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 66 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011Nagar. In Writ Petition No. 44493 of 2011 ( Jagdish Vs. State of U.P. and others), petitioners have challengedNotification dated 16.4.2008 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) & 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act foracquiring 171.0945 Hectares of land situated in village Shahadara, Pargana Dadari, Tehsil Sadar, DistrictGautambudh Nagar. Declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 16.6.2008. Petitioner'scase is that he is owner of Bhoomidhar of Khasra No. 589 area 0.9170 hectares. It is stated that there was nourgency for the acquisition of the land for the planned industrial development and respondents in order to fulfiltheir political obligations/promise to the private builders dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the LandAcquisition Act. Authority was in dominating position, the petitioners were left with no option but to accept thecompensation under the provision of Karar Niyamawaly 1997. Respondents have changed the purpose ofacquisition by transferring the land to private builders, copy of the lease deed granted to private builders on7.7.2011 has been annexed as Annexure, 4,5, and 6 to this writ petition. Counter affidavit has been filed by theState Government as well as authority. In the counter affidavit of the State Government, it has been stated thatpossession of land was taken on 14.7.2008 and out of 560 tenure holders, 316 tenure holders have alreadyreceived their compensation under agreement. Award has also been declared on 14.9.2011. There was sufficientmaterial before the State Government for dispensing with the inquiry. Petitioner having accepted compensation,cannot be allowed to challenge the acquisition. In the counter affidavit filed by the Authority it has been stated thatpetitioners have received compensation to the tune of Rs. 91 Lacs and 17 thousand. Notification impugned wasupheld in the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29575 of 2008, against which Special Leave Petition has also beendismissed.Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46037 of 2011( Rishipal Singh Versus State of U.P. and others) raises similar groundto challenge the aforesaid notification which needs no repetition.Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46405 of 2011 (Sri Pal Singh Versus State of U.P. and others) has been filed forchallenging the Notification dated 16.4.2008 which has been impugned in other writ petition of this group.Petitioners' plot being included in the aforesaid notification. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act have alreadybeen issued on 16.6.2008 which has already been filed in above writ petition, this petition be also treated as thewrit petition against both the notification it shall be decided accordingly.The writ petition in Group-58 relates to village Soharkha Jahidabad, District Gautambudh Nagar. Civil Misc. WritPetition No. 42834 of 2011 (Amar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) has been filed challenging the Notificationdated 27.7.2006 issued under Section 6 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act foracquiring 4848 hectares of land situated in Village Soharkha Jahidabad. Section 4 notification was issued on12.4.2005( copy of the notification has been filed alongwith supplementary affidavit). Petitioners' case is that hehas 1/7th share in plot No. 719 and whole plot is covered by Pucca construction. Petitioner claims to be moved anapplication before the Noida Authority for exempting the land from the acquisition. In the revenue Record, plot hasbeen recorded as abadi. Petitioner has not taken compensation under agreement. Respondents after acquiringthe land allotted to the private builders. There was no urgency to dispense with the inquiry. Application forintervention in this writ petition has been filed by M/s Unitech Pvt. Ltd., who claims to have invested 53 Crores inthe project.Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43825 of 2011 (Nepal and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) has been filed by 34persons challenging the notification dated 12.4.2005 issued under section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) ofthe Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire 449.412 hectares of of land situated in village Soharkha Zahidabad,Tehsil Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar. Declaration under Section was made on 27.7.2006. Petitioner claimedto the agriculturalist, dependent on the agriculture income. Petitioner case is that declaration under section 6 wasissued after period of 15 months whereas declaration is required to be issued within one year. It is furthersubmitted that issuance of declaration after 15 months clearly indicates that there was no urgency in dispensingwith the inquiry. Land is still in possession of the petitioner and now for the year 2010-11 plots have been soughtto be allotted to various private builders. In paragraph 19 to 25 of the writ petition details of various plots allotted tothe builders of different area have been indicated. M/s Unitech Limited has been transferred an area of 288500.00sq. meter of Plot No. 001 by lease deed dated 3.3.2008. M/s Ajnara India Limited vide lease deed dated1.10.2010 has been transferred an area of 49410.00 sq. Meter of Plot No. GH-01/B -Sector 74, Noida. By anotherlease deed dated 1.9.2010 an area of 20000.00 Sq. Meter of land has been transferred in favour of M/s ExpressBuilders and Promoters Private Limited. Another lease dated 17.6.2010 an area of 2000.00 Sq. meter of Plot No.GH-01/C -Sector 78 has been transferred in favour of M/s G.S. Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Again vide lease dated31.8.2010 an area of 20500.00 sq. Meter of Plot No. GH-02/C-Sector-77, Noida has been transferred in favour ofM/s Civitech Developers Pvt. Ltd. Further vide lease deed dated 28.5.2010 an area of 21393.83 Sq. Meter of PlotNo. GH-05/B-Sector 78, Noida has been transferred in favour of M/s Sunshine Infrawell Pvt. Ltd. Further videlease deed dated 7.10.2010 an area of 200000.00 Sq. Meter of Plot No. GH-01/A-Sector 74, Noida has beentransferred in favour of M/s Supertech Limited. All the aforesaid builders have filed intervention application in this
