eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System ...

JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10.20... Page 69 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011Planned Development of the Industrial Area. The primary and basic purpose of the Authority is the planneddevelopment of area into industrial area. The commercial or residential development carried out by therespondent Authority should have direct and cogent nexus with primary and basic object of development. It ispleaded that respondent has started selling residential property which is beyond its purpose and object. It isalleged that Government is working at the instance of developers. Petitioners have prayed for quashing thenotifications on the grounds set up in the writ petition. Counter affidavit has been filed by the NOIDA authorityseeking that acquisition proceedings have been concluded, the land acquisition proceedings cannot be quashedand notification has rightly been issued invoking urgency clause. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by thepetitioners taking ground that invocation of urgency clause was made without any rational basis. Counter affidavithas also been filed by the State stating that possession of the land has been taken on 27.01.2007. It is pleadedthat there was substantial material for invoking the urgency clause by the State Government and compensationhas been paid to the tenure holders under agreement under Rules 1997. The award has also been given on21.11.2009, which has been filed along with the counter affidavit.Another Writ Petition No.6726 of 2007, Hargyan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others has been filed challenging theaforesaid notifications dated 26.09.2006 and 06.01.2007. Petitioner claims that Plot No.70 is agricultural propertyof him, which is adjacent to old abadi of the village. Petitioner has purchased 100 square yard by sale deed dated24.02.2006. Inquiry under Section 5A has wrongly been dispensed with.Writ petitions of Group No.64 relate to village Shafipur. Writ Petition No.46011 of 2011, Hari Singh and others Vs.State of U.P. and others has been filed challenging the notification dated 02.05.2003 issued under Section 4 readwith Sections 17(1) & 17(4) of the Act proposing to acquire 86.0427 acres land of village Shafipur. Declarationunder Section 6 of the Act was issued on 16.06.2003. Petitioners' case in this writ petition is that petitioners arepushtaini bhoomidhars of Plots No.164, 166 & 167. Petitioners submit that for the village Shafipur the rate notifiedwas Rs.78.92p per square yard for the relevant period. Petitioners were paid compensation at the rate ofRs.204.50p per square yard. Petitioners accepted compensation under some mis-conception. Inquiry underSection 5A has been dispensed with without any valid reason. Petitioners were misrepresented that land fellwithin the jurisdiction of respondent No.3 whereas the land fell within the jurisdiction of respondent No.2 andpetitioners were entitled for compensation @ Rs.329.76p per square yard. Only on 25% of the area, road hasbeen constructed, rest of the land is in the possession of the petitioners. Counter affidavit has been filed by theState stating that possession of the land was taken on 18.07.2003. Award was also declared on 25.05.2007. Outof 47 tenure-holders, 40 have received compensation in terms of the agreement. For rest, the award has beendeclared. As petitioners accepted compensation in accordance with the agreement, hence they have no right tochallenge the acquisition. The land of the petitioners lies in territorial jurisdiction of Respondent No.3, GreaterNOIDA Authority.Writ Petition No.46393 of 2011, Azaad and others Vs. State of U.P. and others has been filed challenging thenotification dated 15.12.1999 issued under Section 4 and the notification dated 22.04.2000 issued under Section6 for acquiring 57.587 acres land of village Shafipur. Petitioners' case in this writ petition is that they arebhoomidhars of plots mentioned in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. Petitioners claim that the area of villageShafipur falls within the jurisdiction of respondent No.2 and the land should not have been acquired for thepurposes of respondent No.3. Petitioners were given the compensation at the rate prescribed by respondentNo.3. Inquiry under Section 5A has wrongly been dispensed with.Writ petitions of Group No.65 relate to village Khodna Khurd. In Writ Petition No.46602 of 2011, Lekhraj Singhand others Vs. State of U.P. and others, counter affidavit has been filed by the State as well as by the Authorityhence the said writ petition is being treated as leading writ petition. The writ petition has been filed by 15petitioners challenging the notification dated 26.05.2009 issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) & 17(4)of the Act proposing acquisition of 201.7386 hectares of land of village Khodna Khurd. Declaration under Section6 was issued on 22.06.2009. Petitioners claim to be owners of plot as mentioned in Paragraphs No.4 to 13 of thewrit petition. Petitioners' case in the writ petition is that some of the petitioners have not received compensationand only few have accepted the same under protest. There is no urgency in the acquisition and withoutapplication of mind, the State has invoked Sections 17(1) & 17(4). Although the plot in dispute was acquired forPlanned Industrial Development but the same has been allotted to different builders at the rate of Rs.10,000/- persquare meter. No notice under Section 9 has been received by the petitioner till date. Same notification waschallenged in this Court through Writ Petition No.31611 of 2011, Smt. Neelam Vs. State of U.P. and others inwhich this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo. Entire acquisition proceedings were tainted with malafide. Petitioners claim to be in actual physical possession of the land in dispute. The counter affidavit has beenfiled by the State stating that possession of land was taken on 14.09.2009 of an area of 201.7386 hectares. Out of679 tenure-holders, 518 have accepted the compensation. There is no mention of declaration of award. In thecounter affidavit there is substantial material on record to invoke urgency clause by the State government.