It has further been stated that development works were carriedout in the area for the amount of Rs. 30.05 crores. Industrial and institutional plots have been allotted in the yearbetween 2007-08. It has further been stated that there is delay in filing writ petition and writ petition deserves tobe dismissed.Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45193 of 2011 (Khushi Ram and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) has been filedchallenging the same Notification and raises more or less similar grounds.Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40852 of 2011(Chaman Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others) as well as Civil Misc.Writ Petition No. 46636 of 2011 (Jai Chand and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) have been filed challengingthe Notification issued under Section 4 dated 11.07.2008 and declaration dated 16.02.2009 issued under Section6 of Land Acquisition Act. Petitioner Chaman Sharma submits that after purchasing the land, shop wasconstructed and petitioner further submits that application for regularization has been moved in the year 2002.Petitioner further submits that he filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42553 of 2010 regarding regularization of hisshop in which writ petition respondents informed that land has already been acquired, thus, petitioner for the firsttime came to know in regard to acquisition of his land on 22.07.2010 hence he has filed present writ petition.Petitioner further submits that Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48294 of 2009 (Maya Devi Bansal and others Vs. Stateof U.P. and others) had been filed challenging the acquisition proceedings in which this Court has granted interimorder on 09.09.2009. Petitioner further claims that he is still in possession and submits that no notice underSection 9 was issued to the petitioner. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State, stating therein that afterpublication of Section 6 declaration, possession was taken over on 09.03.2009 and further about 70% of thetenure holders have already accepted compensation under the agreement. Award has also been published on14.09.2011.In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46636 of the 2011 (Jai Chand and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) more or lesssimilar grounds have been urged.In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46129 of 2011 (Ganeshi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others), Notification dated11.07.2008 and 16.02.2009 have been changed.In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41962 of 2007( Natthu Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others), Notification issuedunder Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 29.12.2001 and declarationunder Section 15.03.2002 have been challenged.Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54028 of 2005 (Kishan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) has been filed challengingthe Notification dated 31.12.2004 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the LandAcquisition Act. Another prayer was made for quashing the Notification dated 28.03.2005 describing it underSection 6. The Notification under Section 4 dated 31.12.2004 is the same Notification which has been challenged
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10.20... Page 57 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45193 of 2011 and the Notification dated 28.03.2005 which have been challengedin the writ petition filed by Kishan Singh, was only munadi of Notification dated 31.12.2004. The declaration underSection 6 in continuance of Notification dated 31.12.2004 was issued on 01.07.2005.In writ petition filed by Kishan Singh, petitioner states that petitioner is bhumidhar of Gata No. 637 in which thereare 33 shops for last 20 years. Petitioner case is that Authorities have left out plots of various influential personsand land of various persons but has taken the land of the petitioner over which valuable Pucca constructions havebeen standing. Shop of one Harish Chandra Bhati was regularized vide order dated 11.02.2003. There was noreason for dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A and interim order was passed by this Court in writ petitionfiled by Kishan Singh on 19.09.2005 directing the parties to maintain status quo. Counter affidavit has been filedby the State stating therein that in plot no. 637 which is recorded in the name of petitioner there are 110eucalyptus trees and sheesham tree. Counter affidavit as well supplementary affidavit has been filed by theauthority stating therein that award has been given on 23.03.2011 and possession of land was taken on28.12.2005, 30.05.32006 and 29.01.2011.The writ petitions in Group-37 relates to village Rasulpur Rai. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45748 of 2011(Surendra Singh Bhati Vs. State of U.P. and others), counter affidavit has been filed, as such aforesaid writpetition is being treated as leading writ petition for this Group. Aforesaid writ petition has been filed by petitionerchallenging the Notification dated 28.11.2002 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of theLand Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire 119.2116 hectare of land of village Rasulpur Rai. Declaration underSection 6 was issued on 29.01.2003. Petitioner raises same grounds which has been raised in Civil Misc. WritPetition No. 44611 of 2011 (Rajendra and others and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) of village Maicha.Counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating therein that after publication, Notification under Sections 4,Notification under Section 6 has been issued and possession of land was taken on 08.05.2003, 04.03.2005 and26.12.2007, and out of 433 tenure holders, 416 tenure holders have already received their compensation underagreement. Award has been declared on 05.06.2009. It has further stated that there were sufficient material toinvoke urgency clause. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the Authority taking same grounds as has beentaken by the State in their counter affidavit. It has further been stated that writ petition has been filed with delayand petitioner having received compensation, cannot challenge acquisition and further development works werecarried out by the authority in the area. Plots have been allotted under Group Housing Scheme between year2003-08 and allotments of plots under 6% of Scheme has also done in the area of 6220 sq.mt. In other writpetitions challenging same notification raises more or less similar ground which needs no repetition.The writ petition in Group-38 relates to village Yusufpur (Chak Sahberi). In this group there is only one petition i.e.Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17725 of 2010 (Omveer and others Vs. State of U.P. and others). In the said writpetition pleadings are complete. In the aforesaid writ petition, petitioners who are five in number have challengedNotification dated 10.04.2006 issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) proposing to acquire55.146 heaters of land of village Yusufpur (Chak Sahberi) and declaration under Section 6 was issued on06.09.2007. It is pleaded that some of plots of aforesaid village was not acquired due to reason of Abadi existingin the aforesaid plots. Petitioners have been discriminated in the matter of acquisition and without application ofmind, State Government has dispensed with inquiry and proposal lapsed since no award has been made withintwo years. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State, stating therein that after publication of Notification underSection 6, possession was taken on 29.11.2007 and award has also been issued on 14.09.2011 and there wassufficient material for invoking urgency clause. Petitioners have filed aforesaid writ petition with delay as such writpetition is liable to be dismissed.The writ petitions in Group-39 relates to village Khera Chauganpur. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42232 of 2011(Subhash Chand Bhati and others and others Vs. State of U.P. and others), counter affidavit has been filed, assuch aforesaid writ petition is being treated as leading writ petition for this Group. Aforesaid writ petition has beenfiled by petitioners, who are 40 in number, have challenged the Notification dated 31.08.2007 issued underSection 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire 94.6923 hectare ofland of village Khera Chauganpur. Declaration under Section 6 was made on 27.02.2008. Petitioners claim to bein possession of land and cultivating their land. There was no such immediate urgency to issue notification underSections 17(1) and17(4). It has further been pleaded that land is being given to private builders to construct highrise buildings. Reliance has also been placed on the Division Bench judgment dated 30.05.2011 passed in CivilMisc. Writ Petition No. 20156 of 2009 (Smt. Rajni and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) as well as anotherjudgement of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 500 of 2010 (Devendra Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P.and others) of village Shahberi and Surajpur. Counter affidavit has been filed by State, stating therein that afterpublication of Notification under Section 6 possession of land was taken on 19.03.2008 proposing to acquire anarea 86.6613 hectares and out of 220 tenure holders 85 have taken compensation with regard to area 30.7591hectares. Interim orders have been passed by this Court/Hon'ble Apex Court. Award has been issued on
Page 1 and 2:
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6: JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
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?