eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System ...

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