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 58 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/201127.08.2011. Letter dated 30.11.2006 written by Collector, recommending issuance of Notification under Section 4read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) has been filed as Annexure-CA-3. Counter affidavit has also been filed by theAuthority repeating pleas taken by State. It has further been stated that land has been carved out of the acquiredland is institutional, and industrial. Other writ petitions of this group raises more or less same grounds of challengewhich needs no repetition.The writ petitions in Group-40 relates to village Devla. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31126 of 2011 (Chaval Singhand others and others 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 filed by the petitioners whoare six in number challenging the Notification dated 26.05.2009 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1)and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire 107.0512 hectare of land of village Devla. Declarationunder Section 6 was made on 22.06.2009. Petitioners claim to be bhumidhar of plot mentioned in paragraph 3 ofthe writ petition. Some of the plots of village in question have not been acquired because there is abadi existingwhereas petitioners have been discriminated There was no urgency in the matter to invoke Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is mandatory on the part of the State Government to afford opportunity ofhearing to the persons whose land has been sought to be acquired, plots in question are used for abadi and forother purpose and their plots in question are liable to be excluded from acquisition. Petitioners are living there andabadi in the plots as mentioned above. Affidavit has been filed by petitioners stating that petitioners have notaccepted compensation with regard to the plots no. 215.223.181,218, 64, 320 and 11. Counter affidavit has beenfiled by State stating therein that after issuance of Notification under Section 6 possession was taken on14.09.2009, details have been mentioned in paragraph-11 clearly indicating that out of 698 tenure holders 130tenure holders have already accepted compensation. It has further been stated that there was sufficient materialto invoke urgency clause. It has been stated in paragraph 23 that possession has not been taken of those area ofwhich interim orders of any competent Court was granted or where dense abadi or constructions had been found.Possession memo has been filed as Annexure No. CA-4 to the counter affidavit.Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42812 of 2009 (Mohd. Shakil and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) has been filedby three petitioners in which this Hon'ble Court has granted interim order directing for maintaining status quo withregard to khasra nos.451, 452, 453 and 461 of the revenue village Devla, Pargana Dadri, Tehsil Dadri, DistrictGautam Buddha Nagar. Writ petition has been filed challenging the Notification dated 26.05.2009 issued underSection 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire 107.0512 hectare ofland. Declaration under Section 6 has been made on 22.06.2009. Petitioners' case is that possession has notbeen taken. Applications were filed before for declaration of land as non-agricultural land. Counter affidavit hasbeen filed by the State stating therein that possession was taken 14.09.2009. Petitioners case is that possessionmemo filed as Annexure CA-3 to the counter affidavit clearly indicating that possession has not been taken inview of the interim order passed in present writ petition filed by Mohd. Shakil and others. It has further beenpleaded by the petitioner that greater Noida Authority has also made recommendation for invoking urgency clausebut no details of any material have been given, even 10% of the amount was not deposited at the time ofrecommendation. Petitioners further alleged that there is no compliance of Section 17(3A).In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.50417 of 2009 (M/s Tosha International Limited and others Vs. State of U.P. andothers), petitioners who are five in number, have challenged the Notification dated 26.05.2009 issued underSection 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, and the declaration under Section 6 hasbeen made on 22.06.2009. Interim order was passed in the aforesaid writ petition directing to maintain status quowhich is continuing. The petitioners case is that after purchase of the property by petitioner no. 1 Company wasregistered and application was moved under Section 143 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dadrivide order dated 21.01.1991 declared the land to be non-agricultural. Petitioner no. 1 started manufacturingpicture tube since year 1990. Petitioner no. 1 is running industrial unit after having obtained necessary licences.Petitioner claim to have initiated proceedings for declaration of entire land as SEZ and petitioners application forgrant of SEZ status is pending consideration in accordance with Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. Further,Government of India has already issued letter on 17.01.2006 to the petitioner requiring incorporation ofcommitments by the State Government with regard to the matters mentioned therein. State Government has alsoheld meeting dated 20.12.2006 and the matter is under active consideration. Petitioner has also written letter toGreater Noidia for Spot Zoning. However in respect of aforesaid the State Government has chosen to acquire plot1.499 hectares belonging to the petitioners. Petitioners has challenged the Notification stating that landcomprising 26 acres of area has already declared an industrial land and matter regarding declaration of SEZstatus is under consideration before the Government of India. Petitioners claim to have sent application to theState Government for exemption of their land on 23.10.2007 on which report was called from Greater NoidaAuthority vide letter dated 27.02.2008, report was submitted on 11.12.2008 recommending exemption of area4.5649 hectare from plots nos. 231 to 238. It has further been stated that no allotment has been made in villageDevla. Petitioners have also relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 13.05.2011 passed in Civil
