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 86 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011333330333330011109.26Devla1006214Junpat1218829123700Total8707129211156012.963900087.3119427708.766382196.0140866005.0410325714.3855% of the total acquired area47889210.6Percentage of the Group housing23.30%percentage of the land earmarked for residential including Group Housing, Residential Plots/Flats, Abadi and 6%settlement and facility area for residential use85.33%percentage of land earmarked for industrial use21%percentage of the residential area excluding facility72%As noted above, the Master Plan 2021 provides for land use residential only as 23.2%. The Authority in itscounter affidavits have stated that out of total area acquired only 55% is saleable area i.e. only 55% area isallocated for different land use and the rest of the area is used for roads and other amenities. In this context, it isrelevant to refer to the pleadings of the Authority in counter affidavit filed in writ petition No. 42455 of 2011, RamKumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others. In paragraph 49 of the aforesaid counter affidavit, following hasbeen stated:"At this stage, it is reiterated that the net saleable land does not exceed 55% of the acquired land. Remainingarea goes for infrastructure, amenities, roads and other land uses"In view of the above pleadings, the allocation of land for different land uses according to Master Plan has to beonly to the extent of 55% of the total acquired land. Thus, the percentage of land which was allocated to theresidential and industrial purposes have been computed on the basis of the 55% of the total land acquired. Thefigures as noted above, clearly indicate that Authority is not even proceeding to allocate the land according to itsMaster Plan 2021. The residential use of the land as noted above, is 85.33% including all residential uses and thebuilders alone have been allotted to the extent of 23.30%. In the information which has been supplied by theAuthority in different folders, there are certain informations which are not complete and certain areas were under
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10.20... Page 87 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/2011planning. This indicates that area of land of the residential use as well as industrial use may further increase. Theabove figures clearly supports the submission of the petitioners that Authority has proceeded to allocate maximumland for residential uses even against its own Master Plan 2021.In one of the writ petitions pertaining to Greater Noida being writ petition No. 37119 of 2011, Dal Chand andothers Vs. State of U.P. and other relating to village Roja Yakubpur, the petitioners have brought on record theresolution of the Authority dated 2.2.2010 by which Authority took a decision to change land use of the areaadjoining to 130 meter road. The decision to change the land user was taken with the object that if the said area ismade for group housing scheme for the purpose of marketing the Authority shall earn big profit. The saidresolution has been brought on record as Annexure to the rejoinder affidavit and has also been placed by theauthority along with its supplementary affidavit. The apex Court in (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 593 M/SPopcorn Entertainment & Anr vs City Industrial Development Corporation and others laid down following inparagraph 48""It has been held by several decisions of this Court that while developing a new township the objective of theplanning authorities is not to earn money but to provide for systematic and all-round development of the area sothat the purpose of setting up the township is achieved"From the materials brought on the record by the Authority it appears that in several villages, the land use of theacquired land was subsequently changed into industrial. Details of those villages in which the land use wasadmittedly changed by the authority are as follows:i.Patwariii.Junpathiii.Ghori Bacheraiv.Chapraulav.Palivi.Yusufpur Chak Saberivii.Kasanaviii.Haibatpurix.Chipiyana Khurdx.Itehraxi.Roja Yakubpurxii.Bisrakh JalalpurIt has not even been tried to explain in any of the affidavits filed by the Authority that what purpose of industrialdevelopment shall be served by permitting change of land use from industrial into residential. From the abovediscussion, it is clear that 1976 Act was enacted with the purpose and object of industrial development of theState. Various areas which according to the State were fit to be notified for industrial development were declaredby the State as industrial development area. The notifications for declaring an area as an industrial developmentarea under 1976 Act presupposes appropriate exercise to find out potentiality of industrial development in thearea. State was conscious that industries cannot be developed in the entire areas of the State and certainsubstantial pockets have to be identified and consciously developed. We have no doubt in our mind thatdevelopment of industries being primary object the activities of the Authority has to wear round along withindustrial development. Any activity dehors the industrial development cannot be said to be within the bonafideand legitimate purpose of the Act. The development of the residential area, commercial area and other areashave to be developed as subservient to industrial development. It is useful to note that in preamble of the Act twowords have been used i.e. "industrial and urban township". The words "industrial and urban township" areconjunctive and not disjunctive. The development of urban township is a corollary and conjunctive to industrialdevelopment. We thus are of conclusive opinion that dominant purpose of the Act is industrial development andthe authority in its action has not bonafide and truthfully followed the objective of the Act and its several actions donot fall in line with the object of the Act which shall be referred to in this judgment in some detail hereinafter.Reference may also be made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sundar Garden WelfareAssociation and another vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2008(5) ALJ 29. In the above case land wasacquired by the State Government for the purpose of industrial development of Ghaziabad through Uttar PradeshState Industrial Development Corporation, Kanpur. A society of residents challenged the acquisition. It was statedin the writ petition that land was no more required for industrial purposes and acquisition has been made subjectto Ghaziabad Development Authority. In the aforesaid context, the Division Bench held that when the land wasacquired and taken over by the acquiring body for the purposes of industrial development, then it can be public orcommercial and residential accommodation connected with the said industrial development but it cannot be enter
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:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36: JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
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?