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 70 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011Compensation having accepted under the agreement petitioners cannot challenge the acquisition. Thecompensation of an area 6.3196 hectares has not been taken. It is wrong to say that exercise of power of StateGovernment was mala fide or colourable exercise. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the Authority reiteratingthe pleas raised in the counter affidavit of the State. It has further been stated that after taking over of thepossession of land, land development work has been carried out in Sector 20 as an sport city. Petitioners havingtaken compensation under the agreement cannot challenge the acquisition. Copy of the possession memo of14.09.2009 has been filed along with the counter affidavit.The other writ petitions of this group raise more or less similar grounds to challenge the aforesaid notificationwhich need no repetition.After having completed the narration of facts, we proceed to consider the submissions of learned counsel for theparties as well as learned counsel for the interveners and to decide the contentious issues raised in this group ofwrit petitions. As noted above, a Division Bench hearing several writ petitions pertaining to land acquisition ofvillages of Greater Noida and Noida made a reference for formation of the larger Bench to consider issues raisedin the writ petitions and to decide other writ petitions raising same issues to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings.The Division Bench referring the matter did not frame specific issues although some of the issues which hadarisen have been noted in detail in the order. All the writ petitions having been placed before the Full Bench fordecision, we proceeded to hear learned counsel for the parties and each writ petition was called for hearing. Allthe learned counsel for the parties had agreed that all the writ petitions be finally decided. By our order dated29.8.2011, we directed learned Chief Standing Counsel to produce the original records of the State Governmentpertaining to the land acquisition. Original records of the State Government were produced by learned ChiefStanding Counsel. We had also by our order dated 26.9.2011 directed learned counsel for the GreaterNoida/Noida Authority to produce original records pertaining to the decision taken by the Authority in preparationof the plan as per 1991 Regulations and to various allotments made in different villages with regard to which landhas been acquired. Learned Counsel for the Authority has also placed the original record of the Authority forperusal of the Court. By our order dated 21.9.2011, we directed learned counsel for the Greater Noida to filesupplementary affidavit indicating certain details as enumerated in the order. The Greater Noida Authority hasfiled four supplementary affidavits. Along with 4th supplementary affidavit, the authority has filed chart showingthe details of the acquisition and the development of the acquired land and other relevant information in separatefolders of each villages which were taken on record.We have heard Sri H.R. Misra, Sri V.M. Zaidi, Sri W.H. Khan, Sri U.N. Sharma and Sri Ashok Khare, learnedSenior Advocates, Sri Pankaj Dube, Sri B.B. Paul, Sri A.P. Paul, Sri Anil Sharma, Sri Dhiraj Singh Bohra, Sri C.K.Parekh, Sri K.K. Arora, Sri Saurabh Basu, Sri Shiva Kant Misra, Sri N.P. Singh, Sri Vinod Sinha, Sri S.K. Tyagi,Sri Kamal Singh Yadav, Sri Ram Surat Saroj, Sri J.J. Munir, Sri Pavan Bhardwaj, Sri Chandan Sharma, SriSiddharth Srivastava, Sri A. Prasad, Sri Lal Singh Thakur, Sri Anoop Trivedi, Sri Sunil Rai, Sri J.J. Muneer, SriManish Goyal, Sri Suneel Kumar Rai, Sri Sidhant Mishra, Sri M.K. Gupta, Sri Ram Kaushik, Sri Neeraj Tiwari, SriR.S. Saroj, Sri S.C. Verma and several other counsels for the petitioners. Sri L. Nageswara Rao, learned SeniorAdvocate, Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Chief Standing Counsel havebeen heard on behalf of the State. For interveners/allottees, we have heard Sri S.P. Gupta, Sri R.N. Singh, SriNavin Sinha, Sri Sashi Nandan, Sri C.B. Yadav, Sri B.K. Srivastava, Sri Pramod Kumar Jain, Sri R.B. Singhal,learned Senior Advocates, Sri Ashwini kumar Misra, Sri Adarsh Agrawal, Sri Amit Saxena, Sri S.K. Singh, SriRahul Agarwal, Sri Nikhil Agarwal and several other counsels. We have also heard Sri Dhruv Agrawal, learnedSenior Advocate appearing for Developers Association. Sri J.H. Khan appeared before us for National CapitalRegional Planning Board, we allowed time to file counter affidavit on behalf of the Board, however, subsequentlySri Khan appeared and stated that no counter affidavit is proposed to be filed. In some of the writ petitions,allottees from Noida and Greater Noida Authority/builders were also parties, but no notices were issued to privateparties in those writ petitions in view of the fact that we have permitted the allottees/builders to file interventionapplication along with affidavit by our order dated 29.8.2011 and large numbers of intervention applications alongwith detailed affidavits have been filed and their counsels were also heard and intervention applications on behalfof the Developers Association of which builders are members have also been heard by us.The writ petition No. 37443 of 2011, Gajraj Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others in which reference wasmade by the Division Bench is the main writ petition. We have treated one writ petition of each village of GreaterNoida and Noida as a leading writ petition in which counter affidavits have been filed. Although