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10.20... Page 59 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011Misc. Writ Petition 48204 of 2009 (M/s R.P. Electronics & anr v. State of UP & ors). Petitioner has also relied onthe survey report dated 08.11.2007 in which report mention has been made that M/s Tosha International Ltd. hasbeen found which was reported to be closed.There are other writ petitions relating to village Devla which was filed in the year 2009 itself which are included inthis Bunch and in the aforesaid writ petitions interim orders were also passed by this Court directing to maintainstatus quo. More or less similar grounds have been taken for challenge the Notification.In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54424 of 2009 (Smt. Shakuntala and others Vs. State of U.P. and others), interimorder was passed by this Court on 15.10.2009. Counter affidavit has been filed stating therein that possessionwas taken on 14.09.2009. However there is no mention of any allotment in the village in question.In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57032 of 2009 (Manaktala Chemical (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others),petitioners have challenged the Notification dated 26.05.2009 and 22.06.2009. Interim order was granted on29.10.2009 which is continuing. It has been stated that there does not exist any order of the State Governmentwith regard to dispensation of the inquiry under Section 5-A. Petitioner's company is using the plot for industrialpurposes. Report filed as Annexure-6 has been referred to which inspection report indicates that petitionersfactory was over plot Nos. 563, 564, 573 and 574 which was reported closed. Petitioners claims that factory is inexistence since 1993 and reiterated that license has been granted by the Director Industries. It is further pleadedthat the land sought to be acquired by impugned Notification is part of National Capital Region and the authorityresponsible for approval of the master plan is National Capital Region Planning Board, New Delhi and there is noapproval of NCRP Board. In the counter affidavit of the authority it has been pleaded that there is no provision in1985 Act which required approval of NCRP Board before acquisition of land. Section 19 of the Act, 1985 clearlyshows that same is regarding the observation and suggestions. In the rejoinder affidavit it is asserted that priorapproval of NCRP Board having not been taken. Authority can not implement any project affecting land use.Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government in which possession is claim to have been taken on14.09.2009. It was admitted that factory was established at plot no. 563, 564, 573 and 574. Copy of the surveyreport has been attached to the counter affidavit as well as possession memo. Rejoinder affidavit has been filedstating therein that possession memo does not disclose that possession was taken and from whom petitionersclaim to be still in possession and possession memo is termed to be paper transaction only. Other writ petitionschallenging above Notifications raises more or less same grounds which needs no specific mention.The writ petitions in Group-41 relates to village Junpat. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48253 of 2011 (KhemChand and other and others 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 filed by the petitioners whoare ten in number have challenged the Notification dated 31.01.2008 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, and the declaration under Section 6 made on 30.06.2009. Petitionersclaim to be bhumidhar of plots mentioned in paragraphs 3 of the writ petition. Petitioners' case is that StateGovernment has wrongly and illegally mentioned that land has been acquired for Planned Industrial Development.In fact land has been sought to be acquired to transfer the same to the Private Builders, as such entire exercise iscolourable exercise of power and there was no sufficient material to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5-A.Petitioners under bonafide impression that land of village junpat shall be utilised for Planned IndustrialDevelopment have not challenged the acquisition earlier. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Authority statingthat after the Notification was issued under Section 6 possession was taken after issuance of notice underSection 9, development work has taken place and there was sufficient material available before the StateGovernment for dispensing the inquiry. There is delay in filing writ petition. Possession was taken on 21.11.2008and 16.09.2010. It has been specifically stated that land of village Junpat has not been allotted to any of thebuilders.Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41558 of 2009 (Surendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) has been filed by thepetitioner challenging the same Notification. Writ petition was filed on 11.08.2009 in which interim order was alsopassed by this Court on 13.08.2009 which is still continuing. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State in thiswrit petition also stating therein that possession was taken on 21.11.2008 and the letter dated 14.02.2009 waswritten by the Authority alongwith justification for invoking Section 17 and enquiry under Section 5A wasdispensed with on the basis of relevant materials available on record. Land is agricultural land and no abadi wasthere at the time of constructions.The writ petition in Group 1 to 41 relates to different villages of Greator Noida and Group-42 to 65 relates todifferent villages of Noida, which shall now be noted. Writ petition of Group 42 relates to Village Asdullapur. Thereis only one writ petition of this group, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47486 of 2011 (Rajee and others Vs. Stateof U.P. and others). By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged notification dated 27.1.2010 issued under
Page 1 and 2:
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8: JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
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?