Large scale acquisition of agricultural and Abadi land of farmers of different villages of Greater Noida and Noida of District Gautam Buddha Nagar in the name of planned industrial development ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
Reserved on 30.09.2011.
Delivered on 21.10.2011.
Group-1 (Writ petitions relating to village Patwari)
(1)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37443 of 2011
Petitioner :- Gajraj And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(2)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 48089 of 2011
Petitioner :- Meghraj Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(3)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37642 of 2011
Petitioner :- Smt. Sarla Yadav And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(4)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 62649 of 2008
Petitioner :- Savitri Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(5)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 75042 of 2010
Petitioner :- Sarjeet
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(6)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18037 of 2011
Petitioner :- Hanso Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(7)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28691 of 2011
Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Garg And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(8)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32236 of 2011
Petitioner :- Satpal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(9)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39383 of 2011
Petitioner :- Tej Singh And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(10)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39584 of 2011
Petitioner :- Khemchand And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(11)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44503 of 2011
2
Petitioner :- Ranveer Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(12)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47109 of 2011
Petitioner :- Shree Krishna And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(13)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46572 of 2011
Petitioner :- Bharat Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(14)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47565 of 2011
Petitioner :- Suresh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(15)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47567 of 2011
Petitioner :- Pala
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-2 (Writ petitions relating to village Sakipur)
(16)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47157 of 2011
Petitioner :- Rajendra Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(17)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45766 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ram Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(18)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45767 of 2011
Petitioner :- Bijendra And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(19)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45770 of 2011
Petitioner :- Krishan Kumar Bhati & others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(20)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46904 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ziley Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(21)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47019 of 2011
Petitioner :- Karan Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
3
With
(22)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47036 of 2011
Petitioner :- Dhara
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(23)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47129 of 2011
Petitioner :- Chandar And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(24)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47133 of 2011
Petitioner :- Smt. Vidyawati
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(25)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47137 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jaypal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(26)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47138 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ram Kishan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(27)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47140 of 2011
Petitioner :- Hemchand
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(28)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47142 of 2011
Petitioner :- Prakash
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(29)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47144 of 2011
Petitioner :- Hari Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(30)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47145 of 2011
Petitioner :- Vegraj Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(31)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47147 of 2011
Petitioner :- Dheeraj And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(32)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47149 of 2011
Petitioner :- Indraraj And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
4
With
(33)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47151 of 2011
Petitioner :- Tuley Ram And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(34)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47152 of 2011
Petitioner :- Satpal Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(35)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47154 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ramphal Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(36)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47155 of 2011
Petitioner :- Khima
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(37)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47160 of 2011
Petitioner :- Khachedu And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(38)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47079 of 2011
Petitioner :- Kesi And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Others
With
(39)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47087 of 2011
Petitioner :- Phool Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Others
With
(40)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47098 of 2011
Petitioner :- Babu And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Others
With
(41)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47104 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jaybir Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Others
With
(42)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47107 of 2011
Petitioner :- Sukhbir And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Others
With
(43)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47110 of 2011
Petitioner :- Harkishan
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Others
5
With
(44)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47113 of 2011
Petitioner :- Rajbir
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Others
With
(45)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47179 of 2011
Petitioner :- Fireyram And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(46)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47115 of 2011
Petitioner :- Rambir And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Others
With
(47)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47161 of 2011
Petitioner :- Meharchand And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(48)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47173 of 2011
Petitioner :- Bahadur
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(49)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47174 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ramendra And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(50)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47176 of 2011
Petitioner :- Sant Ram
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(51)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47177 of 2011
Petitioner :- Nepal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(52)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47178 of 2011
Petitioner :- Rajbir And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(53)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47414 of 2011
Petitioner :- Atar Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(54)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47148 of 2011
Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
6
With
(55)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45754 of 2011
Petitioner :- Dharam Veer And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-3 (Writ petitions relating to village Ghori Bachhera)
(56)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40356 of 2011
Petitioner :- Satish Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Princ.Secy. And Others
With
(57)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44917 of 2011
Petitioner :- Sheoraj And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Princ.Secy. And Others
With
(58)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44921 of 2011
Petitioner :- Kishan And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Princ.Secy. And Others
With
(59)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44924 of 2011
Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Princ.Secy. And Others
With
(60)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44926 of 2011
Petitioner :- Tejpal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Princ.Secy. And Others
With
(61)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40334 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ravinder And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Princ.Secy. And Others
With
(62)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40335 of 2011
Petitioner :- Brahm Pal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Princ.Secy. And Others
With
(63)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40341 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jai Prakash
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Princ.Secy. And Others
With
(64)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40342 of 2011
Petitioner :- Balbir
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Princ.Secy. And Others
With
(65)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40345 of 2011
7
Petitioner :- Pitam
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Princ.Secy. And Others
With
(66)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40347 of 2011
Petitioner :- Narender Kumar And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Princ.Secy. And Others
With
(67)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40350 of 2011
Petitioner :- Sunil
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Princ.Secy. And Others
With
(68)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40354 of 2011
Petitioner :- Manglu And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Princ.Secy. And Others
With
(69)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40359 of 2011
Petitioner :- Nanak
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Princ.Secy. And Others
With
(70)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40361 of 2011
Petitioner :- Dal Chand
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Princ.Secy. And Others
With
(71)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40362 of 2011
Petitioner :- Kalu Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Princ.Secy. And Others
With
(72)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40417 of 2011
Petitioner :- Rajinder Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Princ.Secy. And Others
With
(73)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40418 of 2011
Petitioner :- Bhupal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Princ.Secy. And Others
With
(74)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40419 of 2011
Petitioner :- Vijay Pal Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Princ.Secy. And Others
With
(75)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40420 of 2011
Petitioner :- Khushi Ram
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Princ.Secy. And Others
With
8
(76)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40421 of 2011
Petitioner :- Vijender
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Princ.Secy. And Others
With
(77)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40422 of 2011
Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Princ.Secy. And Others
With
(78)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40423 of 2011
Petitioner :- Khichchu
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Princ.Secy. And Others
With
(79)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40424 of 2011
Petitioner :- Basanti Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Princ.Secy. And Others
With
(80)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46673 of 2011
Petitioner :- Pramod And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(81)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40338 of 2011
Petitioner :- Risal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Princ.Secy. And Others
With
Group-4 (Writ petitions relating to village Pali).
(82)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46933 of 2011
Petitioner :- Raghubar And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(83)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47469 of 2011
Petitioner :- Sant Ram
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(84)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25464 of 2008
Petitioner :- Ghyanendra Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
Group-5 (Writ petitions relating to village Biraundi Chakrasenpura)
(85)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46501 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jagdish
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(86)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46042 of 2011
9
Petitioner :- Pradeep And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(87)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46044 of 2011
Petitioner :- Makhan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(88)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46045 of 2011
Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(89)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46046 of 2011
Petitioner :- Chandra Pal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(90)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46049 of 2011
Petitioner :- Shayam Lal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(91)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46053 of 2011
Petitioner :- Eswarchand And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(92)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46395 of 2011
Petitioner :- Amichand And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(93)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46397 of 2011
Petitioner :- Chawal Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(94)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46488 of 2011
Petitioner :- Raj Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(95)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46491 of 2011
Petitioner :- Yatendra Kumar And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(96)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46492 of 2011
Petitioner :- Bhodi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
10
(97)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46494 of 2011
Petitioner :- Dhanesh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(98)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46495 of 2011
Petitioner :- Khemchand And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(99)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46497 of 2011
Petitioner :- Gopal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
With
(100)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46503 of 2011
Petitioner :- Raj Pal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(101)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46563 of 2011
Petitioner :- Dayanand
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(102)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46566 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ram Ratan And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(103)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46732 of 2011
Petitioner :- Haris Chand And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(104)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46733 of 2011
Petitioner :- Radhey Shayam
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(105)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46735 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jag Ram
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(106)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46736 of 2011
Petitioner :- Bhulay And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(107)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46737 of 2011
Petitioner :- Bal Raj
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
11
(108)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46740 of 2011
Petitioner :- Suraj Mal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(109)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46747 of 2011
Petitioner :- Kashi Ram
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(110)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47451 of 2011
Petitioner :- Sardar And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another
With
(111)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47477 of 2011
Petitioner :- Hari Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(112)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47481 of 2011
Petitioner :- Najruddin And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(113)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46050 of 2011
Petitioner :- Madan Lal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(114)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46500 of 2011
Petitioner :- Raj Pal Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(115)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46564 of 2011
Petitioner :- Pratap And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(116)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46489 of 2011
Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(117)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46487 of 2011
Petitioner :- Harish Chand
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(118)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46130 of 2011
Petitioner :- Roshan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
12
(119)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46364 of 2011
Petitioner :- Smt. Mahendri
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-6 (Writ petitions relating to village Tusiyana)
(120)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42324 of 2011
Petitioner :- Kunwar Pal Bhati And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(121)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45672 of 2011
Petitioner :- Adesh Choudhary And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(122)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47502 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jugendra And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-7 (Writ petitions relating to village Dabra)
(123)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45450 of 2011
Petitioner :- Phundan Singh & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
Group-8 (Writ petitions relating to village Dadha)
(124)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46160 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ranveer Dadha And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(125)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44181 of 2011
Petitioner :- Dharam Pal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(126)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45345 of 2011
Petitioner :- Chand And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-9 (Writ petitions relating to village Roja Yaqubpur)
(127)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37119 of 2011
Petitioner :- Dal Chand And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(128)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42455 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ram Kumar And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
13
With
(129)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46071 of 2011
Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(130)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46358 of 2011
Petitioner :- Deputy Sharan And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(131)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47119 of 2011
Petitioner :- Girwar Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
With
(132)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46631 of 2011
Petitioner :- Gajraj And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(133)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46663 of 2011
Petitioner :- Braham Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-10 (Writ petitions relating to village Roja Yaqubpur)
(134)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45328 of 2011
Petitioner :- Harish Chandra & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(135)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39385 of 2011
Petitioner :- Baljeet And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-11 (Writ petitions relating to village Aimnabad)
(136)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43623 of 2011
Petitioner :- Chhatar Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(137)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42196 of 2011
Petitioner :- Veer Pal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(138)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26162 of 2008
Petitioner :- Shripal Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
14
(139)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26159 of 2008
Petitioner :- Lakhi Ram
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
Group-12 (Writ petitions relating to village Khanpur)
(140)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39037 of 2011
Petitioner :- Mahipal Sharma And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(141)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45537 of 2011
Petitioner :- Smt. Harbati And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(142)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46638 of 2011
Petitioner :- Mahar Chand And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(143)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20227 of 2009
Petitioner :- Parag And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-13 (Writ petitions relating to village Biraunda)
(144)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46644 of 2011
Petitioner :- Dalip Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-14 (Writ petitions relating to village Chuharpur Khadar)
(145)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46127 of 2011
Petitioner :- Bjendra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(146)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 48209 of 2011
Petitioner :- Shiva Datta And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(147)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45072 of 2011
Petitioner :- Kartar Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-15 (Writ petitions relating to village Badalpur)
(148)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45558 of 2011
Petitioner :- Smt. Savitri Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
15
With
(149)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42548 of 2011
Petitioner :- Mangat Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(150)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43870 of 2011
Petitioner :- Madhuri Saxena And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(151)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45454 of 2011
Petitioner :- Likhkhi & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
Group-16 (Writ petitions relating to village Sadopur)
(152)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46026 of 2011
Petitioner :- Umesh Chaudhary And Others
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And Others
With
(153)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46165 of 2011
Petitioner :- Khem Chand And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru The Princ.Secy. And Others
With
(154)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47281 of 2011
Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(155)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44695 of 2011
Petitioner :- Satya Pal Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru The Princ.Secy. And Others
With
Group-17 (Writ petitions relating to village Gharbara)
With
(156)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46767 of 2011
Petitioner :- Satbir And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(157)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 48067 of 2011
Petitioner :- Niranjan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(158)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 48068 of 2011
Petitioner :- Niranjan
16
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(159)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46742 of 2011
Petitioner :- Brahm Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(160)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46751 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ram Kishan And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(161)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46755 of 2011
Petitioner :- Mahendra And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(162)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46761 of 2011
Petitioner :- Mohan Lal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(163)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46769 of 2011
Petitioner :- Prem Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(164)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 48071 of 2011
Petitioner :- Mahipal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(165)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46771 of 2011
Petitioner :- Chandramal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-18 (Writ petitions relating to village CHHAPRAULA),
(166)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46775 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jai Pal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(167)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47068 of 2011
Petitioner :- Parmanand And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(168)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46776 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ved Pal Saini And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
17
With
Group-19 (Writ petitions relating to village KHAIRPUR GURJAR),
(169)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40621 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jagdeep Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(170)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42098 of 2011
Petitioner :- Smt. Savita And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(171)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42100 of 2011
Petitioner :- Smt. Roopwati And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(172)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36775 of 2011
Petitioner :- Smt. Shobha
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(173)Case:- WRIT - C No. - 58310 of 2010
Petitioner :- Mahavir And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(174)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6281 of 2011
Petitioner :- Pratap Singh Khari And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(175)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19985 of 2011
Petitioner :- Anita Yadav And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(176)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19987 of 2011
Petitioner :- Sant Ram And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(177)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22692 of 2011
Petitioner :- Rambir
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(178)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22693 of 2011
Petitioner :- Karan Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(179)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27539 of 2011
18
Petitioner :- Pramod Khari And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(180)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30022 of 2011
Petitioner :- Harit Rai Rana
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(181)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47406 of 2011
Petitioner :- Smt. Meenakshi Bansal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-20 (Writ petitions relating to village AJAYABPUR)
(182)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46671 of 2011
Petitioner :- Om Prakash Alias Omi And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(183)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46128 of 2011
Petitioner :- Surendra Singh Bhati
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-21 (Writ petitions relating to village Namauli)
(184)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46481 of 2011
Petitioner :- M/S Bansal Estate Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-22 (Writ petitions relating to village Jaitpur Vaishpur)
(185)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46399 of 2011
Petitioner :- Mange Ram And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(186)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44714 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jai Prakash Sharma And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(187)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44715 of 2011
Petitioner :- Rajendra And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(188)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44718 of 2011
Petitioner :- Mangat And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
19
With
(189)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45013 of 2011
Petitioner :- Smt. Shakuntala And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(190)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45014 of 2011
Petitioner :- Raj Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(191)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45015 of 2011
Petitioner :- Satish Kumar And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(192)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45603 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ghanshyam And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(193)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45605 of 2011
Petitioner :- Mahabir Sharma And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(194)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45617 of 2011
Petitioner :- Baboo Khan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(195)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45620 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ram Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(196)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45631 of 2011
Petitioner :- Radhey Shayam And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(197)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45633 of 2011
Petitioner :- Tuhi Ram And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(198)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45635 of 2011
Petitioner :- Laxmichand
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(199)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45637 of 2011
Petitioner :- Yad Ram And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
20
With
(200)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45638 of 2011
Petitioner :- Madan Kausik And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(201)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45640 of 2011
Petitioner :- Yehshan Ali And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(202)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45641 of 2011
Petitioner :- Layak Ram And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(203)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45629 of 2011
Petitioner :- Bijendra Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(204)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47010 of 2011
Petitioner :- Dhakkan Lal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(205)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47015 of 2011
Petitioner :- Kalwa Alias Yaseen And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(206)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47017 of 2011
Petitioner :- Satpal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(207)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47476 of 2011
Petitioner :- Raj Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(208)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47479 of 2011
Petitioner :- Surendra Singh Bhati And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-23 (Writ petitions relating to village Mathurapur)
(209)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46744 of 2011
Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(210)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46422 of 2011
21
Petitioner :- Sudha Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(211)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46669 of 2011
Petitioner :- Mangal Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-24 (Writ petitions relating to village Saini)
(212)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44233 of 2011
Petitioner :- Rishi And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(213)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42200 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ajee Pal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(214)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 53365 of 2011
Petitioner :- Sukki @ Sukhbir Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-25 (Writ petitions relating to village Murshadpur)
(215)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46717 of 2011
Petitioner :- Dharamraj Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(216)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46716 of 2011
Petitioner :- Gajab Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(217)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46720 of 2011
Petitioner :- Meghraj Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(218)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46772 of 2011
Petitioner :- Raghu Alias Raghuraj And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Shiv Kant Mishra
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Ramendra Pratap Singh
With
Group-26 (Writ petitions relating to village Haibatpur)
(219)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37109 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jaipal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
22
With
(220)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44388 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ravi Dutt And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(221)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45355 of 2011
Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(222)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45349 of 2011
Petitioner :- Nanak
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Principal Secry., Industrial Devp. & Ors
With
(223)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45353 of 2011
Petitioner :- Bhupendra Kumar Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(224)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45409 of 2011
Petitioner :- Mahendra And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(225)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45411 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jagdeesh And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(226)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39819 of 2011
Petitioner :- Buddh Pal And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(227)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40346 of 2009
Petitioner :- Subhash
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Swapnil Kumar,Ajay Kumar
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Ramendra Pratap Singh
With
(228)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15925 of 2010
Petitioner :- Satish Kumar & Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Spl. Secr. Industrial Devp. & Ors.
With
(229)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17726 of 2010
Petitioner :- Ghasi Ram
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(230)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32059 of 2010
23
Petitioner :- Devendra Yadav And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(231)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34851 of 2010
Petitioner :- Devendra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(232)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33585 of 2010
Petitioner :- Bijendra Son Of Ved Pal & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(233)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33957 of 2010
Petitioner :- Smt. Sudha Rani Chauhan And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Ors.
With
(234)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40418 of 2010
Petitioner :- Umesh Upadhyaya And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Principal Secy. Heavy Industries & Ors.
With
(235)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42058 of 2010
Petitioner :- Dharam Pal And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Sec. Heavy Ind. Lko. And Others
With
(236)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 55243 of 2010
Petitioner :- Krishna And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(237)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 67775 of 2010
Petitioner :- Surekha And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(238)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 72437 of 2010
Petitioner :- Abhishek Kumar And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(239)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11189 of 2011
Petitioner :- Smt. Vishnoo
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(240)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23451 of 2010
Petitioner :- Sanjay Yadav & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Spl. Secr. Industrial Devp. & Ors.