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10.20... Page 67 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011writ petition. In the intervention application it has been stated that they have invested huge amount in thedevelopment of infrastructure of area and in this regard photograph of the spot has also been annexed. Counteraffidavit has been filed by the authority stating therein that possession of land has been taken on 16.10.2006 andco-tenure holders have received the compensation amount of an area in percentage 64.14%. Award have alreadybeen made on 27.7.2011. Development has taken place in the village land has been vested with the authority.Authority has invested huge amount in the development of the area.Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.45462 of 2011 (Parsu Ram and others Vs. state of U.P. and others) has been filedchallenging the notification under Section 6 dated 27.7.2006. Petitioners claim that they are Bhoomidhar of plotmentioned in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. Notification under Section 6 of the Act has been issued after morethan one year of issuance of notification under Section 4 dated 12.4.2005. In the possession memo dated16.10.2006 is only paper possession, reference of various lease granted to different builders have been given inparagraph no. 14 of the writ petition. Compensation under agreement was paid @ of Rs. 424 Sq. Meter whereastransfer is being made on exorbitantly in order to take huge profit from the petitioners. Transfer was made morethan 22 thousand per sq. meter of land in favour of the builders. There was no urgency for dispensing with theinquiry under section 5-A of the Act. Petitioner being illiterate agriculturist and being in possession, after acquiringknowledge have filed writ petition reiterating the full fact. In camouflage of the acquisition for the aforesaiddevelopment, respondents have issued impugned notification and thereafter, transferred the land to privatebuilders at huge profit. Application for intervention has been moved on behalf of Mahagun Real Estate also.The writ petition in Group-59 relates to village Sultanpur, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar. InCivil Writ Petition No. 46764 of 2011 (Ramesh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) petitioners havechallenged the notification dated 11.2.1994 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(1-A) of theLand Acquisition Act for acquiring the land situated in village Sultanpur, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri, DistrictGautambudh Nagar. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 18.7.1994. Petitioners claimed to be Bhoomidharof the land which has been shown in the Map 11-A (Annexure-1) to the writ petition. Petitioner claims to havereceived compensation under agreement. Petitioners case is that there was no urgency for invoking urgencyclause and in the year 2010-11 land has been transferred to private builders. Counter affidavit has been filed bythe State Government stating that possession of the land was taken on 24.8.1995 and award was declared on9.5.1997. After such long lapse of period, writ petition cannot be entertained, it is highly barred by laches anddeserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46766 of 2011 (Jeet Ram and others Vs. state of U.P. and others) challenges thenotification dated 2.5.2003 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(1-A) of the Land AcquisitionAct for acquiring the land. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 29.5.2003. Petitioner case is that they areBhoomidhar of the land mentioned in paragraph no. 3 of the writ petition. Allegations is that land has not beenused for the purposes it was acquired and have been transferred to various builders. There was no urgency fordispensing with the inquiry. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government stating that possession ofthe land was taken on 24.6.2003. Out of 49 tenure holders, 42 tenure holders have received compensation.Award have already been declared on 10.9.2010. Writ Petition is barred by laches. Counter affidavit has beenfiled by the authority taking similar ground. It is stated that petitioner nos. 1 to 5 have received compensation on5.3.2003 and petitioner nos. 6 to 9 have nothing to do for plot No. 639 to 646 nor any documents have been filedin that regard.Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46785 of 2011(Jeet Ram and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) has been filedchallenging the Notification dated 6.12.1999 issued under Section 4. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act wasissued vide notification dated 9.3.2000. Petitioners claim to be Bhoomidhar in possession of the land asmentioned in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. Petitioners' case is that land was acquired for Planned IndustrialDevelopment but same has not been used for the aforesaid purpose, rather it has been transferred to privatebuilders. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government stating that possession of the land was takenon 14.12.2000 and award was issued on 18.6.2005. Writ Petition is highly barred by time and deserves to bedismissed on this ground alone.Writ petitions of Group No.60 relate to village Suthiyana. In Writ Petition No.43264 of 2011, Hariom and others Vs.State of U.P. and others, counter affidavit has been field by the State as well as by the NOIDA Authority, which isbeing treated as leading writ petition. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the notificationdated 24.09.2006, issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) & 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act proposing toacquire 189.691 hectares land of village Suthiyana. Petitioners' case in the writ petition is that petitioners arebhoomidhars of Khasra No.258. The petitioners were in bona fide belief that their lands were being acquired toserve the purpose, i.e. Planned Industrial Development and the acquiring body being in dominating position, theywere left with no option but to accept the compensation under Rules 1997. The petitioners later on came to know
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:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16: JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
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?