in different writpetitions different notifications under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1),17(4) and declaration under section 6have been challenged but issues raised in most of the writ petitions are common issues. The State, GreaterNodia/Noida Authority as well as interveners have also raised similar submissions in all the writ petitions exceptsome differences of facts. The issues arising in this bunch of writ petitions being more or less common, weproceed to note the various submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10.20... Page 71 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011for the State authority and learned Counsel for the allottees/interveners.SUBMISSIONSThe substance of the submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is as follows:(1)The Greater Nodia/Noida authority (hereinafter referred to as authority) was constituted for the development ofcertain areas in the State into industrial and urban township. The dominant object of the constitution of theauthority was industrial development of the area. The authority having been established under the U.P. IndustrialArea Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ''1976 Act), the primary and basic purpose for which therespondent authority has been established is planned development of the area into industrial area. The intentionof the Act in establishing the Authority was to promote the industrial development in the area and earmarking theland use as industrial, commercial, residential has only been given to facilitate the Authority in achieving theprimary object of industrial development. The Authority instead of promoting the object of the Act has embarkedupon the activity of transferring the substantial area of the land acquired to the private builders, colonizers tounduly help them and to earn profit which is not the object and purpose of the Act. The land of the petitionerswhich was acquired in the name of planned industrial development was not utilized for planned industrialdevelopment rather has been diverted to private persons which is impermissible and clearly indicate the malafideand colourable exercise of powers.(2)The authority is laboring under misconception that only when the authority acquires area falling in the industrialdevelopment area it can carry on developments as required under the Act. Without assessing proper requirementand need, the authority has initiated process for acquiring huge area of land with intent and purpose to helpprivate persons.(3)Various recommendations made by the authority to the State Government for acquisition of the land under theLand Acquisition Act, 1894 were made without any appropriate plan or project for industrial development. Thereasons given for acquisition of land were only repeating the set words without there being any genuine need foracquisition.(4)The invocation of Sections 17(1)and 17(4), while issuing notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Actwas not valid and the same was done in the routine manner without there being any urgency in the matter.Dispensing the inquiry under section 5A can only be an exception where the urgency cannot brook any delay. Theprovisions of Section 5A is mandatory and embodied a just and wholesome purpose that a person whoseproperty is being or intended to be acquired should have occasion to persuade the authority concerned that hisproperty be not touched for acquisition.(5)There has been considerable delay in several cases in issuing notification under Section 4 of the Act whichproves that there was no urgency in the acquisition. Even after publication of notification under Section 4 longdelay was caused in issuing declaration under Section 6 which again proves that there was no urgency in thesematters which need dispensation of inquiry under Section 5A of the Act.(6)The Authority while submitting the proposal and the Collector while forwarding the recommendations have notspecifically applied their mind as to whether the inquiry under section 5A be dispensed with or not. There was noteven specific recommendation by the Authority and the Collector for dispensation of inquiry under section 5A. TheState Government without adverting to the relevant materials dispensed with the inquiry under section 5A whichagain vitiates the whole acquisition process. Dispensation of inquiry under section 5Abeing invalid, the entireacquisition proceedings and consequential actions taken thereon fall on the ground and be quashed withconsequential reliefs.(7)The acquisition of fertile agricultural land of the petitioners in the name of planned industrial development ofGautam Buddha Nagar is in colourable exercise of power to achieve a different purpose and object i.e. to benefitthe private persons, builders, colonizers which vitiates the entire acquisition.(8)The authority has malafide exercised its power to proceed for acquisition of agricultural land which is nothingbut fraud on power and to mention a planned industrial development is nothing but was a camouflage.(9)The possession of the land of the petitioners which was subject matter of acquisition was not taken by theState in accordance with law. Neither actual, physical possession was taken nor Collector went on the spot. NoPanchnama as required for evidencing the transfer of actual, physical possession has been prepared nor thereare signatures of the land owners or independent witnesses on the alleged possession memos which have been
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:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20: JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?