With
24
(241)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24839 of 2011
Petitioner :- Chatar Pal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(242)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20505 of 2011
Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Pandey And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(243)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32980 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jagdish Prasad And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(244)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32979 of 2011
Petitioner :- Narendra Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(245)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32976 of 2011
Petitioner :- Nanak And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(246)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37054 of 2011
Petitioner :- Smt. Kusum Devi And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(247)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38688 of 2011
Petitioner :- Tej Ram And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru The Princ.Secy. And Others
With
(248)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38689 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jaipal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru The Princ.Secy. And Others
With
(249)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41118 of 2011
Petitioner :- Mukesh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(250)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41221 of 2011
Petitioner :- Prem Chandra And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(251)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41309 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jagpal And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
25
(252)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41315 of 2011
Petitioner :- Prakshit Bardeja And Another
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And Others
With
(253)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41459 of 2011
Petitioner :- Rajo Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(254)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45931 of 2011
Petitioner :- Karamveer And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru The Princ.Secy. And Others
With
(255)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46958 of 2011
Petitioner :- Dhan Pal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(256)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46561 of 2011
Petitioner :- Smt. Kriti Kumari And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(257)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46594 of 2011
Petitioner :- Mujahid Husain And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-27 (Writ petitions relating to village Chipiyana Khurd),
(258)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41017 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jagram Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(259)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9756 of 2010
Petitioner :- Omveer
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. P.S. Industrial Devp. & Ors.
With
(260)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46680 of 2011
Petitioner :- Raj Pal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(261)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43688 of 2011
Petitioner :- Dharmpal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(262)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39133 of 2011
Petitioner :- Maya Chandra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
26
With
(263)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18635 of 2009
Petitioner :- N.S. Public School Thru Manger
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(264)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46162 of 2009
Petitioner :- Smt. Lal Mani Devi & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(265)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24305 of 2010
Petitioner :- Shambhu Nath Mandal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(266)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32252 of 2010
Petitioner :- Smt. Veerwati
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(267)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38360 of 2010
Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Sec. Industrial Dept Lko. And Others
With
(268)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38573 of 2010
Petitioner :- Ramvir Singh & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Ors.
With
(269)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40668 of 2010
Petitioner :- Ram Bhool Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(270)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40669 of 2010
Petitioner :- Basanti Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(271)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42147 of 2010
Petitioner :- Chattar Pal Yadav And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Ors.
With
(272)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42386 of 2010
Petitioner :- Satendra Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(273)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17478 of 2009
Petitioner :- Himanchal Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd.
27
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-28 (Writ petitions relating to village Bisrakh Jalalpur)
(274)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37075 of 2011
Petitioner :- Smt. Pusplata Baranwal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(275)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13399 of 2010
Petitioner :- Shri Krishna Gupta & Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secr. Ministry Of Industrial Devp. & Ors
With
(276)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14112 of 2010
Petitioner :- Narmada Devi Atma Ram Charitable Trust
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secretary Ministry Of Indust. Devp. & Or
With
(277)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15719 of 2010
Petitioner :- Ved Ram
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. P.S. Industrial Devp. & Ors.
With
(278)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 48271 of 2011
Petitioner :- Shree Krishna
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(279)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42105 of 2011
Petitioner :- Kiran Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
With
(280)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42109 of 2011
Petitioner :- Prabhat Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
With
(281)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42111 of 2011
Petitioner :- Dilip Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(282)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42787 of 2011
Petitioner :- Megh Raj And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(283)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42789 of 2011
Petitioner :- Udai Vir And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
28
With
(284)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45084 of 2011
Petitioner :- Anoop Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(285)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45085 of 2011
Petitioner :- Vedram And Others
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Ramendra Pratap Singh
With
(286)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45413 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ajab Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(287)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39986 of 2011
Petitioner :- Sudesh Kumar And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(288)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 61272 of 2008
Petitioner :- Dhirendra Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(289)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14619 of 2009
Petitioner :- Vegrai And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(290)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 50756 of 2009
Petitioner :- Kartar Singh & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(291)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42067 of 2010
Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(292)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 52602 of 2010
Petitioner :- Neeraj Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(293)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16683 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jitendra Pal Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(294)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17852 of 2011
Petitioner :- Dhyan Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
29
With
(295)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30313 of 2011
Petitioner :- Capt. Puneet Mehta
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(296)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31611 of 2011
Petitioner :- Smt. Neelam
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(297)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32719 of 2011
Petitioner :- Om Prakash And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(298)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37644 of 2011
Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(299)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39989 of 2011
Petitioner :- Vipat Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(300)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41233 of 2011
Petitioner :- Udai Veer And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(301)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41019 of 2011
Petitioner :- Pradeep Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-29 (Writ petitions relating to village Rithori)
(302)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46370 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jai Prakash And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-30 (Writ petitions relating to village Itehra)
(303)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46021 of 2011
Petitioner :- Mamila Sharma And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(304)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42439 of 2011
Petitioner :- Rajesh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
30
With
(305)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42424 of 2011
Petitioner :- Bholay Ram
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(306)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45556 of 2011
Petitioner :- Santu And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(307)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45777 of 2011
Petitioner :- Brahma Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(308)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45779 of 2011
Petitioner :- Shahmal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(309)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38184 of 2011
Petitioner :- Padam Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(310)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13281 of 2010
Petitioner :- Ashok Chaudhary & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. P.S. Industrial Devp. & Ors.
With
(311)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 65531 of 2010
Petitioner :- Inchharam
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
With
(312)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32812 of 2011
Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Vashistha
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(313)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41452 of 2011
Petitioner :- Rajo Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(314)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40970 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ranpal Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-31 (Writ petitions relating to village Luksar)
With
31
(315)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46412 of 2011
Petitioner :- Veerpal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(316)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45733 of 2011
Petitioner :- Gyan Chand
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(317)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46654 of 2011
Petitioner :- Mahraj Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(318)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46414 of 2011
Petitioner :- Kamal Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(319)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46416 of 2011
Petitioner :- Chhajjan And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(320)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46418 of 2011
Petitioner :- Badlae And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(321)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46655 of 2011
Petitioner :- Gajendra Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-32 (Writ petitions relating to village Badpura)
(322)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36047 of 2010
Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(323)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32225 of 2010
Petitioner :- Vijendra Kumar Garg And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
Group-33 (Writ petitions relating to village Raipur Bangar)
(324)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46483 of 2011
Petitioner :- Gajraj Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(325)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46645 of 2011
32
Petitioner :- Atar Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-34 (Writ petition relating to village Malakpur)
(326)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46289 of 2011
Petitioner :- Charan Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Sami Ullah Khan,V.M. Zaidi
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Ramendra Pratap Singh
With
Group-35 (Writ petition relating to village Maicha)
(327)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44611 of 2011
Petitioner :- Rajendra And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-36 (Writ petitions relating to village Kasna)
(328)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46848 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ajay Pal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(329)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45193 of 2011
Petitioner :- Khushi Ram & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Others
With
(330)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40852 of 2011
Petitioner :- Chaman Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(331)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 54028 of 2005
Petitioner :- Kishan Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Industry & Others
With
(332)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41962 of 2007
Petitioner :- Natthu Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Industrial Devlp. & Ors.
With
(333)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33042 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jag Mal Singh & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(334)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46129 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ganeshi And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
33
With
(335)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46636 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jai Chand And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-37 (Writ petitions relating to village Rasulpur Rai)
(336)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45748 of 2011
Petitioner :- Surendra Singh Bhati
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(337)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 48208 of 2011
Petitioner :- Sant Ram And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(338)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45692 of 2011
Petitioner :- Bijendra And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(339)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45750 of 2011
Petitioner :- Laxami Chand
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(340)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45751 of 2011
Petitioner :- Haris Chanda Bhati
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(341)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45772 of 2011
Petitioner :- Peer Mohammad
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(342)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47012 of 2011
Petitioner :- Prem Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-38 (Writ petition relating to village Yusufpur (Chak Sahberi)
(343)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17725 of 2010
Petitioner :- Omveer And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-39 (Writ petitions relating to village Khera Chauganpur)
With
(344)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42323 of 2011
Petitioner :- Subhash Chand Bhati And Others
34
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(345)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43655 of 2011
Petitioner :- Chetram And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(346)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43986 of 2011
Petitioner :- Sanjay And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(347)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46988 of 2011
Petitioner :- Maam Chandra And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
With
Group-40 (Writ petitions relating to village Devla)
(348)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31126 of 2011
Petitioner :- Chaval Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(349)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 59131 of 2009
Petitioner :- Bhagwat & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(350)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22800 of 2010
Petitioner :- Ram Kesh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. P.S. Industrial Devp. & Ors.
With
(351)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37118 of 2011
Petitioner :- Smt. Javitri And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(352)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42812 of 2009
Petitioner :- Mohd. Shakil And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(353)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 50417 of 2009
Petitioner :- M/S. Tosha International Ltd. & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(354)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 54424 of 2009
Petitioner :- Smt. Shakuntala & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
35
(355)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 54652 of 2009
Petitioner :- Smt. Jagwati
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(356)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 55650 of 2009
Petitioner :- Shukhbir And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(357)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 57032 of 2009
Petitioner :- Manaktala Chemical (Pvt.) Ltd.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(358)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 58318 of 2009
Petitioner :- Shivlal & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(359)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22798 of 2010
Petitioner :- Resh Ram
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. P.S. Industrial Devp. & Ors.
With
(360)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37784 of 2010
Petitioner :- Braham Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Ors.
With
(361)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37787 of 2010
Petitioner :- Satbir Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Ors.
With
(362)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31124 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ram Pal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(363)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31125 of 2011
Petitioner :- Prem Dutt Ratudi And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(364)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32234 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jagat Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(365)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32987 of 2011
Petitioner :- Amichand And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
36
(366)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35648 of 2011
Petitioner :- Sundar Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(367)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38059 of 2011
Petitioner :- Devindra Kumar And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(368)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41339 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Bhagchandka @ Ramesh Chand Bhagchandka
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(369)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47427 of 2011
Petitioner :- Tekram And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(370)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47412 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ghasi And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-41 (Writ petitions relating to village Junpat)
(371)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 48253 of 2011
Petitioner :- Khem Chand And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(372)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41558 of 2009
Petitioner :- Sundar Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-42 (Writ petitions relating to village Asdullapur)
(373)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47486 of 2011
Petitioner :- Rajee And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-43 (Writ petitions relating to village Alaverdipur)
(374)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46470 of 2011
Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Bindal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-44 (Writ petitions relating to village Asgarpurjagir)
(375)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46919 of 2011
Petitioner :- Girish Bansal And Another
37
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(376)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24295 of 2010
Petitioner :- Mawasi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. P.S. Industrial Devp. & Ors.
With
Group-45 (Writ petitions relating to village Badoli Bangar)
(377)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42329 of 2011
Petitioner :- Atar Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(378)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42330 of 2011
Petitioner :- Smt. Mahendri And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(379)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42332 of 2011
Petitioner :- Sarjeet And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(380)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44709 of 2011
Petitioner :- Vijay And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(381)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37752 of 2011
Petitioner :- Bijendra Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(382)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38057 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ratan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(383)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47411 of 2011
Petitioner :- Karamveer Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-46 (Writ petitions relating to village Basi Brahauddin Nagar),
(384)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44492 of 2011
Petitioner :- Manoj Yadav And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(385)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46688 of 2011
Petitioner :- Mukesh
38
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-47 (Writ petitions relating to village Chaprauli Bangar),
(386)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43392 of 2011
Petitioner :- Bhushan Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-48 (Writ petitions relating to village Chaura Sadatpur),
(387)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46407 of 2011
Petitioner :- Liley Ram
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-49 (Writ petitions relating to village Dostpur Mangrauli Bangar)
(388)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47259 of 2011
Petitioner :- Rajveer & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Others
With
Group-50 (Writ petitions relating to village Jhatta)
(389)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47257 of 2011
Petitioner :- Bharte & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Others
With
(390)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47267 of 2011
Petitioner :- Kanhaiya Lal & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
Group-51 (Writ petitions relating to village Khoda)
(391)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45196 of 2011
Petitioner :- Rampat & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Others
With
(392)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45208 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ramesh & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(393)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45211 of 2011
Petitioner :- Babu & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(394)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45213 of 2011
Petitioner :- Bashir & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
39
With
(395)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45216 of 2011
Petitioner :- Naipal & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(396)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45223 of 2011
Petitioner :- Kalu & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(397)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45224 of 2011
Petitioner :- Preetam & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(398)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45226 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ramphal & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(399)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45229 of 2011
Petitioner :- Dataram & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(400)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45230 of 2011
Petitioner :- Mohar Singh & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(401)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45235 of 2011
Petitioner :- Tejveer & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(402)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45238 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ramesh & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(403)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45283 of 2011
Petitioner :- Chhail Ram Yadav & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
Group-52 (Writ petitions relating to village Kondli Bangar)
(404)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44093 of 2011
Petitioner :- Beliram
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(405)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40265 of 2011
40
Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(406)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 59121 of 2009
Petitioner :- Ajeet Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(407)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 59122 of 2009
Petitioner :- Devendra Singh & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(408)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 59761 of 2009
Petitioner :- Ishwar Singh Devghar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- S.K. Tyagi
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Ramendra P. Singh
With
(409)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 59762 of 2009
Petitioner :- Dharmpal & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(410)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 64564 of 2009
Petitioner :- Surtey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(411)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 65544 of 2009
Petitioner :- Indraveer Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(412)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 66163 of 2009
Petitioner :- Vikram & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(413)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 68487 of 2009
Petitioner :- Aditya Verma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(414)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 69329 of 2009
Petitioner :- Jagdish Chand
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(415) Case :- WRIT - C No. - 69331 of 2009
Petitioner :- Vijay Pal Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
41
With
(416) Case :- WRIT - C No. - 69332 of 2009
Petitioner :- Virendra Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(417) Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3747 of 2010
Petitioner :- Bhim Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
With
(418)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21504 of 2010
Petitioner :- Ram Lal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secr. Industrial Devp. & Ors.
With
(419)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40267 of 2011
Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(420)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41456 of 2011
Petitioner :- Rameshwar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(421)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41457 of 2011
Petitioner :- Nafees Chaudhary
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(422)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41458 of 2011
Petitioner :- Naveen Chaudhary
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(423)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 48232 of 2011
Petitioner :- Charan Singh And Others
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Ramendra Pratap Singh
With
Group-53 (Writ petition relating to village Nagla Nagli)
With
(424)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46469 of 2011
Petitioner :- Prem Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-54 (Writ petitions relating to village Nithari)
With
(425)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45933 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ravindra Sharma And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru The Princ.Secy. And Others
42
With
(426)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47545 of 2011
Petitioner :- Babu Ram And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-55 (Writ petitions relating to village Sadarpur)
With
(427)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45694 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jai Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(428)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45697 of 2011
Petitioner :- Chhotey Lal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(429)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46579 of 2011
Petitioner :- Phoolwati And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(430)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46580 of 2011
Petitioner :- Saroj Devi And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(431)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47255 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ram Niwas & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Others
With
(432)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45379 of 2011
Petitioner :- Vijay Pal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(433)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47258 of 2011
Petitioner :- Pushgar & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Others
With
(434)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47260 of 2011
Petitioner :- Banwari Lal & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Others
With
(435)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47261 of 2011
Petitioner :- Bhawar Singh & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Others
With
43
(436)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47262 of 2011
Petitioner :- Suresh & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Others
With
(437)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47263 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ram Niwas & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Others
With
(438)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47264 of 2011
Petitioner :- Kalu & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Others
With
(439)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47522 of 2011
Petitioner :- Kalu And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(440)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47523 of 2011
Petitioner :- Rajbir And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-56 (Writ petition relating to village Salarpur Khadar)
With
(441)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46682 of 2011
Petitioner :- Begram @ Began
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-57 (Writ petitions relating to village Shahdara)
With
(442)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44493 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jagdish
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(443)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46037 of 2011
Petitioner :- Rishipal Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(444)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46247 of 2011
Petitioner :- Salek Chand And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(445)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46248 of 2011
Petitioner :- Pratap And Others
44
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(446)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46405 of 2011
Petitioner :- Sripal Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-58 (Writ petitions relating to village Soharkha Jahidabad)
(447)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42834 of 2011
Petitioner :- Amar Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(448)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43825 of 2011
Petitioner :- Nepal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(449)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44984 of 2011
Petitioner :- Samay Pal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(450)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45462 of 2011
Petitioner :- Parsu Ram And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-59 (Writ petitions relating to village Sultanpur)
(451)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46764 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ramesh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(452)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46766 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jeet Ram And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(453)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46785 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jeet Ram And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-60 (Writ petitions relating to village Suthiyana)
(454)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43264 of 2011
Petitioner :- Hariom And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
45
With
(455)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43265 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jagdish
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(456)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43267 of 2011
Petitioner :- Rameshwar Dayal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(457)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43268 of 2011
Petitioner :- Laharu And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(458)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44988 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jaiveer
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(459)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44989 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ranveer
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(460)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44990 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jaiveer
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(461)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47424 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jay Kishan And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(462)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46295 of 2011
Petitioner :- Jai Prakash And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-61 (Writ petitions relating to village Wazidpur)
(463)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47256 of 2011
Petitioner :- Anoop Singh & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Others
With
Group-62 (Writ petitions relating to village Achcheja)
(464)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44985 of 2011
Petitioner :- Tejpal Singh
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And Others
46
With
Group-63 (Writ petitions relating to village Yakubpur)
(465)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5670 of 2007
Petitioner :- Keshari Singh And Others
Respondent :- Government Of U.P. And Others
With
(466)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6726 of 2007
Petitioner :- Hargyan Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-64 (Writ petitions relating to village Shafipur)
(467)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46011 of 2011
Petitioner :- Hari Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(468)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46393 of 2011
Petitioner :- Azaad And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
Group-65 (Writ petitions relating to village Khodna Khurd)
(469)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 48127 of 2011
Petitioner :- Babu And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(470)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 48128 of 2011
Petitioner :- Paimraj And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
With
(471)Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46602 of 2011
Petitioner :- Lekhraj Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
:::::::::::
Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.
Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.
Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.
(Delivered by Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.)
