eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System ...

JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10.20... Page 79 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/20111973', which deals with the 'Planned Development' of 'Industrial Development Areas (Simplicitor)' The very factthat a special Act has been enacted by the name of 'Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act' in spite of theexistence of 'The Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973' even prior to the enactment ofUPIADA in 1976, clearly demonstrates that the very purpose of 1976 Act was to develop certain areas industrially.It is apparent that Noida having been established under the '1976 Act' as an 'Industrial Development Area', theprimary and basic purpose for which the respondent Authority has been established, is the 'Planned Development'of the area into an 'Industrial Area'.8. That it follows from the above that the 'Commercial or Residential Development' in the 'Industrial DevelopmentArea' carried out by the respondent No. 1 Authority should have a direct and cogent nexus with its primary andultimate object of 'Industrial Development'. It is submitted that whenever an area is being developed into an'Industrial Area', it follows that there will be requirement of 'Residential and Commercial Areas' as a consequenceof 'Industrial Development'.11. That the petitioners submit that the respondent Authority is under a mandatory duty to carry out 'Development'of the area, which is acquired primarily for the 'Industrial Township'. It thus follows that if the area acquired by it, isnot developed by the Authority, it is against the object, spirit and mandate of the Act of 1976. Also, the'Development' should be aimed at 'Industrial Development' as per the scheme of the Act. It thus follows that if anyland acquired from the farmer is transferred by the respondent Authority to a third party without developing thesame that too for carrying out totally 'Residential Development' having no correlation with the 'Development of theIndustrial Township' or that of the 'industry', it would be ultra virus the Act and the Constitution of India.24. That Noida was established as mentioned above for the purpose of 'Industrial Development' of the said area.Admittedly, the land in the above mentioned scheme is being sold by the Authority without developing the saidland. Also, such a big area of land is being sold for developing residential units having no nexus with the'industrial Development'. It is submitted that the Residential Units proposed to be developed, are not going to helpthe promotion of industry in any manner. The entrepreneur or the industrial worker who may be working or areinterested in the industry, will only be discouraged by such unbridled planning off of the property because thissingle action of the respondent Authority will result in escalation of rates of the residential property taking it totallybeyond the capacity of the entrepreneur or the industrial worker. In fact, in place of augmenting the industrialgrowth, such people unfriendly schemes are only resulting in discouraging the industry. The industry to be viableneeds cheaper land, cheaper infrastructure and cheaper labour. The increase in land prices by allowing theprivate Developers to have a field day, can only result in increasing the cost of all the inputs in the industry andthus discouraging the industrial growth."State has filed a counter affidavit and there is no denial to the averments made by the petitioners in paragraphs 5to 11. Paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit is quoted as below:"8. That, the contents of paragraph nos. 5,6,7,8,9,10 and 11 of the writ petition, insofar as they refer to theprovisions of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1976, need noreply. However, the inference sought to be drawn by the petitioner on the basis of the statutory provisions, are notadmitted in the manner as stated."While replying to paragraph 24 of the writ petition, it was stated by the State that averments contained inparagraph under reply related to respondent no. 3 which may give appropriate reply. The authority has filedcounter affidavit in writ petition dated 22.4.2007 in which paragraphs 5 to 24 of the writ petition have been repliedin paragraph 9 which is quoted as below:"9. That the contents of paragraphs 5 to 24 of the writ petition as stated are not correct. Most of the averments areirrelevant for the purposes of decision of the writ petition. It is incorrect to say that the answering respondent -Authority has only been set up for the purposes of industrial development. Section 6(2)(c) &(d) of the Act clearlyprovides that the Authority shall demarcate and develop sites for industrial, commercial and residential purposesaccording to the plan. Section 6 further provides the function of the Authority to the infrastructure for industrial,commercial and residential purposes. Hence the Authority not only in its plan earmarks land for the purposes ofindustrial and commercial development, but also carves out plan for providing residential facilities. Hence it cannotbe said that the purpose of the Authority is only industrial development."In the last line of paragraph 9, the Authority has said "hence, it cannot be said that the purpose of the Authority isonly industrial development"Pleadings of the petitioners as made in the aforesaid writ petition in paragraphs 4,5,6,11 and 24 has virtually not