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 62 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring 27.9106 hectares of land, situated invillage Chapruli Bangar in continuation of earlier notification dated 4.7.2003. Petitioners claim to be small tenureholder of the village. Petitioners' case is that against the will of farmers, the compensation was paid at the rate ofRs. 378 per square yard in the year 2003, which is now being allotted to the builders'/colonizers for the grouphousing in the year 2010 on at the rate of Rs. 22440 per sq. yard. Petitioners' case is that acquisition of land istotally illegal, which has been done for earning profit. There was no urgency for invoking Section 17(1) & 17(4) ofthe Act. Petitioners case is that they came to know in the year 2010 that land was allotted to the builders like 3-CCompany, Urbtech and Paras Group Housing. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government statingthat possession of the land was taken on 22.8.2003 and 11.1.2005. Out of 138 tenure holders, 118 tenure holdershave received compensation. Award have also been declared on 19.9.2011. It has been stated that compensationhave been accepted by the petitioners. Petitioners having remains silent for such long time, cannot be allowed tochallenge the acquisition. Authority has also filed counter affidavit reiterating the plea taken by the StateGovernment. It has been further stated that authority has spend huge amount of Rs. 25 Crores on thedevelopment of infrastructure of the village. Petitioners have received compensation at the rate of 378 per sq.Yard.The writ petition in Group-48 relates to village Chaura Sadatpur, Pargana Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar.There is only one writ petition of this group being Civil Writ Petition No. 46407 of 2011 (Liley Ram Vs. State ofU.P. and others). Petitioner has challenged the notification dated 16.9.1976 issued under Section 6 of the Act incontinuation of Section 4 of the Act issued earlier for acquiring 1008.40 Acres of land situated in Village ChauraSadatpur, Pargana Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar. Petitioner claims to be the owner of the Plot No. 760M and788. Petitioner's case is that now the land has been sold to private builders at the rate of Rs 1,00,000.00 per sq.yard., whereas petitioner was given only nominal compensation. Counter affidavit has been filed by the StateGovernment stating that the land was acquired in the year 1976 of which possession was taken on 28.10.1976.Award was also declared on 29.7.1978. The award has been brought on record. It has been stated that writpetition is highly barred by laches of about 36 years and be dismissed on this ground alone. Counter affidavit hasbeen filed by the authority reiterating the same facts.The writ petition in Group-49 relates to village Dostpur Mangrauli Bangar, District Gautambudh Nagar. In Civil WritPetition No. 47259 of 2011 (Rajveer and others Vs. State of U.P. and others), 11 petitioners have challenged thenotification dated 17.3.2009 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(1-A) of the Land AcquisitionAct for acquiring 66.684 hectares of land situated in village Dostpur Mangrauli Bangar, District GautambudhNagar. Declaration under Section 6 was issued vide notification dated 8.4.2010. Plot Nos. 222, 423, 268, 328 arebeing used by the petitioners as abadi, which is recorded in the revenue record. There is delay of more than oneyear in issuing of notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, which clearly indicates that there was nourgency in the matter. Petitioners claim that possession has yet not been taken. It is stated that there is nomaterial with the State Government to invoke urgency clause. Counter affidavit has been filed by the authoritystating that possession was taken by the State Government on 22.5.2010. There was no reason to exempt theland of the petitioners. Petitioners are not in possession of the land.The writ petition in Group-50 relates to village Jhatta, District Gautambudh Nagar. Civil Writ Petition No. 47257 of2011 (Bharte and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) is being treated as leading writ petition. Counter affidavithas been filed by both State Government as well as authority. Petitioners who are 42 in number have approachedfor quashing of Notification dated 12.4.2005 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(1-A) of theLand Acquisition Act for acquiring 76.8367 hectares of land situated in village Jhatta, District Gautambudh Nagar.Declaration under Section 6 was issued vide notification dated 28.10.2005. Petitioners claim to be owner inpossession of plot as mentioned in paragraph no. 4 and 5 of the writ petition. Petitioners claim that purpose ofacquisition shown as Planned Industrial Development is not correct, since the respondent no. 4 is transferring theaforesaid land to builders. Possession have not been taken from the petitioners. Petitioners are peacefullyresiding on the aforesaid plot and there was no urgency for invoking Section17(1) & 17(4) of the Land AcquisitionAct. Under Section 11-A, the acquisition have lapsed. Petitioners have stated that State Government and theauthority instead of playing role of facilitator in acquiring the land, has proceeded to colourable exercise of power.Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government stating that possession has been taken on 10.7.2006and out of 165 tenure holders, 122 tenure holders have received compensation. Award under Section 11(1) of theAct has been declared on 10.2.2010. There was sufficient material with the SDtate Government to invoke Section17(4) of the Act. Survey report as well as copy of the award has been filed along with counter affidavit. Counteraffidavit has also been filed by the authority reiterating the same pleadings as has been made by the StateGovernment. It has been stated that development work was carried out by the authority on the acquired land.Ownership of the villagers has vested in the State by the acquisition, hence petitioners cannot challenge theacquisition. Petitioner No. 6 has received compensation. Authority has spend huge amount more than Rs 8Crores on the infrastructure development. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47267 of 2011 (Kanhaiya Lal and others