Large scale acquisition of agricultural and Abadi land of farmers of
different villages of Greater Noida and Noida of District Gautam Buddha
Nagar in the name of planned industrial development is the subject matter of
47
challenge in these 471 writ petitions. These writ petitions have been placed
before this Full Bench under orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated
6.8.2011 on a reference made by a Division Bench in writ petition No. 37443
of 2011 and other connected matters. Writ petition No. 37443 of 2011
challenges the notifications dated 12.3.2008 issued under section 4 read with
Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act and notification dated
30.6.2008 by which declaration was made for acquisition of 589.188 hectares
land of village Patwari. Similar notifications under section 4 read with Sections
17(1), 17(4) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued with
regard to different villages. Several writ petitions were filed challenging the
land acquisition which writ petitions came for hearing before the Division
Bench on 26.7.2011.
One of the submissions made before the Division Bench was that the
State had wrongly invoked the provisions of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the
Land Acquisition Act hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ and the right of objection
under section 5A was wrongly dispensed with hence, the entire acquisition
proceedings deserved to be set aside. The petitioners placed reliance on a
Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 19.7.2011 passed in writ petition
No. 17068 of 2009 Harkaran Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others in which
judgment the Division Bench of this Court held that invocation of the
provisions of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act was not justified and relying
on the judgment of the apex Court in Radhey Shyam Vs. State of U.P.
reported in (2011) 5 Supreme Court Cases 533 and judgment of the apex
Court dated 6.7.2011 in Greater Noida Industrial Development
Authority vs. Devendra Kumar reported in 2011 (6) ADJ 480 quashed the
notification dated 12.3.2008 and 30.6.2008. Learned Counsel for the State
refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on
another Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 25.11.2008 in writ
petition No. 45777 of 2008 Harish Chand and others Vs. State of U.P.
and others in which judgment invocation of Section 17(1) and 17(4) was
upheld and the writ petition was dismissed in which same notifications dated
12.3.2008 and 30.6.2008 were under challenge.
Faced with large number of writ petitions challenging the land
acquisition by farmers of different villages of Greater Noida and Noida and
48
noticing two conflicting views expressed by two different Division Benches on
the same notifications, the Division Bench passed following order on
26.7.2011:
“Against this background, prima facie we are of the view
that a larger Bench is required to be formed for the purpose
of hearing these matters not only in respect of the village in
question but also for all the acquisition matters in respect of
the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority for the
ends of justice, to reduce the fume and to avoid the
multiplicity of the proceedings.”
In the same order dated 26.7.2011 to protect the interest of the
petitioners, the Division Bench passed following order.
“However, petitioners will be protected with their rights in
the following manner:
(a) Principle of lis pendens will be applicable in these cases.
Therefore, whatever steps will be taken by the respondents
in the meantime, the same will abide by the result of the
writ petitions.
(b) Willing petitioners may make applications to the State or
the appropriate authority to consider their grievances and if
it is made, the same will be considered carefully upon giving
fullest opportunity of hearing to them, if necessary with the
assistance of the pleader, by 12th August, 2011 and a
report to that extent will be placed before the Court along
with the records of all the acquisition cases on the next date
of hearing i.e. on 17th August, 2011. Applications, if any,
for such settlement out of the Court are totally optional on
the part of the petitioners. Rights, if any, of the unwilling
petitioners under Section 11-A of the Act will not be
infringed.
(c) If the petitioners make such applications for settlement
out of the Court with the State or the State authority, the
same will be considered by them in the line of the Uttar
Pradesh Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation
and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997,
which is commonly known as ''Karar Niymawali, 1997'.
It is pertinent to note that several applications have been
made either by the respective builders and/or purchasers of
flats and/or the banks for impleadment, which have been
strongly opposed by the petitioners by saying that they can
49
not be made parties to these writ petitions as in the cases
of land acquisition the land owners and the requiring
bodies, sometime acquiring bodies, are the necessary
parties and not others. On the part of one of the applicants
it is submitted before this Court that as per the Rules of this
High Court any aggrieved or affected party can be treated
to be intervenor in any of the proceedings, therefore, no
one can be restrained from getting opportunity of hearing.
In these special circumstances, they are required to be
heard. However, at this stage we do not propose to
entertain such applications.
The matters will appear on 17th August, 2011.
Let it be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice/
Hon'ble Senior Judge, as per the Rules and practice of this
Court, to take an administrative decision about formation of
the larger Bench as early as possible, so that the matters
can be placed before such larger Bench on the next date
itself.”
Hon'ble the Chief Justice passed following order on 6.8.2011 on the
aforesaid reference “Hon. R.K. Agrawal, Hon. Ashok Bhushan and Hon'ble
V.K. Shukla, J.J.J. are nominated to deal with all connected matters.”
The Bench was reconstituted again on 17.8.2011.
In view of the aforesaid referring order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the
main writ petition being writ petition No. 37443 of 2011, Gajraj and others Vs.
State of U.P. and others as well as all other connected matters have been
placed before this Full Bench.
We heard learned counsel for the parties on 29.8.2011. In some writ
petitions. The allottees/builders, who received the allotment letter by the
Greater Noida and Noida hereinafter referred to as ‘Authority’ were impleaded
and several applications for impleadment were filed by various
allottees/builders. We after hearing learned counsel for the parties by our
order dated 29.8.2011 allowed learned Counsel for the State, learned Counsel
for the Authority and other parties to file their affidavits. In so far as the
applications for impleadment and interventions which were filed by various
applicants following orders were passed on 29.8.2011.
” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the
50
view that the applicants namely; allottes/builders shall be
heard by this Court under Chapter XXII Rule 5A of the High
Court Rules without being formally impleaded to the writ
petition.”
Various applications were filed for intervention along with affidavits
which were taken on record and we heard learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the Authority and learned
counsel for the interveners. The hearing was completed on 30.9.2011. Along
with the main writ petition, there are writ petitions challenging various similar
notifications issued under section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) and
Section 6 regarding 41 villages of greater Noida and 24 villages of Noida. In
main writ petition, counter affidavits, supplementary counter affidavits have
been filed both by the State as well as by the Authority. Counter affidavits by
private respondents as well as the intervention applications along with
affidavits by several interveners have also been filed. Pleadings being
complete in writ petition No. 37443 of 2011, the said writ petition is being
treated as main writ petition. In so far as other writ petitions of different
villages are concerned, learned Chief Standing Counsel has stated that
counter affidavits have been filed by State and Authority at least in one writ
petition of each village which may be treated to be leading writ petition of the
said village. Although in some other writ petitions, counter affidavits have also
been filed by State and Authority. The writ petitions relating to different
villages are separately grouped and it shall be suffice to refer to the pleadings
of the main writ petition as well as leading writ petitions of each village along
with pleadings of some other writ petitions which were referred to by different
learned counsel during the course of hearing for deciding this bunch of writ
petitions. The facts as brought on record in the main writ petition and the
reference to the pleadings in the said writ petition are sufficient to
comprehend and decide the various issues which have arisen between the
parties in these writ petitions. Hence, facts of the case of the main writ
petition and pleadings therein shall be noted in some detail.
Writ petition No. 37443 of 2011 Gajraj and others Vs. State of U.P. and
others have been filed by 27 writ petitioners who claim to be Bhumidhar with
Transferable right and owner of different plots of land situated in village
51
Patwari, Pargana and Tahsil Dadri, District Gautam Buddha Nagar. The
notification dated 12.3.2008 was issued by the State Government under
section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 notifying that the land
mentioned in the schedule is needed for the public purpose namely for the
planned industrial development in Gautam Buddha Nagar through Greater
Noida Industrial Development Authority. It is useful to quote relevant extract
of the notification dated 12.3.2008 which is to the following effect:
“Under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act,1894 (Act No. 1 of 1894), the Governor is pleased to
notify for general information that the land mentioned in
the Schedule below, is needed for a public purpose namely
for the planned industrial development in district
Gautambudh Nagar through Greater Noida Industrial
Development Authority.
2.The Governor, being of the opinion that the
provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said Act,
are applicable to said land inasmuch as the said land is
urgently required, for the planned industrial development in
district Gautambudh Nagar through Greater Noida Industrial
Development Authority and it is as well necessary to
eliminate the delay likely to be caused by an inquiry under
section 5-A of the said Act, the Governor is further pleased
to direct under Sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the said
Act that the provision of Section 5-A of the said Act shall
not apply”
The inquiry under section 5A having been dispensed with vide
notification dated 12.3.2008, State Government proceeded to issue
declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 30.6.2008 to the
following effect:
“ In continuation of Government notification No.
664/LXXVII-3-2008-86 Arjan-08, dated March 12, 2008
issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 and Sub-section
(4) of 17 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (Act No. 1 of
1894), and lastly published by giving Public Notice on dated
April 18,2008 the Governor is pleased to declare under
section 6 of the said Act that he is satisfied that the land
mentioned in the schedule below is needed for a public
purpose, namely planned industrial development in district
Gautam Budh Nagar through Greater Noida Industrial
Development Authority and under section 7of the said Act
direct the Collector of Gautam Budh Nagar to take order for
52
the acquisition of the said land.
2.The Governor, being satisfied that the case is one of
urgency, is further pleased under Sub-section (1) of
Section 17 of the said Act to direct that the Collector of
Gautam Budh Nagar, though no award under section 11 has
been made, may, on the expiration of fifteen days from the
date of publication of the notice mentioned in Sub-section
(1) of Section-9, take possession of the land mentioned in
the schedule for the said purpose”
The petitioners plead in the writ petition that dispensation of the
inquiry under section 5A can only be an exception where the urgency cannot
brook any delay. The respondents without application of mind dispensed the
inquiry. The acquisition proceedings have been termed as void,
unconstitutional, tainted with malafide, abuse of authority, power and non
application of mind. The provisions under section 5A is mandatory and
embodied a just and wholesome principle that a person whose property is
being or intended to be acquired should have occasion to persuade the
authorities that his property be not touched for acquisition. Land use of
village Patwari was changed in the Master Plan 2021 after the notification
under sections 4 and 6, which is colurable exercise of powers and entire
exercise is arbitrary, illegal and infringes rights of the petitioners guaranteed
under Articles 14, 19 and 300A of the Constitution of India. The petitioners
have stated in the writ petition that writ petition is being filed after knowledge
that the land use of village Patwari was changed in the Master Plan 2021 after
the notifications under sections 4 and 6. The petitioners further claimed that
the part of the property of the petitioners is situate in village Abadi. It is
pleaded that the authority has executed a lease deed dated 31.3.2010 in
favour of respondent no. 4 M/s Supertech Ltd., a company engaged in the
construction allotting 2,40,000 square meters land for constructing multi
storied complexes. Reference of another writ petition No. 28691 of 2011,
Dinesh Kumar Garg and others Vs. State of U.P. and others was made by the
petitioners in which the same notification was under challenge and this Court
has passeed an order directing the parties to maintain status-quo regarding
possession. It has been stated that although land was acquired for industrial
development but the same has been allotted to the builders by the Authority
which clearly indicates that neither there was any appropriate plan and
53
scheme for industrial development nor there was any urgency in the matter
and the whole proceeding was in colourable exercise of power.
The state filed a detailed counter affidavit in the writ petition stating
that after declaration under section 6, the possession of land was taken on
5.9.2008 and 12.1.2009 and about 87% of tenure holders have taken
compensation in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Land Acquisition
(Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement)
Rules, 1997, (hereinafter referred to as '1997 Rules'). The award under
section 11 has been finalised and submitted to the Divisional Commissioner
for his approval. It has been further stated that those petitioners who have
not applied for payment of compensation by agreement under 1997 Rules
hence, they would be paid compensation in terms of award to be declared
under section 11. The award was pending approval when in writ petition
17068 of 2009, Harkaran Singh Vs. State of U.P. this Court vide order dated
19.7.2011 quashed the notification. It is further pleaded that compensation
amount were disbursed in 2009,2010 and 2011 after duly executing the
agreement as per 1997 Rules. It is further pleaded that in writ petition No.
38758 of 2008 M/s. Crane Bel International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and
other decided on 26.8.2010 and writ petition No. 4577 of 2008 Harish Chand
Vs. State decided on 25.11.2008, the invocation of urgency clause under
section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act has already been upheld
by this Court and the writ petitions were dismissed. It is pleaded that no Abadi
was found at the time of survey and only boundary wall and certain trees and
boaring in a room was found on some plots. It is pleaded that there was
sufficient materials before the State Government for invocation of Sections
17(1) and 17(4). Out of 589.188 hectares of land under acquisition,
compensation in respect of 488.998511 hectares of land under the provisions
of U.P. Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of
Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997 has been disbursed and the compensation
for the tenure holders who have not accepted compensation shall be paid
under award under section 11 which is pending approval. Writ petitions have
been filed with delay and laches and the writ petitions are liable to be rejected
on the said ground. The land is proposed to be acquired for planned industrial
development which includes various land uses namely; residential,
54
commercial, industrial, institutional, greens, amenities etc. At the relevant
point of time of initiating the acquisition, the development plan 2021 was in
force. As per the development plan, the land use of area falling in Sector Tech
Zone IV was institutional which was changed subsequently from institutional
to residential and similarly the land use of Sector Eco Tech 13 was changed
from industrial to institutional. The change in use was effected more than one
and half years after the date of acquisition under the approval of the Board of
respondent no. 3 dated 11.2.2010 which was also approved by the State
Government on 30.3.2010. However, the extent of the land use for the whole
area did not alter as the equivalent area was swapped for the respective
purposes. State has also filed a supplementary counter affidavit stating that
proposal for acquisition of 600.600 hectares of land in village Patwari was
submitted by Greater Noida vide letter dated 31.3.2006 along with note of
justification for invoking provisions of section 17. Proposal was thereafter
revised by letter dated 21.7.2006 by which area of 590.289 hectare was
proposed and the Collector vide letter dated 22.2.2008 forwarded the
proposal of 589.188 along with his recommendation to the Directorate of Land
Acquisition, Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow vide letter dated 22.2.2008 and
thereafter notification under section 4 was issued.
A detailed counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit have
been filed by the respondent no. 3 stating that the respondent authority was
constituted vide notification dated 28.1.1991 issued under the U.P. Industrial
Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 1976 Act). It has been
pleaded that after declaration under section 6 dated 30.6.2008, the
possession of the land was handed over to the Authority by possession memo
dated 5.9.2008 and the possession of a small portion of the area was further
taken on 12.1.2009 and thereafter on 16.9.2010. It is stated that except the
petitioners No. 1,3,14 to 20 and 22 rest of the petitioners have received
compensation on various dates in the year 2008-09 and by accepting the
compensation, the petitioners have accepted the both factum of acquisition
and taking of possession. About 83% in terms of area has already been paid
the compensation and out of 1605 persons 1403 have accepted
compensation. Development works have been carried out and the area stands
demarcated as Sectors 2,3 Tech Zone IV, Eco Tech 13, Sector 10 and 11.
55
Authority has so far constructed roads, laid down sewer line, electric
transimission line. Authority has developed green belts and carried out group
housing development works; remaining area of these sectors falls in acquired
land of adjoining villages. In Sector 2, individual residential plots have been
allotted as well as two group housing plots were allotted on 21.3.2010 and
1.3.2011 under the Scheme Code BRS-01/2010 and BRS-04/2010. In Sector 3
about 2250 individual residential plots were allotted through draw of lots in
month of January, 2009 and 625 individual residential plots were allotted
through draw of lots in July, 2009 under the scheme XT-01 and BHS. In
Sector Tech zone-IV group housing plots were also allotted in March, 2010
and March, 2011. In Tech zone IV some institutional and some information
technology plots have also been allotted during the period March, 2008-09. It
is pleaded that compensation has been accepted by some of the petitioners
hence, they are stopped from challenging the acquisition. The writ petition is
barred by time. The notification under challenge has already been upheld by
Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 45777 of 2008 Harish Chand
decided on 25.11.2008. The petitioners are not in possession of the land in
dispute. In addition to compensation special benefits are being extended
including 15% rehabilitation bonus and developed residential plots equivalent
to 6% of the acquired land subject to a minimum of 120 Square meters and
maximum of 2500 square meters. The land use which was changed in two
sectors, there was no change in the extent of the land use. It is pleaded that
acquisition of land is made for the fulfilment of 1976 Act and it is to be borne
in mind that when a new city is to be conceived it could only be developed on
the land which is acquired. There was sufficient materials for invoking the
urgency clause under sections 17(1) and 17(4). It is denied that acquisition is
malafide, illegal or in colourable exercise of powers. It has been further
pleaded by the Authority that after order passed by the Division Bench in this
case on 26.7.2011 leaving it open to both the parties to inter into settlement
between the tenure holders of village Patwari and Authority, the settlement
took place and more than 1264 tenure holders have accepted the additional
compensation which was offered at the rate of 550/- per square meter as ex-
gratia payment from 26.7.2011 to first week of September 2011.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4, M/s
56
Supertech Ltd. who is impleaded as respondent no. 4 to the writ petition. In
the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 4, it has been stated that
respondent no. 4 is a company registered under the Companies Act and has
been allotted plot No. GH08 measuring 2,04000 square meters situated in
Sector-01 along with other developers namely; Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
for building a cluster of residential units. The allotment was made by letter
dated 19.3.2010 and the lease deed had also been executed on 1.4.2010 and
the allotment has been made for a sum of Rs. 194.46 crores, out of which Rs.
11 crores have already been paid. 6000 residential units of varying sizes are
proposed to be constructed . 4471 members of the public have booked units
in the Eco village I project. Out of these 4471 bookings, about 65-70%
bookings have been financed by banks/financial institutions and amount of Rs.
67.74 crores have been given towards booking amount. Construction at the
site was started in September, 2010 and amount of Rs. 99.33 crores have
already been invested towards the actual construction activities. A massive
development work is being carried out by the answering respondent at the
project site. Photographs of construction at the site have been filed as
Annexure-3 which indicates that four floor structures have been constructed
on the site.
