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 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.
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10.20... Page 75 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011Learned Counsel for the interveners have also reiterated the submissions as have been noted above. Muchemphasis has been laid down on the ground that due to delay and laches, the writ petitions deserve to bedismissed. The acquired land having been put to developmental use and third party rights having intervened, thepetitioners are not entitled for any relief. All the allottees have made substantial payment to the authority as wellas invested huge amount in developmental activity including construction of building. The interveners after duecare and caution have obtained the allotments from the authority who had valid title. It is denied that land whichwas acquired for planned industrial development is being used for any other purpose. Planned industrialdevelopment is a comprehensive term which includes development of residential, commercial, institutional andindustrial sites. In any view of the matter the acquisition cannot be faulted even if the authority after acquisitionuses the land for any other public purposes. It is not the case that land is not being used for public purpose.Interveners are bonafide purchasers without any notice and has invested huge amount after taking loan from theBank. The petitioners are not entitled for any reliefs in these writ petitions. The interveners have obtainedallotment in open tender proceedings and after getting allotment got possession from the Authority and aftergetting the necessary approval/sanction of plan have made huge investments towards payment to the Authority.The petitioners have waived their right to challenge acquisition proceedings having accepted compensation under1997 Rules and having not taken any steps to challenge the acquisition within reasonable time. Subsequentdevelopments after allotment are the relevant factors to be considered, while considering any challenge to theacquisition belatedly made. Learned Counsel for the interveners referred to detail figures of payment made to theAuthority and investments made by them in developing the sites allotted to them including photographs whichhave been filed along with affidavit showing the developments made on the spot. Leaned Counsel for thedevelopers association has also referred to and given details of allotment made to various allottes, the extent ofdevelopments carried out by them.Learned Counsel for the parties have placed reliance on various judgments of the apex Court and this Courtwhich have been extensively read by them in support of their respective submissions which shall be referred tohereinafter, while considering the respective submissions of the parties.From the pleadings of the parties and submissions of learned counsel for the parties as noticed above, followingissues fell for consideration in this bunch of writ petitions:-ISSUES1.Object and Purpose of the 1976 Act: Whether the development of industries is the dominant purpose and objectof U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976?2.Whether Acquisition Compulsory: Whether for carrying out the development of industrial area under 1976 Act, itis compulsory and necessary to acquire the land by the Authority?3.Delay and Laches: Whether the delay and laches in the facts of the present case can bar the invocation ofConstitutional remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?4.National Capital Regional Planning Board Act, 1985, its Consequences: Whether the Authority can carry outdevelopment, utilise the land acquired as per its Master Plan 2021 without its approval/clearance by NationalCapital Regional Planning Board, and what is effect on its function of land acquisition after enforcement of the1985 Act?5.Invocation of Sections 17(1) and 17(4): Whether invocation of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land AcquisitionAct and dispensation of inquiry under section 5A was in accordance with law in the cases which are underconsideration?6.Pre-notification and Post-notification delay: Whether delay caused before issuance of notification under Section4 and delay caused subsequent to notification under Section 4 can be relied for determining as to whetherurgency was such that invocation of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) was necessary?7.Colourable Exercise of Power: Whether acquisition of land are vitiated due to malafide and colourable exerciseof powers?8.Taking of Possession: Whether the possession of the land acquired was taken under section 17(1) of the LandAcquisition Act in accordance with law?
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:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24: JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
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?