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10.20... Page 63 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011Vs. State of U.P. and others), petitioners have challenge the Notification dated 17.6.2003 issued under Section 4read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring 56.567 hectares of land, situated invillage Jhatta, District Gautambudh Nagar. Declaration under Section 6 was issued vide notification dated21.7.2003. Petitioners who are 39 in number claim to be owner in possession of the plots as mentioned in theparagraph 4 of the writ petition, same grounds have been taken as was taken in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.47257 of 2011. An application has been filed by the petitioners for deleting the name of the petitioner Nos. 27,28and 29 from the array of the parties, which is allowed and aforesaid petitioners are deleted from the parties. In thecounter affidavit filed by the State Government, it has been stated that possession of the land was taken on10.9.2003 and out of 51 tenure holders, 48 tenure holders have received compensation. Award was also declaredon 17.12.2007. Writ petition has been filed with delay. In the counter affidavit filed by the authority, same plea hasbeen repeated. It has been denied that the petitioners are in possession of the land. It has been stated that therewas no colourable exercise of power in the acquisition. Land has already vested with the State Government, itcannot be reverted back to the original owners.The writ petitions in Group-51 relates to village Khoda, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Dadri, (Sadar) District Gautam BudhaNagar. Writ Petition No. 45196 of 2011 Rampat and others Versus State of U.P. and others, counter affidavit hasbeen filed by the respondents-authority, which is being treated as leading writ petition. Petitioners havechallenged the Notification dated 17.3.1988 under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) & 17(4) of Land AcquisitionAct. Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act made vide notification dated 11.7.1988. Petitionersclaim to be owner in possession of Bhoomidhar of plot as mentioned in paragraph no. 3 of the writ petition.Petitioners allege that invocation of the urgency was not justified. Respondents have illegally changed thepurpose of acquisition. Respondent No.3 is making huge profit. Acquisition have lapsed under Section 11-A of theLand Acquisition Act. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents-authority wherein it has been stated thataward was declared on 1.2.1991 and against the award, petitioners have already filed an application for referencebeing LAR No. 563 of 1998 for enhancement of compensation. It is stated that writ petition is filed in-ordinatedelay, and same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Other writ petitions of this group challenges samenotification on more or less similar grounds. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45224 (Preetam and others Vs. State ofU.P. and others) challenges the Notification dated 12.2.1988, issued under Section 4 as well as Notification dated27.3.1990 under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondentsauthorityin which it has been stated that award has been declared on 1.2.1991. It is further stated that VillageKhoda, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Dadri, (Sadar) District Gautam Budha Nagar is well developed village. Writ petitionhaving been filed with in ordinate delay, same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.The writ petitions in Group-52 relates to village Kondli Banger, Post Office Kasna, District Gautambudh Nagar. InWrit Petition No. 49093 of 2011 (Beliram Vs. State of U.P. and others), counter affidavit has been filed byauthority which writ petition is being treated as leading writ petition. In the present writ petition, petitioners haveprayed for quashing of the notification dated 8.9.2008 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) & 17(4) ofLand Acquisition Act for acquiring 215.83 hectares of land situated in village Kondli Banger, Post Office Kasna,District Gautambudh Nagar. Declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made vide notificationdated 16.9.2009. Petitioner's case is that they are Bhoomidhar in possession of Plot No. 206. It is stated thatsome plot of village have not been acquired due to the reason that abadi exist there, whereas petitioner has beendiscriminated. Urgency clause was invoked without application of mind. Petitioner submitted that there beingdelay of more than one year in issuing of Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Ground ofurgency is falsified. Counter affidavit has been filed by the authority in which it has been sated that notificationunder Section 4 dated 8.9.2008 was published in two daily prominent daily news paper namely "RashtriyaSahara" and "Amar Ujala" on 15.8.2009 and Munadi was made on 21.8.2009. Declaration under Section 6 of theLand Acquisition Act was made vide notification dated on16.9.2009. Petitioner submitted in paragraph no. 13 ofthe counter affidavit it has been mentioned that publication of Section 6 of the Act having been made after aboutone year which clearly indicated that invoking of urgency was misused. It is submitted that publication in the newspaper on 15.8.2008 and Munadi on 21.8.2009 was made to facilitate the issuance of Section 6 of the LandAcquisition Act.In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40265 of 2011(Sunil Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others) notification dated8.9.2008 and 16.9.2009 has been challenged. It has been stated that notification under Section 6 of the LandAcquisition Act was issued nearly after passing of one year, which shows that there was no urgency and urgencyhas wrongly been invoked. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government in which it has been statedthat Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 8.9.2008 was published in two local newspaper "Amar Ujala" on 15.8.2009 and notice for general information was issued on 21.8.2009 and thereafterdeclaration under Section 6 was issued on 16.9.2009. Award has been made on 14.9.2011 and to the similareffect counter affidavit has been filed by the authority.
Page 1 and 2:
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12: JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
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?