There are certain other allottees/builders who have made applications
along with affidavit for intervention giving similar details. The applications
which has been received for intervening in the main writ petition are of
following applicants:
i. M/s Amrapali Leisure Valley Pvt. Ltd. which claims allotment of plot
GH02 area 419519.20 square meters vide allotment letter dated
6.5.2010 lease deed dated 11.10.2010.
ii.M/s Patel Advance JV, which claims allotment of Plot No. GH 03 in
Sector Techzone IV Greater Noida area 96,000 sq. meters. Vide
allotment letter dated 27.4.2010.
iii.M/s Elegant Infracon Pvt. Ltd. which claims allotment of Plot No.
GH-06B area 17,700 sq. meters vide allotment letter dated
57
18.8.2010.
iv.M/s Amrapali Leisure Valley Pvt. Ltd. which claims allotment of plot
GH01 area 106196.00 square meters vide allotment letter dated
23.4.2010.
v. M/s Nirala Infratech Pvt. Ltd. which claims allotment of plot GH04
area 1,00,000 square meters vide allotment letter dated 23.4.2010.
vi.M/s Artha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. which claims allotment of Plot No. 21
Sector-Techzone-IV area 10,000 sq. meters vide allotment letter
dated 3.10.2008.
vii.M/s Good Enough Education Trust which claims allotment of plot
No. 6, Tech. Zone-IV area 41282.74 square meters vide allotment
letter dated 6.5.2010 lease deed dated 9.3.2009.
viii.M/s Amrapali Leisure Valley Pvt. Ltd. which claims allotment of plot
GH02 area 419519.20 square meters vide allotment letter dated
6.5.2010 lease deed dated 11.10.2010.
ix.M/s La Residentia Developers Pvt. Ltd. which claims allotment of
Plot No. GH-06 area 97726.62 sq. meters vide allotment letter
dated 18.8.2010.
x. M/s Amrapali Dream Valley Pvt. Ltd. which claims allotment of plot
GH09, Sector-Techzone-IV area 354298.00 square meters vide
allotment letter dated dated 30.8.2010.
All the aforesaid interveners have filed affidavits in support of
intervention applications making allegations to the similar effect as have been
made by M/s Supertech Ltd. claiming substantial investments and
development on the spot. It has been pleaded by the respondent no. 4 and
other interveners that the allottees were handed over possession by the
Authority and they have carried out substantial development works and
58
invested huge amount and at this stage, the petitioners cannot be allowed to
challenge the acquisition proceedings. They having acquiesced to the
acquisition, they are now stopped from challenging the acquisition. It is
pleaded by them that the respondents obtained the lease deed from the
Authority at the time when there was no challenge to the acquisition and at
this stage, the petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be dismissed on the
ground of laches alone.
We have categorised the writ petitions in different groups,
villagewise. Each village of Greater NOIDA and NOIDA has been allotted one
group. In one group if more than one notifications under Sections 4 and 6 are
challenged, the same has also been mentioned. Group 1 to 41 relate to
different villages of Greater NOIDA and Group 42 to 65 relate to villages of
NOIDA.
There are 14 other writ petitions relating to village Patwari (Group-1)
apart from Gajraj, the main writ petition in which notification dated
12.3.2008 issued under section 4 read with sections 17(1) and 17(4) and 6
have been challenged. The pleadings in the aforesaid writ petition are also to
the similar effect. However, pleadings in few writ petitions which have been
specifically referred by learned counsel need to be noted.
Writ Petition No. 62649 of 2008 Savitri Devi Vs. State of U.P. was filed
challenging the notification dated 12.3.2008 and 30.6.2008 in this Court on
2.12.2008 claiming that petitioner is Bhumidhar of plot No. 687 in Khata
No.625 and had constructed pakka dwelling house over the above noted Araji.
It is stated that adjoining plot Nos. 695 and 686 have been exempted from
acquisition but petitioner's plot has not been exempted. Invocation of urgency
clause has been challenged. It stated that land has been acquired for the
purpose of raising multi-storied buildings for business purposes.
In Writ petition No. 28691 of 2011 Dinesh Kumar Garg and others Vs.
State of U.P. and others, the petitioners' case is that plot No. 407 M Khata No.
111 was purchased by the petitioners by sale deed dated 7.4.2004. There is
Abadi of the petitioners which is being used for residential purpose and in
59
Khasra 1412 Fasli Abadi is mentioned. It is stated in the writ petition that
objections were filed by the petitioners vide letter dated 25.2.2010 to the
Chief Executive Officer for exempting the petitioners' land from acquisition.
Information was also obtained under the Right to Information Act 2005 and
by letter dated 6.10.2010 the petitioners have been informed to the effect
that out of 1.178 hectares of land of plot No. 407, only 0.778 has been
proposed for acquisition and rest has already been left for Abadi. Reliance has
also been placed on interim orders passed in writ petition No. 30914 of 2009
Madanpal Vs. State of U.P.& others dated 16.7.2009 by which order direction
was issued for maintaining status-quo. Challenge to the notification of
Sections 17(1) and 17(4) has also been raised stating that there is no
justification for dispensing with the inquiry under section 5A.
In writ petition No. 32236 of 2011 Satpal Vs. State of U.P. and others
almost identical pleadings have been made as has been made in the main writ
petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner no. 15 and
16 have not accepted even the additional compensation offered by the
authority after the order of this Court dated 26.7.2008. In writ petition no.
39584 of 2011, Khem chand Vs. State of U.P., similar pleadings have been
made as made in the main writ petition. It has been additionally stated that
petitioners no. 1 to 6 have not accepted additional compensation. In writ
petition No. 39584 of 2011 an intervention application has also been filed by
Noida Extension Flat Buyers Welfare Association in which application, it has
been stated that writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in
view of the delay and laches the original tenure holders are not entitled for
restitution of possession. It was pleaded that flat buyers who are members of
association having faith and belief regarding the marketable title in the land of
the builders have booked flats after taking due care and any order quashing
the notification shall take away the rights of the members of the association
causing loss to them. It is pleaded that there is acute need of residential units
in NCR. A counter affidavit has also been filed by Supertech Limited reiterating
the similar pleadings as made in the main writ petition.
The writ petitions in Group-2 are the writ petitions of village Sakipur.
Writ petition No. 47157 of 2011 Rajendra Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.
60
and others relating to village Sakipur has been filed challenging the
notifications dated 31.12.2004, issued under section 4 proposing to acquire
311.3140 acres of land of village Sakipur. Declaration under section 6 was
issued vide notification dated 5.9.2005. Similar pleadings have been made in
the writ petition challenging the notifications. The petitioners have pleaded
that petitioners being law abiding citizen were under impression that the State
Government has acquired their land for the public purpose hence, they did not
come earlier to challenge the notifications. However, latter petitioners came to
know that the very purpose of acquiring the land namely; planned industrial
development has now been changed by the respondents by carving plots and
the land has now been transferred to private builders for the purpose of
commercial complexes and residential under the group housing scheme. The
petitioners have annexed one of the lease granted by Noida Authority to one
M.I. Builders Pvt Ltd. vide lease deed dated 28.3.2007. It has also been
pleaded that the entire acquisition proceedings have lapsed since the award
has not yet been declared. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the
apex Court in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Vs.
Devendra Kumar and others (supra) . It has been pleaded that under the
impression that land is needed for public purpose namely planned industrial
Development by the Authority, the petitioners accepted the acquisition for the
said public purpose but in view of the change of land use, the entire
acquisition proceedings deserve to be quashed. Reference to writ petition No.
42631 of 2011 Mam Chand Vs. State of U.P. has also been made by which
writ petition parties were directed to maintain status quo by interim order
dated 20.8.2009. It is pleaded that notification seeking to acquire the land is
in colourable exercise of power. It is pleaded that without application of mind,
section 17(1) and 17(4) was invoked by dispensing the inquiry. Counter
affidavit has been filed by the State Government stating that petition has been
filed with great delay and is highly barred by time. It has been pleaded that
after issuance of notice under section 9, the possession was transferred on
31.12.2005, 7.3.2008 and 28.1.2011. Out of 649 affected tenure holders 490
tenure holders have already accepted compensation after executing the
agreement. The award has been declared under section 11 on 6.8.2011. Copy
of certificate issued by the Collector for invoking the urgency clause has been
annexed along with the counter affidavit. Copy of the award has also been
61
filed. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the Authority, the respondent
no. 3, in which it has been stated that the possession was handed over to the
respondent no. 3 on 13.12.2005, 7.3.2008 and 28.1.2011. It is further
pleaded that the land owners to the extent of 87% have received
compensation under the agreement. With regard to various development
works it was stated that in Sector Zeta-I five group housing plots were
allotted in the year 2006. In Sector Zeta II, 125 residential plots and Sector
Delta II, 700 residential plots and Sector Delta-III, 290 residential plots have
been allotted. The writ petition has been filed with great delay. Intervention
application has also been filed in the writ petition on behalf of M/s Omex Ltd.
which claimed allotment of land in village Sakipur. In other writ petitions of
the village Sakipur challenge to the same notifications have been made by
raising more or less similar grounds of challenge which need no repetition.
The writ petitions in Group 3 are the writ petitions relating to village
Ghora Bachheri. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40356 of 2011, Satish Kumar
Versus State of U.P. and others, in which counter affidavit has been filed by
the State of U.P. as well as respondent No.3, the Authority, is treated to be
the leading writ petition. The petitioner claims to be bhumidhar of plots
Nos.269, 313 and 1297, which are claimed to be fertile land capable of
yielding three crops. On a portion of the said land, there are 200 trees. These
plots were recorded in the name of petitioner’s late father Chatarveer Singh.
Petitioner also claims that on a part of the plots in dispute, he has constructed
residential house and has been residing therein. Notification under Section 4
read with Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on
03.10.2005 for acquisition of 580.1734 hectares of land of village Ghori
Bachhera. The land was proposed to be acquired for planned industrial
development in district Gautam Budh Nagar through Greater Noida Industrial
Development Authority. Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition
was issued on 05.01.2006. The petitioner’s case in the writ petition is that
land use in the Development Plan-2021 has been shown as ‘industrial’. It is
pleaded that more than 60% of the acquired land has neither been developed
nor has been used for the purpose specified in the Notification, and
particularly not even 1% of the total acquired land has been developed or
used for industrial purpose. Most of the land is in possession of the villagers,
62
who are carrying on agriculture relating activities. An application was
submitted under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 20.06.2011, seeking
information about the industrial development in the acquired land of the
village in question, which was replied by letter dated 11.07.2011. As per the
information given by the Public Information Officer (Industries), no land has
been allotted for industrial purpose in village Ghori Bacchera. A copy o the
letter dated 11.07.2011 has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It is
pleaded that there was no such urgency so as to invoke the provisions of
Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Act. The aforesaid provisions have been
invoked without application of mind and without there being any appropriate
relevant material. The only protection given to the person, whose land is
sought to be acquired, is an opportunity under Section 5A of the Act, which
has been denied. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State, stating that
recorded tenure holders by executing agreement have received compensation
on 01.12.2006 and the award under Section 11 of the Act has been declared
on 25.07.2011. More than 90% of the tenure holders of the village in question
have obtained compensation under 1997 Rules. Proposal was submitted by
respondent No.3 to the State Government vide letter dated 24.08.2005, and
thereafter Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 24.08.2005.
Certificates issued in relevant proforma by the Collector have been filed along
with the counter affidavit. Possession of land was taken and handed over to
respondent No.3 on 14.06.2006 and 06.10.2006. The writ petition suffers
from delay and latches. The urgency clause in the notification was invoked on
sufficient material. The allegations made in paragraph 11 of the writ petition
that land use of the village in question has been shown in the Development
Plan as “industrial” has not been denied except with the statement that the
land had been acquired for planned industrial development. Counter affidavit
has also been filed by respondent No.3 making same pleadings as were made
in the counter affidavit of the State. Out of 2285 persons 2210 have accepted
the compensation under agreement. Development works have been carried
out in the village in question and the area has been demarcated in different
sectors. In the village 3189 residential flats have been allotted under various
schemes and in an area of 3672 sq. meter 976 flats were built by the
Authority, which have been allotted. Group housing flats as well as facility
flats have been allotted. Under 6% scheme for the villagers whose land has
63
been acquired, allotment of land measuring 1357660 sq. meter has been
made. Writ petition is barred by latches. None of the grounds made in the writ
petition have any substance. It is denied that the land use has been changed.
Land use at the time of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act is
residential, commercial and recreational, which has not been changed.
Intervention application has been filed on behalf of Noida Extension
Flat Buyers Welfare Association as well as on behalf of Omax Build Home
Private Limited. Allotment of land was made in the year 2009 and 2010.
In all 25 writ petitions of village Ghori Bachhera, more or less, similar
pleadings have been made by the petitioners, which need not be repeated.
Writ petitions in Group 4 relate to village Pali. Writ petition No.46933
of 2011, Raghubar vs. State of U.P. and others writ petition No.47469 of 2011
and writ petition No.25464 of 2011, relate to this village. Writ petition
No.46933 of 2011, in which pleadings have been exchanged, is being treated
as leading writ petition. In Writ petition No.46933 of 2011, there are 81
petitioners. Notification under Section 4 read with Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4)
of the Act was issued on 07.09.2006 proposing to acquire 225.876 hectares of
land. The Notification mentions acquisition for planned industrial development
in district Gautam Budh Nagar through Greater Noida Industrial Development
Authority. Subsequent thereto Notification under Section 6 of the Act was
issued ON 28.07.2007. Petitioners claim to be bhumidhars of various plots
situate in village Pali. It is alleged that Notification under Section 4 of the Act,
invoking the provisions of Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Act, was issued,
without application of mind and it is submitted that the petitioners had been
under bonafide belief that the land was being acquired to serve the public
purpose as specified in the impugned notification, and the acquiring authority
being in dominating position, the petitioners had no choice but to accept the
compensation under 1997 Rules. They being law abiding citizen and being
under the impression that the State Government has acquired land for public
purpose, they did not come forward to challenge the notification. However,
the very purpose of acquisition has been changed, the respondents are
playing fraud, and they are proposing to use it for construction of commercial
64
and residential houses, hence they have come in the writ petition. No notice
under Section 9 was issued or served upon the petitioners. The petitioners are
willing and ready to refund the compensation. They are entitled to return of
their land. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating therein that
the petitioners have not explained the inordinate delay in challenging the
notification. Possession of the land in dispute was transferred to the Authority
on 01.11.2007 and 10.04.2008. Compensation has been distributed amongst
the farmers to the tune of 93.49%. Award under Section 11 of the Act has
been declared on 10.08.2011. Possession memo has been filed as Annexure-
C.A.-4. Relevant certificates were sent by the Collector with justification to the
State Government. Copy of the award has also been brought on record along
with the counter affidavit. Counter affidavit has also been filed by respondent
No.3 reiterating the pleadings of the State Government. It has also been
stated that after taking over possession area has been demarcated as Sector
Kappa-II. The authority has constructed roads, laid sewer lines and electricity
transmission lines. The area has to be used as Transportation Hubb. Affidavit
on behalf of M/S Paramount Vilas Private Limited has been filed along with
Intervention Application. It has been stated that there is inordinate delay in
filing the writ petition. Lease deed has been executed in favour of the
aforesaid company on 11.04.2011 allotting the plots to the company to build
cluster of residential units. The Company has made huge investment.
Intervention Application has also been filed by M/S Divine Con Build Private
Limited, claiming execution of lease deed in favour of the applicant on
11.04.2011. Allotments are claimed by the U.P.S.I.D.C. It is alleged that the
land has been acquired for U.P.S.I.D.C., which has launched scheme for group
housing. Award under Section 11 of the Act has been made on 10.08.2011.
One of the writ petitions, namely, writ petition No25464 of 2008, Prem Hari
vs. State of U.P. and others was filed on 21.05.2008, challenging the
notification taking similar pleadings. It has also been pleaded that in plot
No.305 there is abadi of the petitioner in an area of 1060 sq. meters of land.
Writ petitions in Group 5 relate to village Biraundi Chakrasenpur. Writ
petition No.46501 of 2011, Jagdish vs. State of U.P. and others is being
treated as leading writ petition. In the said writ petition counter affidavits
have been filed by the State as well as by the authority. Notification under
65
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 28.11.2002 proposing
acquisition of 163.2208 hectares of land of the village in question. The
provisions of Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Act had been invoked. The
purpose mentioned in the notification was planned industrial development.
Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 29.01.2003. The
petitioners claim to be still in possession of the land. The petitioners claim that
there was no application of mind while invoking the provisions of Sections 17
(1) and 17 (4) of the Act. The respondents have not complied with the
mandatory provisions of Section 17 (3A) of the Act. The State Government till
date has not taken possession of the land. Compensation under agreement
was received in the year 2007. Abadi plots of influential persons have been
left from acquisition. Abadi plots of illiterate persons have been included in the
acquisition. In the land under acquisition there is abadi of the petitioners.
Acquisition proceedings are nothing but colourable exercise of power by the
State Government. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating
therein that the possession of land was taken on 07.05.2003 and 94%
compensation has already been disbursed. Award under Section 11 of the Act
has also been declared on 09.09.2009. 85% of the land owners have accepted
compensation under agreement. There is delay in filing writ petition. The
petitioners are not in possession of the land. Section 11A of the Act is not
attracted since possession was taken after invoking the power under Section
17 of the Act. Counter affidavit has also filed on behalf of the Authority. Land
use under the development plan was shown as residential. Construction of
flats by the builders has been made. It has been denied that the petitioners
were forced to accept the compensation.
In writ petition No.46747 of 2011, Kashi Ram Vs. State of U.P. and
others, it has been stated that no industry has come up in the area and only
some builders have come up. It is stated that no possession has been taken
from the petitioners in accordance with law. In other writ petitions relating to
village Biraundi Chakrasenpur, grounds of challenge to the notification, more
or less, are similar.
Writ petition No.46130 of 2011, Roshan vs. State of U. P. And others
has been filed challenging the notification dated 31.07.2007 issued under
66
Section 4 of the Act proposing to acquire plot No.64Kha area 0.8233 Hectares.
Urgency clause was invoked by dispensing enquiry under Section 5A of the
Act. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 15.01.2008.
