eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System ...

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