eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System ...

JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10.20... Page 65 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011The writ petition in Group-55 relates to village Sadarpur, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar.In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45694 of 2011(Jai Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others), counter affidavithas been filed by the State Government as well as authority which is treated as leading writ petition. Writ Petitionshave been filed praying for quashing of Notification dated 30.3.2002 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) & 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act for acquiring 779.55 Acres of of land situated in village Sadarpur, Pargana andTehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. Declaration under section 6 of Land Acquisition Act was issued on28.6.2003 and award has been made on 29.1.2010, which have been sought to be quashed. Petitioners who are14 in number claim to be owner of plots as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, which is being used foragricultural purposes as claimed by them. Petitioners' case is that possession has not been taken and they areresiding in their plot. Petitioners case is that they were issued printed notice to appear before the AdditionalDistrict Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Gautambudh Nagar, who intended to pay compensation @ 378.92 per sq.yard. Petitioners were told that land has vested with the State Government and petitioners shall be deprived fromreceiving the compensation for long time, hence there is no option except to accept the compensation. Petitionershave accepted 90% compensation and entered into agreement. Petitioners' case is that instead of developingindustries on the spot, respondents-authority have allotted the land to various private builders @ 11531/- per Sq.Metre and 21,000 per Sq. Meter and other builders with different rate. In the present case, even allotment havebeen made in July, 2011. Petitioners case is that there is no urgency in the matter and entire exercise is taintedwith mala fide and colourable exercise of power. Acquisition have lapsed under Section 11-A of the LandAcquisition Act. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government stating therein that possession wastaken on 3.9.2003 and 3.3.2005. Out of 138 tenure holders, 85 tenure holders have received compensation.There was sufficient material before the State Government for invoking urgency clause. Counter affidavit has alsobeen filed by the authority in which apart from reiterating the fact mentioned in the counter affidavit of the StateGovernment, it is stated that area stand demarcated as Sector 44,45,96,98,46 and 43, which are developedsector. Authorities have developed the sector and has invested huge amount. It has been stated that only 45% ofthe land is capable of allotment. It is further stated that against the notification impugned, Civil Misc. Writ PetitionNo. 29031 of 2003 (Amar Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) was filed in this court which wasdismissed by the Division Bench judgment dated 11.7.2003. Other writ petitions of this group challenging thesame notification are more or less on similar grounds which needs no repetition.Writ Petition No. 47522 of 2011( Kalu and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) has been filed challenging theNotification dated 28.1.1994 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) & 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act foracquisition 97.219 Acres of land. Declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued videnotification dated 10.11.1995 and award was also declared on 23.10.2009. Petitioners claim to be owner inpossession of the Plot Nos. 281,313,513. It is alleged that inquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Acthas wrongly been dispensed with. Petitioners' case is that they are in possession and they have not been givenany compensation so far. It is further alleged that land has been transferred to builders. Counter affidavit hasbeen filed by the respondents-authority stating therein that possession of the land was taken on 3.9.2003 and3.3.2005. It is stated that plots have been developed. Writ Petition is barred by laches, it having been filed afterlong lapse of time.The writ petition in Group-56 relates to village Salarpur Khadar, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District GautambudhNagar. In Writ Petition No. 46682 of 2011 (Begram @ Began Vs. State of U.P. and others), counter affidavit hasbeen filed by the respondents-authority as well as State Government, which is being treated as leading writpetition. Petitioner has challenged the Notification dated 11.9.2008 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) & 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act for acquiring 227.077 Hectares of land situated in village Salarpur khadar.Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act made vide notification dated 30.9.2009. Petitioner's caseis that he is Bhoomidhar of plot , as mentioned in paragraph no.4 of the writ petition. Respondents have failed topay compensation in accordance with law. It has been stated that there was no urgency in the acquisition todispense with the inquiry. Against the same Notification Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23640 of 2011 (Hari KishanVersus State of U.P. and others) has been filed in which this court has already granted interim order on 4.5.2010.Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government in which it has been stated that possession of the landwas taken on 3.2.2010 and 25.9.2010. Out of 1970 tenure holders 246 tenure holders have receivedcompensation i.e. about 13%. There was sufficient material to invoke urgency clause. Writ petition has been filedwith delay. Counter affidavit has been filed by the authority repeating averments made in the counter affidavit ofthe State Government. It has been stated that development work was carried out and the area has beendemarcated as Sector 49,78, 79,81,104,101,106 and 107. Allotment was made to private individual as well asIndustrialist, Green Residential and Industrial purpose from time to time. Application for intervention has been filedon behalf of the M/s Three Platinum Softech Pvt. Ltd and therein claims that for allotment of 33 thousand Sq.Meters of land in Sector 107, lease deed was also institute in favour of the applicant on 31.3.2010.The writ petition in Group-57 relates to village Shahadara, Pargana Dadari, Tehsil Sadar, District Gautambudh