Petitioners’ case is that they are still in actual possession of the land in
dispute. The respondents have not complied with the provisions of Section
17(3A) of the Act. No award has yet been made. Very nominal sum of money
was paid to the petitioners. There was no sufficient material for invoking the
provisions of Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Act. Acquisition of land is
nothing but colourable exercise of powers. Counter affidavit has been filed by
the State, stating that the possession of the land has been taken on
09.05.2008. The only tenure holder, who has filed writ petition, has already
received the compensation under the agreement. There were sufficient
materials for invoking the urgency clause under the provisions of Sections 17
(1) and 17 (4) of the Act. Development has been made in the area by
constructing roads, laying down sewer lines and electricity transmission lines.
Group housing development work has also been done. The writ petition has
been filed with delay.
Writ petitions in Group 6 relate to village Tusiyana. Writ petition
No.42324 of 2011, Kunwar Pal Bhati and others vs. State of U.P. and others,
is being treated to be the leading writ petition. The petitioners claim to be the
bhumidhars of different plots of village in question. Notification under Section
4 of the Act read with Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Act had been issued
on 10.04.2006 by the State Government proposing to acquire 379.001
hectares of land of the village for planned development in district Gautam
Budh Nagar through Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority. The
petitioners claim to have constructed dwelling units and earning their
livelihood by carrying agricultural activities. Notification under Section 6 of the
Act was issued on 30.11.2006. Petitioners claim to be in possession of their
land and carrying on agricultural activities. It is pleaded that invocation of
urgency clause under the provisions of Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Act
was without any basis and without sufficient material. Dispensation of enquiry
under Section5A of the Act has been made in routine manner. It is further
pleaded by the petitioners that the Authority is calling for negotiation only
those persons who have filed writ petition in the High Court. Award under
67
Section 11 of the Act has been issued on 27.04.2010. Counter affidavit has
been filed by the Authority stating that possession was taken on two different
dates, i.e. 02.02.2007 and 25.03.2008. It is further stated that out of 379.001
Hectares of land, compensation in respect of an area of 260.854 hectare has
been disbursed and accepted by the land owners. Out of 970 tenure holders
787 have accepted compensation. Development work has been done in the
area and the area has been demarcated as Sector KP-5 and Ecotech-3. The
Authority has constructed roads, laid down sewer lines and electricity
transmission lines, and made allotment of group housing work. I.T. and
Institutional plots have also been allotted between 2007 and 2011. The
petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavit, stating that the area acquired in the
year 2006 remains vacant. Allotment to certain builders was made in the year
2009 and 2011. It is further pleaded that the petitioners were given assurance
that the industries would be set up in their land, under which assumption, the
petitioners never approached the court of law and had taken compensation
whatever was given to them, since they were under the impression that after
establishment of industries, their children would get employment and earn
their livelihood. It is further pleaded that industries were established only in
the year 1998, and thereafter there is no whisper of any industry being
established in the village. It is further stated that the area which has now
been demarcated, is for residential colonies to such persons, who would have
no concern with the establishment of industry. Now it would be very difficult
that any industry would be established, as the Authority itself would not give
permission to industries to come up in the residential colonies. Application for
intervention has also been filed by the Greater Noida Extension Flat Buyers
Welfare Association.
In writ petition No.45672 of 2011, Adesh Chaudhray vs. State of U.P.
and others, similar allegations have been made. It has been further pleaded
that in village Patwari, the land owners have been given additional
compensation of Rs.550/- per sq. yard, which was also publicized in the
newspaper dated 07.08.2011. Case of the petitioners is that they have been
discriminated by not giving additional compensation. It is stated that the land
of the village remains unused and is not being used for the purpose for which
it was acquired. Writ petition No.47502 of 2011 has been filed by 76
68
petitioners challenging the aforesaid notifications dated 10.04.2006 and
30.11.2006. Petitioners have pleaded that after taking possession of the land
so acquired under the alleged planned development scheme, entire land has
been allotted to property developers and building colonizers. Copy of the
allotment order dated 14.08.2007 has been filed as Annexure-6 to the writ
petition. The fact of allotment through letter dated 14.08.2007 came to be
knowledge of the petitioners in the third week of July, 2011, and thereafter
copy of the letter was obtained on 08.08.2011. Petitioners have further
pleaded that they were given to understand that the land acquired would be
used for industrial development, which would provide the youths of the village
employment and taking of their land would not financially affect their family.
It is alleged that the respondent Authority has hatched conspiracy of depriving
the farmers of their land under mala fide and colourable exercise of power.
The petitioners Nos. 18 and 24 have not received compensation so far. The
others have received compensation at the rate of Rs.850/- per sq. yard. It is
further alleged that the acquisition proceedings have resulted in pocketing of
huge profit limited in few by depriving the bulk of population of their
residential abadi and their source of livelihood in the name of development,
which is a form of camouflage and false prospective of development.
Writ petitions of Group 7 relates to village Dabra. Writ petition
No.45450 of 2011, Phundan Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others,
has been filed challenging the notification dated 31.10.2005 issued under
Section 4 read with Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Act. By means of the
aforesaid notification land measuring 121.8506 hectares was proposed to be
acquired. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 01.09.2006.
Writ petition has been filed by 49 tenure holders. Petitioners’ case in the writ
petition is that when their land was acquired, there was no demand for
establishing industry in the area. Further the respondents had also no
approved scheme or project to establish industry and develop the area as
industrial area. Respondent No.3 at the time of acquisition was in possession
of vacant land, which was sufficient for development. There is sufficient delay
in issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act, which clearly indicates
that there was no urgency for invoking the provisions of Sections 17 (1) and
17 (4) of the Act, which were arbitrarily invoked. The petitioners’ land is still
69
vacant and they are in possession. There was no sufficient material before the
State Government to direct for dispensation of enquiry under Section 5A of
the Act. In the counter affidavit fled by the State, it has been stated that the
possession was taken on 31.01.2007 and award has been declared on
23.07.2011. It is further stated that in accordance with 1997 rules out of 552
land owners 490 have accepted compensation. There was sufficient material
for dispensing with the enquiry. Possession memo dated 31.01.2007 has also
been filed as Annexure with the counter affidavit. Details of construction of
different flats have been mentioned in Prapatra-16, which has been filed as
Annexure-C.A.-3 to the counter affidavit. Counter affidavit has also been filed
by the Authority reiterating the above pleadings. Under 6% residential scheme
192 flats have been allotted to the villagers.
Writ petitions in Group 8 relate to village Dadha. Writ petition
No.46160 of 2011, Ranveer Dadha and others vs. State of U.P. and others has
been filed challenging the Notification dated 31.12.2004 issued under Section
4 read with Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Act by the State Government,
under which 83.084 hectares of land was sought to be acquired. Declaration
under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 01.07.2005. Petitioners’ case in the
writ petition is that they are still in possession of their land and doing
agricultural activities. The respondents are alleged to have taken possession
on 28.12.2005, 3.05.2006 and 29.01.2011, whereas petitioners are still in
possession of their land. The award having not been issued within two years
of the notification, under Section 11A of the Act, entire land acquisition
proceedings stood lapsed. It is stated that joint objection was filed on
25.07.2008 praying for exemption of land for abadi purpose. It is stated that
similarly placed persons were given benefit by exempting and regularizing
their land Reference of writ petition No.54028 of 2006, Kishan Singh vs. State
of U.P. and others has been made, in which writ petition same notification
was under challenge, and the Division Bench vide its order dated 19.09.2005
had directed the parties to maintain status-quo. Counter affidavit has been
filed by the State, stating therein that the writ petition has been filed with
delay of 6 years; as such it deserves to be dismissed. Possession of land was
taken on 28.12.2005. Award had been given on 15.05.2009 Compensation has
been received by all the tenure holders. It is stated that there was sufficient
70
material before the State Government to dispense with the enquiry under
Section 5A of the Act. Relevant proposals were submitted by the Collector.
Counter affidavit has also been filed by the Authority. Apart from reiterating
the pleadings as made by the State, it has been stated that under the
residential scheme669 plots have been allotted. I.T. and Institutional plots
have been allotted between 2006 and 2011. Residential plots under 6%
scheme have also been allotted.
In writ petition No.44181 of 2011, Dharam Pal and others vs. State of
U.P. and others, same Notifications have been challenged. Writ petition has
been filed by 27 persons. It has been further pleaded that for the satisfaction
of the State there should be some material in support of the demand of land
for public purpose. There is no evidence that any reputed industrialist of the
country or abroad had approached the respondents or the respondents
themselves have any plan or project for establishing industry. Respondent
No.3 had no plan or project to establish any industry in the area. Issuance of
Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act are colourable exercise of
powers for acquiring the land from the farmers without any concrete plan to
develop the area and establish the industry. The respondents have also
changed the purpose of acquisition and some part of the land has been given
to the private builders to construct the residential premises, and lease deed
dated 08.02.2007 has been executed in favour of one M/s Steeler Sprint
Private Limited. Petitioners were given compensation at the rate of 270.50/-
per sq. yard. Award was declared on15.05.2009. there was no urgency in the
matter, which required dispensation of enquiry under Section 5A of the Act.
Counter affidavit has been filed by the State, repeating the same pleadings as
mentioned in the counter affidavit filed in writ petition No.46160 of 2011.
In writ petition No.45345 of 2011, Chand and others vs. State of U.P.
and others, same notifications have been challenged. Apart from other
pleadings, it has been stated that there was no project or plan with the
respondents to establish the industry in the area nor was there any material
that any reputed industrialist of the country had approached the respondents
and submitted any plan or project for establishing their industry in the said
area. 90% of the acquired land is being used for construction of residential
71
colonies.
Writ petitions of Group 9 relate to village Roza Yakubpur. Writ petition
No.37119 of 2011, Dal Chand vs. State of U.P. and others, in which pleadings
are complete, is being treated as leading writ petition. Petitioners claim to be
bhumidhars in possession of plots as detailed in paragraph 3 of the writ
petition. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 31.08.2007,
invoking the provisions of Sections 17 (1) and 17(4) of the Act, proposing to
acquire 484.836 hectares of land of the village in question for planned
development. Notification under Section6 of the Act was issued on
27.02.2008. Petitioners’ case in the writ petition is that the land of the
petitioner sought to be acquired as per the notification for planned
development is in fact camouflage. It is stated that in fact the land has been
acquired for the purposes of transferring the same to the private builders.
Entire exercise has been termed to be colourable exercise of power. It is
pleaded that there is no project on the part of the respondent Authority for
planned industrial development over the said land. By lease deed dated
28.07.2010 an area of 106196 sq. meter being flat No.GH-01, Tech Zone-4
has been transferred to M/s Amrapali Leisure Valley Developers Private
Limited for group housing. Similarly by lease deed dated 25.02.2001 an area
of 354288 sq. meter of plot No.GH-09, Sector Tech Zone-4 has been
transferred to M/S Amrapali Dream Valley Private Limited. By another lease
deed dated 17.02.2011 an area of 272916 sq. meter land of plot NO. GH-05,
Sector Tech Zone-4 has been transferred to M/S Amrapali Centurion Park
Private Limited. Likewise by lease deed dated 11.10.2010 an area of 85202
sq. meter of land has been transferred to M/S Supertech Limited and by lease
deed dated 02.04.2011 an area of 86037 sq. meter land has been transferred
in favour of M/S Omarnests Private Limited and further by lease deed dated
03.11.2010 allotment has been in favour of M/S Rajesh Project Limited of an
area of 74731 sq. meter. It is stated that although the land of the village in
question was acquired by the State Government for planned industrial
development, but the same is being utilized for construction of colonies. In
the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioners have brought on record resolution of
the Authority dated 02.02.2010, by which it was resolved that area adjoining
130 meter road towards Noida be changed from industrial to housing scheme,
72
which shall be in the interest of the Authority. The petitioners have stated that
the land is not being used for the purpose for which it was acquired, rather
land use is sought to be changed by resolution dated 02.02.2010. It is stated
that the residential purpose is always connected with industries. There was no
reason to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. On the
material which was with the State Government, no reasonable person can
form an opinion that there was need to dispense with the enquiry under
Section 5A of the Act. Under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner was
informed that the area of village Roza Yakubpur is included in Tech Zone-4,
Sector-2, Sector 16, Sector 16B, Ichotech-12, Ichotech-13 and Ichotech-15.
Petitioners claim that they came to know in May, 2011 that their land of
village in question will not be used for planned industrial development.
Thereafter, they made enquiries and came to know about the lease deeds
executed in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 8. Counter affidavit has been filed
by the State, in which it has been stated that possession was taken on
19.03.2008 and 87.164% of the compensation has already been disbursed.
Award was declared on 29.11.2010. It has been stated that there was
sufficient material forwarded by the Collector, including the relevant
certificates on the basis of which the State Government dispensed with the
enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. Copy of the award has also been brought
on record along with the counter affidavit. Under agreement in accordance
with 1997 Rules the land owners were granted compensation of Rs.850/- per
sq. yard, whereas under Section 11 (1) of the Act compensation fixed was
Rs.370.37/- per sq. meter.
In the writ petition Intervention applications have been filed on behalf
of respondent Nos.4, 6,8 and 9. Intervention application has also been filed
on behalf of M/S Prem Industries and M/S Unicure India Private Limited as
well as on behalf of M/S Ajnara Realtech Limited and M/S S.G.S. Udyog
Private Limited. Private respondents seeking intervention have given details of
allotment of various plots to them between 2008 and 2011, details of delivery
of possession to them and the lease land, details of payments made by them
and the developments being carried out by them. Certain photographs
depicting developments have also been annexed along with the counter
affidavit. Impleadment application on behalf of Indrani Merchandise Private
73
Limited, apart from 15 other applications along with affidavit have also been
filed through Adersh Agrawal and Sri Piyush Shukla, Advocates. The applicants
claim handing over of possession in the year 2008 and thereafter copies of the
lease deeds granted to the aforesaid applicants have been annexed, which
indicate that most of the aforesaid applicants were allotted 2100 sq. meters to
5000 sq. meters of land except one Sushil Dung, who was allotted 33362 sq.
meter of land. All the aforesaid applicants claim allotment for industrial
purpose. It was further pleaded by the applicants that the petitioners are
guilty of delay and latches.. About 117 industries have been given allotment in
Ichotech-12. The other petitioners have raised more or less the similar
submissions, which need not be repeated.
Writ petitions in Group 10, which are two in number, relate to village
Roza Yakubpur. These are writ petition No.45328 of 2011, Harish Chandra
and others vs. State of U.P. and others and writ petition No.39385 of 201,
Baljeet and others vs. State of U.P. and others . In these two writ petitions
Notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 27.02.2008 and notification
under Section 6 of the Act dated 30.06.008 have been challenged on similar
grounds.
Writ petitions in Group 11 relate to village Aimnabad. Writ petition
No.43623 of 2011, Chhatar Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, in which
pleadings are complete, is being treated as leading writ petition. This writ
petition challenges the notification dated 24.08.2006 issued under Section 4 of
the Act read with Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act,
proposing to acquire 100.428 hectares of land of the village in question for
planned industrial development. Petitioner's case is that he is bhumidhar of
the land in dispute. Though the land was acquired for for planned industrial
development, but it has been allotted to private builders for construction of
residential complexes. It is pleaded by the petitioner that after coming to
know about the acquisition, he filed representation dated 12.08.2006 praying
for exemption of the land on the ground that the aforesaid land was the only
land, in which the petitioner carried agricultural activities, which was the only
source of livelihood of the petitioner. The fact that the land has been allotted
to builders came to the knowledge of the petitioner only in July, 2011. There
74
was no ground to invoke the provisions of Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the
Land Acquisition Act. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State, in which it
has been stated that possession has been taken on 20.07.2007 of 84.578
hectares of land. 81% of the compensation has already been disbursed .
Award has been declared on 27.07.2011. There was sufficient material with
the State Government for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the
Act. The petitioner, having accepted compensation, could have no grievance
regarding acquisition of land. After taking possession, area has been
demarcated as Sector-I and Section KP-5. Roads etc. have already been
constructed by the Authority. I.T. plots and Group Housing plots have been
allotted in the village.
Writ petitions in Group 12 relate to village Khanpur. Writ petition
No.39037 of 2011, Mahipal Sharma and others vs. State of U.P. and others, in
which pleadings are complete, is being treated as leading writ petition. By
means of this writ petition notification issued under Section 4 of the Act dated
31.01.2008 read with Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act,
proposing to acquire and area of 187.325 hectares of land, has been
challenged. Notification under Section 6 of the Act had been issued on
30.06.2008. Petitioners' case is that plot No.357 is abadi land where the
house of the petitioners situate. Petitioners approached respondent No.4
along with relevant khasra, khatuani and photographs of the house praying
for exemption of the plot. Petitioners' case is that in pursuance of the
direction of respondent No.4 notary affidavit was also filed. There was no
ground to invoke urgency clause. Petitioners could not earlier file writ petition,
since they were under bona fide impression that the land has been exempted
and for the first time on 06.04.2011, petitioners came to know that the land
has not been exempted, when they applied for copy of khatauni for getting
agricultural loan. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating therein
that possession was taken on 10.10.2008, and out of 385 tenure holders 345
have accepted compensation under the agreement. Award has also been
declared on 10.08.2011. A joint survey was conducted prior to issuance of
notification, in which survey no abadi was found in plot No.357. Government
Order dated 24.04.2010 has been issued by the State Government for
settlement of abadi on the claim of tenure holders by means of lease back of
75
the land on which abadi existed. If the petitioners fulfil criteria and if there is
abadi on the land, lease back may be given to the petitioners in accordance
with law. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the Authority reiterating the
pleadings made by the State. It is further stated that the writ petition is
barred by latches. It has been denied that in plot No.357 there is abadi of the
petitioners. Intervention application has also been filed by M/S Unitech
Limited claiming that lease deed has already been executed by the Authority
in favour of the applicant for developing of group housing for HIG, MIG and
LIG. In writ petition No.45537 of 2011, Smt. Harbati and others vs. State of
U.P. and others, petitioners claim to have purchased the rights of one Dharm
Pal Birbal by registered sale deed dated 05.02.2007 and their names have also
been mutated. Petitioners claim to have constructed pucca house.
