eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System ...

JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10.20... Page 74 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011applicable in the present case since possession was taken by the State under section 17(1) and land has alreadybeen vested in the State which cannot be divested. The apex Court in various judgment has already held thatSection 11 A is not attracted in the cases where possession is taken under section 17(1). The creation of thirdparty rights and subsequent developments have to be taken into consideration by this Court, while consideringthe claim of the petitioners for quashing the notifications. The petitioners having allowed creation of third partyrights and substantial developments on the spot cannot complain at this stage. Sri L. Nageswara Rao in hisconcluding submissions has laid much emphasis on this aspect of the matter i.e. creation of third party rights andsubstantial development on the spot. He submits that assuming without admitting that urgency clause waswrongly invoked, this Court in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiashall not quash the notifications under sections 4 and 6. The nature of the land has been changed on the spotwhich is irreversible. Buildings and constructions have come on the spot with huge investments anddevelopments. He submits that in several judgments of the apex Court subsequent developments have taken intoconsideration by the Courts and the relief of quashing the notifications under sections 4 and 6 have been refusedby the High Court and the apex Court. He submits that equitable approach has been applied in cases in whichnotifications under section 4 and 6 have been found to be illegal. He submits that petitioners were neverinterested in the land and their grievance is only with regard to quantum of compensation. It is further submittedby learned Counsel for the State that factum of allotment made much subsequent to the acquisition is whollyirrelevant for judging the validity of the acquisition proceedings and validity of the notifications under section 4read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) and 6. The correctness of notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 have tobe judged according to the materials available at the relevant time and any subsequent action of the Authority inmaking the allotment cannot be made the basis for challenging the notifications which can neither be looked intonor is relevant.Sri S.K. Patwaliya, learned Senior Advocate (who appeared only on first day of hearing), Sri Ravindra Kumar andSri Ramendra Pratap Singh have appeared on behalf of the Authority. Learned Counsel for the Authority hasadopted the submissions raised by learned Counsel for the State. It is further submitted by learned counsel for theAuthority that there is no error in the notifications issued under section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) aswell as declaration under section 6. It is submitted that there was sufficient material before the State Governmentfor invoking the urgency clause. The authority has submitted proposal for acquisition in accordance with theMaster Plan 2021 and the land acquired has been used in accordance with the Master Plan 2021. He submitsthat allotment of residential plots to individual as well as for group housing purpose for commercial use, forinstitutional use for green area are part of development activity as entrusted to Authority. The extent of land usehas already been fixed under the plan as prepared under Regulation 4 of Noida Preparation and Finalization ofPlan (Regulations), 1991 which has also been adopted by Greater Noida and all allotments made by Authority isin accordance with the aforesaid plan. Learned Counsel for the Authority submits that after acquisition, theauthority has undertaken large scale developments including construction of roads, laying down sewer line,electric transmission line, developing green belts, carving out plots group housing development work and otherdevelopment activities. Huge amount has been invested by the Authority running in several crores in carrying outthe development in different sectors after acquisition. There has been several allotment for industrial plots andlarge number of industries have already been set up in Greater Noida and Noida. There are large number of I.T.industries and multinational companies which have set up their industrial establishment in the area. The entirearea has been fully developed. Most of the petitioners have accepted compensation under 1997 Rules withoutraising any objection and it is not open for them to raise any objection after taking compensation. The allegationthat any force or compulsion was used by the respondents in paying the compensation is without any basis andincorrect. After allotment was made to various allottees including allotment of industrial plots, group housing plots,large scale developments have been carried out. Buildings have been constructed changing the very nature of theland and huge amounts have been invested by the allottees. Group housing allotments have also been made tovarious private individuals who have booked their flats by taking bank finance. At this stage, the petitioners cannotbe allowed to challenge the acquisition nor at their instance acquisition deserves to be quashed. Most of the writpetitions have been filed after judgment of the apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam and Devendra Kumar(supra) which judgments cannot give any cause of action to the petitioners to challenge the proceedings. Severalwrit petitions have been filed even after decade of completion of acquisition proceedings. The petitioners are onlyinterested in obtaining more and more compensation from the respondents out of their greed. Substantialcompensation has already been received by the land owners. Land owners whose land has been acquired hasbeen provided Abadi plots to the extent of 6% minimum of 120 square meters and maximums of 25000 squaremeters as per the policy of the respondents and they having accepted the Abadi plots which means taking benefitof the acquisition, they cannot be allowed to challenge the acquisition. It is further submitted that several personswho have allotted Abadi plots have sold their plots to third party after taking handsome money. There is nofoundation or ground laid down in the writ petition regarding allegations of malafide or colourable exercise ofpower. Without there being any basis or foundation, the petitioners cannot be allowed to urge the aforesaidgrounds.