eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System ...

JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10.20... Page 64 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59121 of 2009 (Ajeet Singh Versus State of U.P. and others) was filed on 4.11.2009challenging the aforesaid notification dated 15.8.2009 and 16.9.2009 and interim order was passed on 6.11.2009directing that if the petitioner has not been dispensed with, there shall be status-quo with regard to the petitioner.Interim order was continued by subsequent order passed by this court. only 9.12.2009, if the petitioner has notbeen dispensed with, status-quo shall be maintained with regard to the petitioner. Interim order was continuing bysubsequent order passed by this court. Apart from Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59121 of 2009 (Ajeet Singh Vs.State of U.P. and others), Writ Petition No.59122 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 59761 of 2009, Writ Petition No.59762 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 64564 of 2009,Writ Petition No. 65544 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 66163 of 2009,Writ Petition No. 68487 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 69329 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 69331 of 2009 and Writ PetitionNo. 69332 of 2009 were filed in the year 2009 itself immediately after issuing notification under Section 6 of theLand acquisition Act and in all the writ petitions, interim order is still operating. Other writ petitions in this groupraises more or less similar grounds which needs no repetition. One Writ Petition No. 48232 of 2011 Charan Singhand others Versus State of U.P. and others challenges although notification under Section 4 of Land AcquisitionAct dated 8.9.2008, which has been filed as Annexure-1 in which petitioners plot as mentioned in paragraph 3 ofthe writ petition are mentioned, but date of notification in the prayer has wrongly been given. Notification underSection 6 of the Act was issued on 16.9.2009 which has been filed in other writ petition of the same group. WritPetition No. 48232 of 2001 is also to be treated writ petition challenging the notifications under Section 4 and 6 ofthe Land Acquisition Act dated 8.9.2009 and 16.9.2009 and relief has to be accordingly moulded. In the shortcounter affidavit, which was filed by the authority it has been mentioned in paragraph 7 that plots in question werenot acquired by the declaration as claimed by the petitioner, since the said plots were indicated in the subsequentnotification dated 8.9.2008 and 16.9.2009 as observed above; In all the writ petitions of this group challengingnotification under section 4 dated 8.9.2008 read with Section 17(1) & 17(4) and declaration dated 16.9.2009under Section 6 more or less similar ground are raised, which has already been noted, which needs no repetition.The writ petition in Group-53 relates to village Nagla Nagli, District Gautambudh Nagar. Only one writ petition inthis village being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46469 of 2011 has been filed challenging the notification dated17.3.2009 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. Declaration wasissued vide notification dated 8.4.2010 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Petitioners, who are 16 innumber claim to be Bhoomidhar of plot in possession as mentioned in paragraph nos. 2 and 3 of the writ petition.Petitioners claim that they have old abadi and in spite of their representation land was not exempted. Petitionershave further alleged that respondents with malfide intention has initiated acquisition proceeding, there was noground for dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Declaration under Section 6was issued after more than one year which shows that there was no urgency at all. Petitioners has preferred CivilMisc. Writ Petition No. 27366 of 2010 in which interim order was granted on 14.5.2010. Counter affidavit has beenfiled by the State Government stating therein that possession was taken on 13.7.2010 and out of 82 tenureholders, 20 tenure holders have accepted the compensation. Award relating to the land has not yet beendeclared. Authority has filed counter affidavit reiterating same submission.The writ petition in Group-54 relates to village Nithari, Noida. There are two writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition No.45933 of 2011 (Ravindra Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) and Writ Petition No. 47545 of 2011(Babu Ram and others Vs. State of U.P. and others). In Writ Petition No. 45933 of 2011 (Ravindra Sharma andothers Vs. State of U.P. and others) counter affidavit has been filed by both State as well as authority, which isbeing treated as leading writ petition. Petitioners have challenged the Notification dated 1.6.1976 issued underSection 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land, situated in villageNithari (Suthari). Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 16.9.1976. Petitioners claimed to be owner inpossession of plot No. 171 and 172. Notification is sought to be challenged on the ground that property is stillvacant and has been auctioned in favour of private builders. Land was acquired in 1976, which is lying vacant.Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government stated that possession of land was taken on 28.10.1976and award was declared on 15.7.1978. Filing of the writ petition after more than 33 years has not been explainedand writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of laches alone. Copy of the award has also been filedas Annexure-1. Counter affidavit has also been filed by authority stating that writ petition is highly barred bylaches, after having been filed more than three decades. It has been stated that plots fall in developed Sector-29.Application for intervention has also been filed by M/s Wave Mega City Ptv. Ltd.Writ Petition No. 47545 of 2011(Babu Ram and others Versus State and U.P. and others) also challenges thenotification dated 1.6.1976 and 16.9.1976 issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Petitionerhad also filed application praying that writ petition be de-linked from the bunch of the writ petition. We do not findany reason to de-link the aforesaid writ petition from bunch of the writ petition. Application for de-link standsrejected. Counter affidavit has been filed by the authority, it has been stated that writ petition is liable to bedismissed on the ground of laches. Award has already been declared in the year 1978.