Writ petitions in Group 13 there is only one writ petition relating to
village Biraunda, i.e., writ petition No.46644 of 2011, Dalip Singh vs. State of
U.P. and others, challenging the notification dated 15.12.1999 issued under
Section 4 of the Act read with Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Land
Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire 58.893 hectares of land of the village in
question for planned industrial development. Notification under Section 6 of
the Act was issued on 22.04.2000. Petitioners claim to be in actual physical
possession. Petitioner's case is that instead of utilizing the land for planned
industrial development, the land has been allotted to big builders like Green
Wood Edico and NLF. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State, in which it
has been stated that the writ petition is highly barred by time and it deserves
to be dismissed on this ground alone. Possession of land was taken on
28.07.2000 and 11.10.2002 of an area of 55.210 and 3.777 hectares of land
respectively. 97% of the compensation has already been disbursed. Award
was made on 09.01.2009. The Authority has also filed short counter affidavit
stating that Sector PI-I and II and R-Green were developed and the land was
allotted way back in the years 2001-2006. Amusement Park had been
constructed in the year 2003 and Institutional plot in the year 2003.
The writ petitions in Group-14 relate to village Chuharpur Khadar. In
Writ Petition No.46127 of 2011 (Bjendra vs. State of U.P. and others)
pleadings are complete and the said writ petition is being treated as leading
76
writ petition of the aforesaid village. In this writ petition, the petitioner has
prayed for quashing the notification dated 21
st
June, 2003 issued under
Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act proposing to acquire
214.598 hectares land of village Chuharpur Khadar. The declaration under
Section 6 of the Act was issued on 7
th
August, 2003. The petitioner claims that
he is owner and in possession of the land in dispute. The exercise of land
acquisition is said to be arbitrary, malafide and in colourable exercise of
power. It is pleaded that acquisition has been made without making any plan.
It is further pleaded that provisions of Section 17(3-A) of the Act has not been
complied with and no award has yet been made under Section 11 of the Act.
It is alleged that petitioner and other villagers have been forced to receive the
compensation at lower rate. There was no such urgency in the matter to
enable the State to dispense with inquiry under Section 5A of the Act. The
petitioner has his house in the land in dispute. A counter affidavit has been
filed by the State stating that possession of the land was taken on 4
th
September, 2004 and 100% tenure holders have received compensation
under agreement. The GNOIDA vide letter dated 4
th
December, 2002
forwarded the proposal for acquisition which was forwarded by the Collector
on 18
th
January, 2003. The petitioner having voluntarily received
compensation, he is not entitled to challenge acquisition after six years and
the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay. The
GNOIDA has also filed its counter affidavit reiterating the pleadings made by
the State Government. It has further been stated that the residential plots
under 6% quota has already been allotted. It is also stated that award was
declared on 18
th
March, 2005. An application for intervention has been filed on
behalf of Mr. Manmohan Bansal who claims to have purchased a plot from
A.T.S. Residential Society which has constructed more than 800 flats in the
society. It is stated that various residential colonies have already come up
including Army Welfare Housing Organisation Society. The applicant prays
that writ petition be dismissed on the ground of delay.
In Writ Petition No.48209 of 2011 (Shiva Dutta and others vs. State of
U.P. and others) notifications dated 2
nd
May, 2003 and 21
st
June, 2003 issued
under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act by which
135.73 hectares of land was proposed to be acquired, have been challenged.
77
The declaration under Section 6 was issued on 5
th
June, 2003 and 7
th
August,
2003, which have also been challenged. By subsequent declaration dated 7
th
August, 2003 the land to the extent of 214.596 hectares was sought to be
acquired.
Writ Petition No.45072 of 2011 (Kartar Singh and others vs. State of
U.P. and others) has been filed by 50 tenure holders challenging the
notifications dated 2
nd
May, 2003 and 21
st
June, 2003 issued under Section 4
read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act as well as the notifications
dated 5
th
June, 2003 and 7
th
August, 2003. An intervention application has
been filed in the said writ petition by Mr. Manmohan Bansal stating similar
facts as has been stated in Writ Petition No. 46127 of 2011.
The writ petitions in Group-15 relate to village Badalpur. In Writ
Petition No.42548 of 2011 (Mangat Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and
others) pleadings are complete and the said writ petition is treated to be
leading writ petition of village Badalpur. This writ petition has been filed by 50
tenure holders of village Badalpur challenging the notification dated 20
th
June,
2007 issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act
proposing to acquire 230.554 hectares land of village Badalpur. The
declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 18
th
June, 2008 for
acquiring the land for planned industrial development. The petitioners claim to
be owners and in possession of the plots mentioned in paragraph 3 of the writ
petition. The petitioners claim to be using their land for residential as well as
agricultural purposes, which is only source of livelihood for them. It is pleaded
that there is no material to indicate that any reputed industrialist of the
country or abroad has submitted any plan or project for establishing industry
in the said area. The petitioners further submit that there is delay of about
one year in issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act which itself
clearly indicates that there was no urgency in the matter for dispensing with
the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act. It is further submitted that issuance
of notification is in colourable exercise of power. It is further pleaded that
GNOIDA by changing the purpose of acquisition is now inviting private
colonisers/builders to built up private colonies. Discrimination has also been
alleged that the land of certain influential persons have been released from
78
acquisition. Name of Kishan Lal, who happened to be Chairman of Zila
Panchayat, Gautam Budh Nagar whose land situate in Khasra No.774 has
been referred. The said Kishan Lal was given land in other plots in the prime
location. Further Kishan Lal was also permitted to sell the land. In paragraph
10 of the writ petition details of other persons whose lands were released has
been mentioned. A resolution was also passed by the GNOIDA on 20
th
December, 2010 for adjusting certain persons whose names were mentioned
in the resolution on some other plots. The resolution notes that earlier the
villagers have made serious demonstration against the acquisition and unless
they are adjusted there shall be serious problem. The petitioners’ case is that
they also raised their objection for release/return of the land. The petitioners
have also expressed their willingness to return the amount of compensation
and an application submitted to Deputy Chief Executive Officer on 25
th
May,
2011 has been referred to, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-7 to the
writ petition. It is alleged that inquiry under Section 5A of the Act was wrongly
dispensed with. It is submitted that about 60% of the land has not been
developed. In the supplementary affidavit, it has been pleaded that the land
was not needed for any industrial purpose and the same is being acquired
illegally for establishing colonies to give benefit to certain local leaders of
ruling party. It has been stated that certain persons have been permitted to
lease back and they were also permitted to sell the land. Details regarding
said fact has been mentioned in Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit.
The petitioners’ case further is that they are being pressurised to accept the
amount of compensation under the 1997 Rules. It is pleaded that when the
petitioners did not accept the compensation, they were tortured by the local
police and their signatures were forcibly obtained on the agreement. They
were also taken away by the police and proceedings under Section 107/116 of
Cr.P.C. were initiated against the petitioners on 13
th
September, 2007. It is
pleaded that petitioners and other tenure holders have received compensation
under compulsion and pressure. The petitioners have also amended the writ
petition by amending paragraphs 30, 31, 31A, 31B and 31C. It is stated by the
petitioners that notifications in question have been challenged earlier in Writ
Petition No.35509 of 2008 which writ petition was dismissed by this Court on
4
th
September, 2009 against which judgment special leave to appeal has been
filed before the Apex Court which is pending consideration. It is further stated
79
that the respondents have acquired the land in colourable exercise of power
and the valuable land is being used for constructing big parks leaving green
belt. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating that possession of
the land was taken on 18
th
July, 2009 of 226.291 hectares land. It is stated
that 86% compensation has already been disbursed. The award has also been
declared on 19
th
August, 2011. It is stated that after following due procedure
the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act was dispensed with. Under the 1997
Rules, out of total acquired land of 230.554 hectares, compensation has been
received for an area of 182.9985 hectares. The petitioners having entered into
an agreement, they have relinquished their right to challenge the notification.
Any abadi constructed by the petitioners was without permission of the
GNOIDA. The writ petition suffers from delay and laches. The State has
already issued a Government order dated 24
th
April, 2010 regarding lease
back for purpose of abadi and a Committee has been constituted to examine
different claims. The notifications impugned have already been upheld by a
Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 4
th
September,
2009 in Writ Petition No.35509 of 2008 (Munshi Singh vs. State of U.P.
and others) reported in 2009(8) ADJ 360. A counter affidavit has also been
filed by respondent No.3 stating that notifications have already been upheld
by a Division Bench of this Court in Munshi Singh’s case (supra). It is denied
that land has been allotted to profit colonisers or builders in village Badalpur.
It is, however, admitted that by way of settlement of the grievances of the
land owners certain land was leased out to land owners. The leases granted
to various land owners have been mentioned in paragraphs 9 and 11 of the
counter affidavit of the State. The village Badalpur has been notified as part of
the industrial development area way back in the year 1996. The allegation
that petitioners are still in possession has been denied. Under the 1976 Act
allotment to private builders is not prohibited.
In Writ Petition No.45558 of 2011 (Smt. Savitri Devi vs. State of U.P.
and others) aforesaid notifications of village Badalpur have been challenged.
The petitioner’s grievance is that her Plot No.744 area 150 square yard has
not been exempted whereas the respondents have exempted plots of others
in the same Plot No.744. In Writ Petition No.43870 of 2011 (Madhuri Saxena
and others vs. State of U.P. and others), petitioners’ case is that petitioners
80
intended to open an Old Age Day Care Centre on the plot which was
purchased by the petitioners on 30
th
October, 2006. It is submitted that
petitioners made representations on 4
th
August, 2008, 2
nd
June, 2009 and 27
th
April, 2011 for exemption of their plot which have not yet been accepted. It is
further stated that the respondents have adopted pick and choose policy
insofar as petitioners’ land has not been exempted and land of similarly
situated persons have been exempted from acquisition in the same plot. In
Writ Petition No.45454 of 2011 (Likhkhi and others vs. State of U.P. and
others) more or less similar grounds have been taken for challenging the
acquisition.
The writ petitions in Group-16 relate to village Sadopur. In Writ
Petition No.46026 of 2011 (Umesh Chaudhary and others vs. State of U.P. and
others) pleadings are complete which is being treated as leading writ petition
of village Sadopur. The writ petition has been filed challenging the notification
dated 31
st
August, 2007 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and
17(4) of the Act for acquisition of area 142.160 hectares of village Sadopur.
The declaration under Section 6 was issued on 30
th
June, 2008. Petitioners’
case is that although more than four years have elapsed from the acquisition
but no development has taken place. It is further stated that in Khasra abadi
of the petitioner exists. There was no ground to invoke urgency clause while
issuing notification under Section 4 of the Act. In the counter affidavit filed by
the State it has been stated that possession was taken on 16
th
February, 2009
and award was declared on 13
th
July, 2010. About 74% of the compensation
has already been disbursed in accordance with the 1997 Rules. It is pleaded
that there was sufficient materials before the State Government for dispensing
with the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act. Apart from payment of
compensation, 6% abadi plot is also allotted subject to minimum of 120
square meters and maximum of 2500 square meters. A short counter affidavit
has also been filed by the GNOIDA in which it has been stated that
notifications under challenge have already been upheld by this Court vide its
judgment in Munshi Singh’s case (supra). The other writ petitions of this
village raise more or less similar grounds challenging the notifications which
need no repetition.
81
The writ petitions of Group-17 relate to village Gharbara. In Writ
Petition No. 46767 of 2011 (Satbir and others vs. State of U.P. and others)
pleadings are complete and this writ petition is treated as leading writ petition
of village Gharbara. In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the
notification dated 3
rd
October, 2005 issued under Section 4 read with Sections
17(1) and 17(4) proposing acquisition of 59.561 hectares land of village
Gharbara. The declaration under Section 6 was issued on 20
th
December,
2005. Petitioners’ case is that there was no occasion to invoke urgency clause
for planned industrial development. Petitioners’ case further is that they have
accepted the compensation under the impression that the land is acquired for
planned industrial development whereas the GNOIDA has acquired the land
and transferred the same to private builders for business purpose. One of the
lease deed dated 21
st
July, 2006 executed in favour of M/s R.C. Info System
Private Limited has been brought on the record by which lease of 1,08,057
square meters has been executed for setting up I.T. industry. An application
for intervention has been filed on behalf of M/s Paramount Towers Limited
along with an affidavit which claim to have been allotted a plot vide letter
dated 12
th
March, 2010 being Plot No. GH-06 area 51000 square meters under
Group Housing Scheme. The applicant claims that on 11
th
May, 2010 lease has
been executed. The applicant further claims that constructions have been
started on the plot. The applicant in the affidavit has also referred to
settlement between the GNOIDA and the farmers of village Patwari after the
order of this Court dated 26
th
July, 2011 in the main writ petition. The
applicant has also annexed the newspaper report indicating that farmers of
village Patwari shall get Rs.550/- per square yard as additional compensation
and 8% abadi land.
In Writ Petition No. 46742 of 2011 (Brahm Singh vs. State of U.P. and
others) apart from other grounds it has been stated that compensation has
not been accepted for Plot No.589. In Writ Petition No.48067 of 2011
(Niranjan vs. State of U.P. and others), the petitioner has challenged only the
notification dated 23
rd
March, 2009 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). In Writ
Petition No.48068 of 2011 (Niranjan vs. State of U.P. and others), the
petitioner has challenged the the notification dated 20
th
December, 2005
issued under Section 6 of the Act acquiring 59.56 hectares land of village
82
Gharbara. Petitioner’s case is that compensation at the rate of Rs.800-880
square meter is proposed whereas the respondents are selling the land at the
rate of 12000-18000 per square feet. In Writ Petition No.48071 of 2011
(Mahipal and others vs. State of U.P. and others), the petitioners have
challenged the notification dated 2
nd
May, 2003 issued under Section 4
proposing to acquire 124.003 hectares land of village Gharbara. The
declaration under Section 6 has been issued on 16
th
June, 2003.
The writ petitions of Group-18 relate to village Chhapraula. In Writ
Petition No.46775 of 2011 (Jai Pal And Others vs. State of U.P. and others)
pleadings are complete which is treated as leading writ petition of village
Chhapraula. This writ petition has been filed by 48 tenure holders challenging
the notification dated 12
th
March, 2008 issued under Section 4 read with
Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act proposing acquisition of 68.129 hectares
land of village Chhapraula. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was
issued on 3
rd
February, 2009. The State Government by Government order
dated 8
th
September, 1997 and 9
th
February, 2005 has issued specific
directions to the acquiring bodies not to include the land covered by abadi in
the acquisition and in case it is utmost necessary for acquisition displaced
person be given comparable land. The petitioners claim to be in actual
possession of the land. It has been pleaded that it has become fashionable to
discriminatingly apply the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act in every case
of acquisition. The land has been allotted to private builders whereas the
purpose of acquisition was planned industrial development. In the counter
affidavit filed by the State it has been stated that possession of the land was
taken on 9
th
March, 2009 and award was declared on 21
st
March, 2011. Copies
of the possession memo and award have been brought on the record.
According to paragraph 24 of the counter affidavit, the land use of part of
Sector Tech Zone was changed from institutional to residential and similarly
land use of part of Sector Echotech-13 was changed from industrial to
institutional which changes were approved by the Board on 11
th
February,
2010 and also the same were approved by the Government on 30
th
March,
2010. The compensation has been disbursed to the extent of 76%. An
application for intervention has been filed on behalf of M/s Marion Biotech
Private Limited which claim allotment of land by allotment letter dated 31
st
83
March, 2011 of an area of 10,000 square meters as an industrial plot in
Echotech-16. The applicant claims that 200-300 persons shall be employed in
the project.
In Writ Petition No.47068 of 2011 (Permanand and others vs. State of
U.P. and others), the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 18
th
September, 2000 issued under Section 4 of the Act proposing to acquire
56.4984 acres land of village Chhapraula for planned industrial development.
The petitioners claim to be owner and in possession of the plots mentioned in
paragraph 3 of the writ petition. It is pleaded that although urgency clause
was invoked but even after 11 years nothing has been done on the spot
whereas award was also declared on 14
th
June, 2002. Petitioners claim to be
in actual physical possession. A short counter affidavit has been filed by the
GNOIDA stating that industrial Sectors Echotech-14, 15 and 16 were
developed and allotment of industrial plots have been made. An application
for intervention has also been filed on behalf of M/s Supertech Pre Cast
Technologies Private Limited which claimed that large number of industries
were given allotment. List of industries which were allotted land in village Roja
Yakubpur has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. It is stated
that development falls in the area known as Roja Yakubpur and Chhapraula.
In Writ Petition No.46776 of 2011 more or less similar grounds have been
taken as have been taken in Writ Petition No.46775 of 2011 which need no
repetition.
The writ petitions of Group-19 relate to village Khairpur Gurjar. In
Writ Petition No.46021 of 2011 (Jagdeep Singh and others vs. State of U.P.
and others) pleadings are complete, which is treated as leading writ petition
of village Khairpur Gurjar. Notification dated 8
th
November, 2007 issued under
Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and (17(4) of the Act proposing to acquire
334.3417 hectares land of village Khairpur Gurjar has been challenged. The
declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 7
th
July, 2008. The
petitioners’ case is that there was no sufficient ground for invoking urgency
clause. There is delay of 8 months in issuing notification under Section 6 of
the Act. The land covered under the notification is still laying vacant. No
award having been given in two years, the acquisition has lapsed. A counter
84
affidavit has been filed by the State stating that possession of the land was
taken on 11
th
October, 2008 and about 78.50% of tenure holders have
accepted compensation under agreement. The award has been issued on 25
th
July, 2011. There being delay, the writ petition need not be entertained. The
other writ petitions of this group raise more or less similar grounds which
need no repetition.
The writ petitions of Group-20 relate to village Ajayabpur. In Writ
Petition No.46671 of 2011 (Om Prakash alias Omi and others vs. State of U.P.
and others) pleading are complete which is being treated as leading writ
petition of this village. The petitioners, who are 27 in number, have
challenged the notification dated 29
th
September, 2005 issued under Section 4
read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act proposing to acquire 37.3080
hectares land of village Ajayabpur. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act
was issued on 20
th
December, 2005. The petitioners claim to be bhumidhar
and in possession of the plots as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the writ
petition. The petitioners’ case is that abadi exists on the petitioners’ plots and
they have been discriminated insofar as their plots have not been left from
acquisition. There was no urgency for invoking Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of
the Act. The award having not been made within two years, the acquisition
has lapsed. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State stating
that possession of the land was taken on 1
st
June, 2006 and about 95%
tenure holders have accepted compensation under agreement. The award has
also been declared on 25
th
August, 2009. There was sufficient material before
the State for invoking urgency clause. The petitioners having come with delay,
the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The petitioners are not continuing in
possession and averments to the contrary are incorrect. Section 11-A of the
Act is not application in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of Satendra Prasad Jain vs. State of U.P. reported in (1993)4 SCC
369. A counter affidavit has also been filed by GNOIDA in which apart from
repeating the pleadings as taken in the counter affidavit of the State, it has
been stated that writ petition having been filed after six years of Section 6
declaration, deserves to be dismissed. The urgency clause was invoked due to
valid reasons since there being 185 land owners, going through normal
procedure providing them right to file objection would have taken very much
85
time. The residential plots under 6% scheme has been given to tenure
holders. The allotment of land to builders does not militate against the
concept of planned industrial development. The Writ Petition No.46128 of
2011 (Surendra Singh Bhasti vs. State of U.P. and others) challenges the
same notifications on more or less similar grounds which need no repetition.
The writ petition of Group-21 relates to village Namauli in which only
one writ petition being Writ Petition No.46418 of 2011 (M/s Bansal Estate
Private Limited vs. State of U.P. and others) is there. In the said writ petition
petitioner has challenged the notification issued under Section 4 read with
Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act dated 11
th
March, 2008 proposing to
acquire 97.317 hectares land of village Namauli. The declaration under
Section 6 was issued on 12
th
June, 2008. The petitioner has prayed for a
mandamus directing the respondents to exclude the abadi of the petitioner
situate over Plots No.22, 43, 44 and 90. The petitioner’s case is that the said
plots were got declared as non agricultural land by order of Sub Divisional
Officer passed under Section 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 in the year 1991 and the said plots were purchased by the
petitioner’s company for purpose of plotting and sale. The proposal for
acquisition was sent in the year 2003 and the notification under Section 4 of
the Act was issued in the year 2008. The land use of the land in question was
institutional. It is stated that declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been
issued with a view to promote interest of private developers. A counter
affidavit has been filed by the State stating in paragraph 11 that possession of
the aforesaid land could not be taken due to various interim orders passed by
this Court in various pending writ petitions. It has been stated in the counter
affidavit that the land under acquisition was a land which was effected by
ceiling proceedings. The land of adjoining villages has already been acquired
and possession has also been taken. The part of land of village Namauli has
already been acquired and certain plots were directly purchased from tenure
holders. An application for intervention has been filed by M/s Wegmans
Industries Private Limited claiming lease deed dated 14
th
February, 2005 for
an area of 40,011 square meters for I.T. Industry and I.T. Enabled Services.
An order was passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and
Revenue) on 20
th
January, 2006 that the land shall vest in the State free from
86
all encumbrances. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the GNOIDA.
The writ petitions of Group-22 relates to village Jaitpur Vaishpur. In
Writ Petition No.46399 of 2011 (Mange Ram and others vs. State of U.P. and
others) pleadings are complete which is being treated as leading writ petition
of this village. By this writ petition notification dated 29
th
January, 2003 issued
under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act for acquisition
of 304.5154 hectares land has been challenged. The declaration under Section
6 of the Act was issued on 28
th
February, 2003. The petitioners, who are 13 in
number, claim to be tenure holders recorded in revenue record. It is pleaded
that although more than 4 years have elapsed but nothing has been done on
the spot and instead of using the land for industrial purpose, the same has
been sold to Purvanchal University, Paras Nath Developers, Niti Shree
Developers, Unitech Developers and Ansal Group. A counter affidavit has been
filed by the State stating that possession of the land was taken on 7
th
May,
2003 and about 93% of tenure holders have accepted compensation under
the 1997 Rules. The award was declared on 23
rd
July, 2009. The Additional
District Magistrate has authorised an Ex-Amin to take possession of the land in
dispute. There was sufficient materials available with the State Government to
justify invocation of urgency clause. A counter affidavit has also been filed by
the GNOIDA reiterating almost same facts which have been stated in the
counter affidavit of the State. The other writ petitions of this group raise more
or less similar grounds of challenge which need no repetition.
The writ petitions of Group No.23 relates to village Mathura Pur. In
writ petition no.46744 of 2011 – Vinod Kumar vs. State of U.P. the pleadings
are complete hence the same is being treated to be as leading petition. The
petitioner challenges the notification dated 3.10.2005 issued under Section-4
read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act proposing to acquire 122.2699
hectares of land of village Mathura Pur. Declaration under Section-6 was
issued on 31
st
July, 2006. Petitioner claims to be owner of plot nos. 217 and
218. The land has been acquired for the purposes of planned industrial
development. Petitioner was under the impression that the land is needed for
the public purpose namely planned industrial development hence accepted the
compensation under the agreement. The land was acquired for the planned
87
industrial development and thereafter transferred to private builders for
residential purposes which clearly proves that the respondents have acquired
the land under colour able exercise of power. A counter affidavit has been
filed by the State stating that possession was taken on 27.10.2006 and the
award has been made on 25.9.2009. The recommendation of the Collector for
acquisition of land was received by letter dated 15.2.2005. Sufficient
justification was given for invoking urgency clause. Relevant certificates were
send alongwith recommendation which has been annexed alongwith counter
affidavit. Possession memo dated 27.10.2006 has also been filed alongwith
counter affidavit. Out of 436 tenure holders 425 tenure holders have accepted
the compensation after executing the agreement. The inquiry under Section
5-A of the Act has been dispensed with. Petitioner has filed the writ petition
with delay. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the authority repeating
the same averments as has been made by the State Government. After
taking possession development work was carried out and the area has been
demarcated by omricron 1, 2 and 3 the authorities have developed green
belts and carried out group housing development work. Under the individual
residential norm 1708 plots have been allotted and under group housing
scheme three plots were allotted. Two institutional plots were also allotted
and under 6% scheme allotment has also been made. Other two petitions
challenging the same notification more or less on the same grounds being writ
petition no. 46422 of 2011 and 46669 of 2011 have been filed on similar
grounds which need no repetition.
The petitions under Group No. 24 relate to village Saini. In writ
petition no.44233 of 2011 Rishi and others vs. State of U.P. and others
pleadings are complete which is being treated as leading petition. The petition
has been filed by nine petitioners who claim themselves to be owner and in
possession over bhoomidhari plots mentioned in paragraph-3 of the writ
petition. Petitioners claimed the land to be fertile and the same is being used
for agricultural purposes, which is the only source of their livelihood. There is
no project or plan of the Authority for establishing planned industry in the
area. There is no evidence that any reputed industrialist of the country or
abroad have approached the respondents and submitted any plan or project
for establishing any industry. Respondent no.3 also has no plan or project of
88
its own to establish any industry. The notification dated 24.10.2005 issued
under Section-4 read with Section 17 (1) and 17 (4) of Land Acquisition Act
proposing to acquire 309.008 hectare land of village Saini has been
challenged. The declaration under Section-6 was issued by notification dated
30
th
June, 2008. Till date neither any industry has been established nor the
land has been acquired for such purposes. Total area of land which was
acquired, about 90% of the same has been allotted for construction of
residential colonies and private builders and coloniers. Only negligible portion
of the land is being used for industrial purposes. No award having been given
within two years the entire acquisition has lapsed. For the last more than ten
years number notifications have been issued but the land so acquired has not
yet been used for the purposes for which it was acquired. Dispensation of
inquiry under Section – 5-A was not in routine manner and without application
of mind.
Writ petition nos. 18303 of 2009, 17478 of 2009, 42386 of 2010 and
24261 of 2011 have been filed challenging similar notification in which this
court granted interim order directing for maintaining status quo. Some of the
petitioners are still in possession of their land and they have not received
compensation and they are approaching respondent nos. 2 and 3 for amicable
settlement so that their land may be released. A counter affidavit has been
filed by the State stating therein that after publication of notification the
possession was taken on 30
th
October, 2006 for an area of 299.655 hectares.
Out of 952 tenure holders 782 has received compensation under 1997 Rules.
Award has been declared on 2
nd
August, 2011. Recommendation was
received for acquisition of land having relevant document from the Collector.
The writ petition is barred by latches since petitioner has filed it without
properly explaining the delay the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
Petitioners themselves having entered into an agreement for receiving
compensation, they have no right to challenge the acquisition. The inquiry
under Section- 5-A was dispensed with on relevant material. Counter affidavit
has also been filed by the Authority. It is stated that after taking possession
the authority has carried out the development work and the area is
demarcated as Sector 10,11,12 and Sector K.P.-5. Development work in the
form of roads, sewerage, drainage water supply, electricity transmission etc
89
have been done at the cost of Rs.35.75 crores. In Sector 10 and 12 two
groups housing plots were allotted measuring 1,83,060 sq. meter. In Sector
K.P.-5 six institutional and 10 I.T. plots have been allotted. Allotment has also
been made under 6% scheme.
In writ petition no.42200 of 2011 Ajeet Pal and others petitioner claims
to be bhoomidhar of plots as mentioned in paragraph-4. The writ petition has
been filed by 83 tenure holders. Similar pleadings have been made as has
been made in writ petition no.44233 of 2011 – Rishi and others vs. State of
U.P. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State as well as the authority
making averments to the same effect as has been made in the writ petition of
Rishi and and others as above. Application for intervention has been filed on
behalf of M/s Sharp Enterprises Pvt. Limited claiming allotment dated 30
th
August, 2007 for an area of 80,938 sq. meter for I.T. and I.T. enabled
services. Applicants claimed to have paid substantial amount to the authority.
Another application for intervention has been filed by Empire Parks Pvt. Ltd
claiming lease deed dated 12
th
September, 2008 for a plot of 80,941 sq.
meter. Payment of Rs.3,89,07,170.00 has also been claimed. Applicant
claimed allotment for establishing an I.T. Project. Another application for
impleadment has been submitted by NOIDA Extension Flat Buyers Welfare
Association who claimed to be association of flat buyers in the area.
Writ petitions in Group No.25 are of village Murshadpur. In writ
petition no.46717 of 2011 Dharam Raj Singh and others vs. State of U.P. the
pleadings are complete which is being treated as leading petition. Writ
petition filed by 27 petitioners challenged the notification dated 25
th
June,
2003 under Section-4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) proposing to acquire
322.004 hectare of land for planned development. Declaration under Section-
6 was issued on 22
nd
July, 2003. Petitioners alleged that there was no
material before the State to form an opinion that inquiry under Section 5-A
deserves to be dispensed with. The notification has been issued in colourable
exercise of powers. Petitioners' case is that 100% land of the village was
reserved for Night Safari. The petitioners accepted the compensation under
the impression that industries would come. The entire area is lying vacant
and there was no urgency for invoking Section 17 (1) and and 17 (4) of the
90
the Act. In the counter affidavit it has further been stated that 968 land
owners being involved hearing and disposing objection would have taken
years together due to which inquiry was dispensed with. Counter affidavit has
also been filed by the authority repeating the same allegations as has been
made in the counter affidavit by the State. In the counter affidavit it has been
stated that the area has been demarcated as Sectortech Zone and Night
Safari. An area of 42,75,520 sq. meter has been demarcated as Night Safari.
Other writ petitions raise more or less similar grounds which need no
repetition.
In possession memo dated 20.1.2005 annexed as Annexure- C.A.-1
along with counter affidavit it has been stated that possession of plot no.28-M
area 1.708, plot no. 29-M area 2.263 and plot no. 77 area 9.448, total area
13.419 is not being taken which shall be subsequently taken. In paragraph-14
of the counter affidavit filed by the authority it has been stated that
possession was taken on 31.1.2007 whereas petitioners' case is that no
possession has yet been taken since the land is acquired for Night Safari. No
sufficient materials were placed for invoking urgency clause under Sections
17(1) and 17(4) of the Act. Petitioners further case is that compensation has
been paid at the rate of Rs.300/- per sq. meter including solatium and
interest. The award has been made on 30.12.2010.
Writ petitions of Group No.-26 relate to village Haibatpur. In writ
petition no.41309 of 2011 Jagpal and others vs. State of U.P. since the
pleadings are complete hence the same is treated as leading petition.
Petitioners challenge the notification dated 16
th
July, 2008 issued under
Section-4 read with Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Act proposing to acquire
240.481 hectare for planned industrial development. Declaration under
Section-6 was issued on 23
rd
March, 2009. Petitioners claimed that no
permission was taken from National Capital Regional Planning Board. It is
stated that no land of private person can be taken away for the benefit of
another private person. Petitioner further stated that Section-9 notice was
issued on 24
th
August, 2009 and even before expiry of 15 days possession was
claimed to be taken on 26
th
August, 2009 which is against the provision of
91
Section 17 (1) itself. It is further stated that total land acquired was 240.481
hectares and the possession was taken only of 162.918 and 15.2774 hectares
rest of the land has not even taken possession. Although proposal was sent
on 30
th
December, 2005 for acquisition but the notification has been issued on
16
th
July, 2008 that is after about three years which clearly indicate that there
was no urgency. The award has been given only on 28
th
July, 2011. 60%
land which has been acquired by the authority has neither been developed
nor used. There was no valid ground for dispensation of inquiry under
Section-5-A. The counter affidavit has been filed by the authority stating that
possession of the land was taken on 23
rd
March, 2009 and 11
th
February,
2010. Out of 2150 land owners compensation was received by 1560 land
owners. Development work has been carried out and the area has been
demarcated as part of Sector 4 and 16-C. Authority has constructed roads,
sewerage, drainage etc. Authority has spent Rs.78.54 crores in Sector 16-C
and Sector 41 respectively. Plots have been allotted in the year 2010. It has
further been stated in paragraph -19 that initially land use of 16-C was
industrial later on land use of 16-C was changed from industrial to the land
under the approval of the Board dated 2.2.2010 which was further approved
by the State Government on 30
th
March, 2010. The writ petition has been
filed with delay which deserves to be dismissed.
In writ petition no.37109 of 2011 – Jaipal and others vs. State of U.P.
both the above notifications dated 16
th
July, 2008 and 23
rd
March, 2007 have
been challenged on the similar grounds as have been raised in the leading
writ petition. It is further pleaded by the petitioners that before the land use
was changed the land was allotted to M/s Gaursons. M/s Gaursons was
allotted about 50 hectares of land.
In this group writ petition no.40436 of 2009 was a writ petition which
was filed on 4
th
August, 2009 challenging the notification dated 16
th
July, 2008
and 23
rd
March, 2009. This court while entertaining the writ petition passed
following interim order on 7
th
August, 2009:
“Until further orders of this court parties are directed to maintain
status quo.”
92
Another ground has been taken in the writ petition that no plan has
been got approved by National Capital Regional Planning Board under
National Capital Planning Regional Board Act 1985. Reliance of interim order
passed in writ petition no.17068 of 2009 dated 7
th
August, 2009 was placed
which writ petition has subsequently been allowed by the Division Bench of
this Court. In the counter affidavit filed by the authority it has been stated
that possession was taken on 26
th
August, 2009. It is further submitted that
National Capital Regional Planning Board Act 1985 does not prohibit
acquisition of the land nor any permission is required from the Board. Through
writ petition no.1592 of 2010 – Satish Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. have
also challenged the notification dated 16
th
July, 2008 and 23
rd
March, 2009 in
which this court passed an interim order on 26.3.2010:-
“As an interim measure without prejudice to the right and contention of
the parties, it is directed that till the next date of listing, the parties
shall maintain status quo as on date with regard to the need and
possession over khasra no.124 area 1.581 hectare of the village
Haibatpur Pargana & Tehsil Dadri District Gautam Budh Nagar.”
Similar grounds have been raised in the writ petition as have been
raised in other writ petitions. An application for intervention has been filed on
behalf of M/s Saim Abhimanyu Housing Scheme claiming allotment and
execution of the lease on 25
th
November, 2010 for group housing.
In Writ petition no.17726 of 2010 challenging the same notification
interim order was passed on 2
nd
April, 2010 directing the parties to maintain
status quo.
In other writ petitions of 2010 included in the group, writ petitions
were filed in the year 2010 which are still pending an interim order was
passed which are still continuing. Applications for intervention have also been
filed by several interveners claiming allotment of plots.
Writ petitions in Group No-27 relates to Chipyana Khurd. Writ
93
petition no.41017 of 2011 – Jagram Singh and others vs. State of U.P.
pleadings are complete hence the same is being treated as the leading
petition. Through the said writ petition the petitioners have challenged the
notification dated 24
th
July, 2008 issued under Section-4 read with Sections
17(1) and 17(4) for acquisition of 105.5600 hectares of land of village
Chipyana Khurd. Declaration under Section-6 was issued on 29
th
January,
2009. Petitioners claimed that they have not received any compensation and
they are also using some of their area of land for abadi purposes. Some plots
of village Chipyana Khurd has not yet been acquired which shows
discrimination against the petitioner. There was no sufficient material to
dispense with the inquiry under Section 5-A. Neither any need nor any
material has been shown by the respondents for acquisition. Purpose for
acquisition has subsequently been changed. In the counter affidavit only
proforma has been annexed without any material. Counter affidavits have
been filed both by the State as well as by the authority. It has been stated in
the counter affidavit of the authority that possession was taken on 9.3.2009.
Authority has carried out development work in the area spending more than
Rs.14 crores over the land of village Chipyana Khurd. Two groups of plots
have been allotted. Residential plots have been allotted under 6% scheme.
About 48% of land owner have accepted compensation. An application for
intervention has been filed by one M/s Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd who claims
allotment of housing plot by lease deed dated 24
th
November 2010 for an area
of 2,49,907 sq. meter. M/s Mahagun claims to have made allotment to
various other applicants and invested substantial amount. Another application
for intervention has been filed on behalf of M/s Gaursons Parameters Pvt. Ltd
claiming lease dated 22
nd
September, 2010 a group housing plot area
4,54,168 sq. meters, the applicants claimed investment and constructions on
the plot. Certain photographs showing the construction work has also been
annexed alongwith the affidavit.
In this group writ petition no.18635 of 2009 N.S. Public School vs.
State of U.P. was filed on 2
nd
April, 2009 in which writ petition interim order
dated 20
th
August, 2009 was passed directing the parties to maintain status
quo until further orders. The said interim order is still continuing. Counter
affidavit has been filed by the State in which it is claimed that possession was
94
taken on 9
th
March, 2009. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the
authority. Application for intervention has been filed on behalf of M/s
Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd claiming execution of lease dated 24
th
November,
2010. Allotment was made to the applicant vide letter dated 23
rd
July, 2010
for an area 246837 sq. meter at the rate of Rs.11,561/- per sq. meter.
With writ petition no.18265 of 2005 writ petition no.38537 of 2010, writ
petition no. 38360 of 2010, writ petition no.40668 of 2010, writ petition
no.40669 of 2010 and writ petition no.32352 of 2010 have been connected
and the interim orders were passed by this court are still continuing. Other
petitions of the group raises similar ground of challenge to the notification
which needs no repetition.
Writ petitions of Group no.29 relate to village Rithori. In this group
there is only one writ petition being writ petition no.46370 of 2011 Jai Prakash
and 23 others vs. State of U.P. Notification dated 7
th
September, 2006 under
Section-4 read with Sections 17 (1) and 17(4) has been challenged by which
land of village Rithori was proposed to be acquired. Declaration under
Section-6 was issued on 31
st
August, 2007. Petitioners claim to be in
possession of land in dispute. The land use of village is shown as industrial.
It is pleaded that there was no material or reason for invoking urgency clause
under Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act. Counter affidavit has been filed by
the State as well as the authority stating that possession of the land was
taken on 17.11.2007 and about 82% of tenure holders have accepted
compensation. Award was declared on 25
th
August, 2011. In the counter
affidavit filed by the State it has been stated that proposal was sent by the
authority to the Collector on 10.2.2005 which was forwarded by the Collector
by letter dated 15.9.2005 alongwith relevant certificates. Allotment of
residential plot under 6% scheme has already been made and sector has been
developed by the authority as per development plan.
Writ petitions of Group no.30 relate to village Ithara. In writ petition
no.46021 of 2011 the pleading s are complete which writ petition is being
treated as leading petition. By the said writ petition notification dated 31
st
August, 2007 under Section 4 read with Section 17 (1) and 17 (4) proposes to
95
acquire 320.256 hectare of land has been challenged. Declaration under
Section-6 was issued on 4
th
July, 2008. Petitioners claim to be bhoomidhar of
plot no.509, 511, 512 and 550 which according to they is only source of their
livelihood. In fact the land is sought to be acquired for the purposes of
transferring the same to private builders for construction of residential
colonies. In-fact there was no intention on the part of authority for any
planned industrial development. Leases have been executed in favour of
several private builders. There is no application of mind while dispensing with
the inquiry under Section 5-A. The document which have been filed alongwith
counter affidavit does not show whether Section 17(1) be invoked or Section
17 (4) be invoked. There is absolutely no application of mind by the State.
In-fact there is no request from the authority for dispensation of inquiry under
Section 5-A. The recommendation for acquisition was send on 11
th
August,
2005. After about two years notification under Section-4 was issued.
Allotments were made in the year 2010. Counter affidavit has been filed by
the State which states that possession was taken on 27
th
August, 2008 and
award has been declared on 25
th
July, 2011. About 73% of the tenure holders
have accepted compensation under the agreement. The writ petition is
barred by latches. It is further pleaded that in-fact the acquisition is for
company and should have been made in accordance with Land Acquisition
(Companies) Rule 1963. Petitioners came to know in the year 2011 that the
land of village Ithara will not be used for planned industrial development
thereafter they made several efforts and came to know about execution of
lease in favour of private builders for construction of residential flats. The
delay in the aforesaid circumstances is not deliberate and it ought to be
ignored. Petitioners claim to be in possession of the land in dispute.
Application for interventions have been filed on behalf of M/s R.M.A. Software
Park Pvt. Ltd claiming allotment through letter dated 3.10.2008 by which
allotment was made on 1 lac sq. meter plot no.18 in Sector Tech. Zone-4 for
setting up I.T.E.S.
Writ petition no.42439 of 2011 has been filed by Rajesh and 71 others
challenging the notification dated 31
st
August,2007 and 4
th
July, 2008. Similar
grounds have been taken as has been taken in writ petition of Mamila
Sharma. It is further pleaded that acquisition proceedings in the garb of
96
planned industrial development is in-fact are for private persons. The
allottees respondent nos. 3 to 9 have been impleaded. Various
persons/companies have come up by filing intervention applications. We
having already permitted allottees/builders to file intervention applications by
our order dated 29
th
August, 2011 have not issued separate notice to any of
the allottees or builders. The allottees and builders who have filed application
for intervention and represented by the counsel have been heard in detail. In
this writ petition intervention applications have been filed on behalf of M/s
Panchsheel Built Tech. Pvt. Limited and M/s A.P.V. Reality Limited and M/s
R.M.A. Software Park Pvt. Ltd who have been heard.
Another writ petition of this group which need to be mentioned is writ
petition no.38184 of 2011 Padam Singh and others vs. State of U.P.
challenging the same notifications. It is pleaded that the Khasra no.6 is being
used for residential and agricultural purposes and the said land was entitled to
be exempted from the acquisition. The notification under Section-4 was
issued with delay. No award having been made within two years, the
acquisition shall lapse. Land use has been changed. It has further been
stated that there is no justification for dispensing with the inquiry under
Section5-A. Acquisition proceedings are void and suffers from malafide and
non-application of mind. The respondents have changed the purpose of
acquisition and the land is being used for residential colonies by allotting the
same to private builders. Applications for intervention has been filed by
NOIDA Flats Buyers Association as well as by M/s R.N.A. Software Park Private
Limited and M/s Super Tech Limited. M/s Advance Compusfost Pvt. Limited
has also filed an intervention application and by one by M/s Amrapali
Centurian Park Pvt. Limited which all have been heard. Other petitioners of
this group raises more or less similar grounds of challenge to the notifications
which need no repetition.
The writ petitions in Group-31 relates to village Luksar. In Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 46412 of 2011 (Veerpal and others Vs. State of U.P. and
others), pleadings are complete, as such aforesaid writ petition is being
treated as leading writ petition for this Group. Aforesaid writ petition has been
filed by 35 petitioners challenging the Notification dated 11.07.2008 issued
97
under Section 17 (1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to
acquire 181.300 hectare of land of village Luksar. Declaration under Section 6
of the aforesaid Act was issued on 29.01.2009. Petitioners case in the
aforesaid group of writ petitions is that petitioners are owner and bhumidhar
of the land as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. Petitioners case
is that Sections 17(1) and 17(4) was invoked by the respondents without
applying their mind since there was no urgency for planned Industrial
Development. Petitioners were under bonafide belief that their land have
acquired to serve the public purpose. Acquiring authority being in dominating
position, petitioners were left with no other option but to accept the
compensation. However letter on petitioner came to know that the very
purpose of acquiring their land has now been changed by the respondents by
playing fraud on the statute and the land is being transferred to private
builders for the purposes of constructions of commercial complex and
residential houses and towers under the Group Housing Scheme, hence
petitioners have now challenged the impugned Notification. No award has
been passed within two years , as such acquisition in question has lapsed.
Counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating that after publication of
Notification in question possession of the land was taken on 09.03.2009 and
about 98% tenure holders have accepted the compensation and award has
been declared on 27.08.2011 and the proposal of acquisition of 181.300
hectares of land was submitted by the Greater Noida Authority vide letter
dated 18.01.2006 which was forwarded to the Collector, Gautam Budh Nagar
vide letter dated 09.05.2008. State Government after considering the material
placed before it dispensed the inquiry under Section 5 A and payment of
compensation was made in accordance with 1997 Rules. Writ petitions were
filed with delay. Counter affidavit has also been filed by respondent no. 3
reiterating the pleas taken by the State in its counter affidavit. It has further
been stated that development works were carried out in the area and on area
of 3436.40 hectares has been allotted to P.A.C., District Jail under 6% scheme
the villagers have also been allotted. Petitioners having accepted the
compensation, they cannot challenge acquisition. Section 11 A is not
applicable in the present case. Other writ petitions of the aforesaid village
raises more or less same grounds which need no repetition.
98
The writ petitions in Group-32 relates to village Badpura. In Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 36047 of 2010 (Ramesh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and
others), pleadings are complete, as such aforesaid writ petition is being
treated as leading writ petition for this Group. Aforesaid writ petition has been
filed challenging the Notification dated 20.10.2001 issued under Section 4(1)
read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act of plat no. 102
M area 0.7500 acre situated in village Badpura and the declaration under
Section 6 was issued 03.12.2009 issued. Notice was published by respondent
no. 2 in the newspaper on 19.06.2009 proposing to purchase land on the
basis of agreement by tenure holders in which rest of plot no. 102M was
notified. Petitioner claims that his land is on the G.T. Road covered with
boundary wall and several constructions. Interim order was passed by this
Court on 05.07.2011 directing to maintain status quo with regard to
possession of land in question. Petitioner filed objection for giving therein
market value of the land. Award has been issued on 31.03.2009 fixing Rs.
74.50 per square yard. Award having being made after two years after
publication of declaration under Section 6, as such entire acquisition has
lapsed. In the counter affidavit filed by the State it has been stated that
possession of the land was taken on 16.03.2002. It has further been stated in
the counter affidavit that land was acquired for Planned Industrial
Development more specifically for constructions of approach road, Railway
Over Bridge. Urgency clause was rightly invoked. Writ petition has been filed
with delay. Section 11 A is not applicable. In the counter affidavit filed by the
Authority it has been stated that petitioners themselves have not come
forward to accept compensation. Possession of plot in question was taken in
the year 2001. Writ petition has been filed with great delay.
In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32225 of 2010 ( Vijendra Kumar Garg
and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) same notification has been
challenged in which interim order was passed by this Court on 27.10.2010
directing the parties to maintain status quo. More or less similar grounds have
been taken. It has been stated in paragraph 10 of writ petition that petitioner
could know about the award only in November, 2009.
The writ petitions in Group-33 relates to village Raipur Bangar. In Civil
99
Misc. Writ Petition No. 46483 of 2011 (Gajraj Singh and others Vs. State of
U.P. and others), pleadings are complete, as such aforesaid writ petition is
being treated as leading writ petition for this Group. By the aforesaid writ
petition petitioners who are 171 in number have challenged the Notification
dated 30.06.2006 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of
the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire 180.8114 hectares of land of
village Raipur Bangar, declaration under Section 6 was made on 16.01.2007.
Petitioners case in the writ petition is that the land was acquired for Planned
Industrial Development whereas land has been given to the private builders
who are making residential houses and flats. Compensation has been given at
the rate of 711/- per square yard but the land has been leased out at the rate
of Rs. 20,000/- per square yard. Petitioners claim that all those facility given
to the villagers and land holders of village patwari should also be given to the
petitioners. Petitioners claim to be entitled for additional compensation
alongwith 16% land. Petitioner no. 169 to 171 are entitled to get residential
house plot nos. 284 and 285. There was no occasion to dispense with the
enquiry under Section 5A. In the counter affidavit filed by the State it has
been stated that after publication of Notification under Section 6, possession
of land was taken on 15.03.2007 and out of680 tenure holders, 630 tenure
holders have already received their compensation. Award has been declared
on 25.05.2011. There was sufficient material available for invocation of the
urgency clause. There is delay in filing writ petition. Counter affidavit has also
been filed by the Authority taking same pleas as have been taken by the State
in its counter affidavit and there was no Abadi in the village of the petitioners
and as petitioners having taken compensation, they cannot challenge
acquisition proceedings.
In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46645 of 2011 (Atar Singh Vs. State of
U.P. and others) more or less similar grounds have been taken which needs
no repetition.
The writ petitions in Group-34 relates to village Malakpur. In Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 46289 of 2011 (Charan Singh and others Vs. State of
U.P. and others), pleadings are complete, as such aforesaid writ petition is
being treated as leading writ petition for this Group. Aforesaid writ petition
100
has been filed by 37 petitioners challenging the Notification dated 02.05.2003
issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land
Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire 382.4593 acre of land of village
Malakpur. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 02.05.2003. Petitioners
claim that land is recorded in their name which is only source of their income
and they have no other source of their livelihood. There was no demand of
any industrialist for establishing the industry and respondents have no
approved scheme or project. Urgency clause was invoked without application
of mind. Petitioners claims to have filed their respective objection for de-
notifying the land which falls in abadi as they have built their house much
prior to issuance of the impugned notifications. Counter affidavit has been
filed by the State, stating therein that after publication of the Notification
under Section 6 possession was taken on 05.08.2004 and out of 295 tenure
holders 275 tenure holders have already accepted compensation under the
agreement and award has also been declared on 11.09.2009. There was
sufficient material before the State Government for invoking urgency claus.
Counter affidavit filed by the Authority reiterating the pleas taken by the State
Government and it has been stated that writ petitions have been filed with
great delay. Further, development work has already taken place and area
demarcated sector wise which are institutional Green-1 and Ecotech-2. It has
further been stated that Notification of village Malakpur was upheld in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 22875 of 2003 (Om Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
others) and 24654 of 2003 (Harpal Sing and others Vs. State of U.P. others)
vide judgement and order dated 08.12.2008.
The writ petitions in Group-35 relates to village Maicha. In Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 44611 of 2011 (Rajendra and others and others Vs. State of
U.P. and others), pleadings are complete, as such aforesaid writ petition is
being treated as leading writ petition for this Group. Aforesaid writ petition
has been filed by petitioners, who are four in number, challenging the
Notification dated 17.04.2006 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1)
and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire 343.5881 hectare
of land of village Maicha for Planned Industrial Development. Declaration
under Section 6 was issued on 09.02.2007. Petitioners case is that State
Government has not not applied its mind while dispensing with the inquiry
101
under Section 5A. No notice under Section 9 was issued to the petitioners and
act of taking of possession is the case of clear cut fraud and 80% of the
compensation has not yet been paid. There is violation of Section 17(3A).
Petitioners are still in actual possession of land and there has been pick and
choose policy and some of the plots have been left over from acquisition and
petitioner's plots have been taken into acquisition. No award has been given
within two years and acquisition has lapsed. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17363
of 2008 (Veer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) was filed challenging the
impugned Notification in which this Court granted interim order on 18.08.2008
directing the parties to maintain status quo. Several other writ petitions have
been filed challenging the same notification which are pending. In the counter
affidavit filed by the State, it has been stated that after publication of
Notification under Section 6 possession of land was taken on 11.04.2007 and
about 85% tenure holders have already accepted compensation. Award has
also been published on 09.08.2011, There was sufficient material before the
State Government in invoking urgency clause. Writ petition has been filed with
delay. Section 11A is not attracted in the present case. Authority has also filed
counter affidavit reiterating same pleas as has been taken in the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of State and it has been further stated that authority
has so far carried out development works at a cost of Rs. 30.05 crores and
allotments were made in the year between 2007-08.
The writ petitions in Group-36 relates to village Kasna. In Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 46848 of 2011 (Ajay Pal and others and others Vs. State of
U.P. and others), pleadings are complete, as such aforesaid writ petition is
being treated as leading writ petition for this Group. Aforesaid writ petition
has been filed by petitioners, who are eight in number, challenging the
Notification dated 31.12.2004 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1)
and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire 406.2448 acres of
land of village Kasna. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 01.07.2005
and award was made on 23.03.2011. Petitioners have prayed for quashing of
the aforesaid Notification including award dated 23.03.2011. Petitioners claim
that without applying its mind urgency was invoked by the State Government
although respondents alleged to have taken possession but the petitioners are
still in possession of land. Petitioner filed objection on 25.07.2008 for
102
exemption of their land from acquisition. Petitioners claim to have filed several
application and reminder. Petitioners further claim that land of several other
persons were exempted. Petitioners have also filed supplementary affidavit
stating therein that land has been acquired in colourable exercise of power,
after issuance of notification by respondent no. 2 has transferred huge portion
of acquired land to M/s Amrapali Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. by transfer deed
dated 28.06.2011 and allotment of area one lac sqm. Copy of the allotment
dated 31.03.2011 has been filed as Annexure-SA-2 to the supplementary
affidavit. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State, stating that after
publication of Notification under Section 6 of the Act, possession was taken on
11.04.2007 and about 85%of the tenure holders have accepted compensation
under the agreement. Authority has filed counter affidavit reiterating the same
pleas as has been taken by the State. It has further been stated that
development works were carried out in the area for the amount of Rs. 30.05
crores. Industrial and institutional plots have been allotted in the year
between 2007-08. It has further been stated that there is delay in filing writ
petition and writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45193 of 2011 (Khushi Ram and others Vs.
State of U.P. and others) has been filed challenging the same Notification and
raises more or less similar grounds.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40852 of 2011(Chaman Sharma Vs. State of
U.P. and others) as well as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46636 of 2011 (Jai
Chand and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) have been filed challenging
the Notification issued under Section 4 dated 11.07.2008 and declaration
dated 16.02.2009 issued under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act. Petitioner
Chaman Sharma submits that after purchasing the land, shop was constructed
and petitioner further submits that application for regularization has been
moved in the year 2002. Petitioner further submits that he filed Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 42553 of 2010 regarding regularization of his shop in which writ
petition respondents informed that land has already been acquired, thus,
petitioner for the first time came to know in regard to acquisition of his land
on 22.07.2010 hence he has filed present writ petition. Petitioner further
submits that Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48294 of 2009 (Maya Devi Bansal
103
and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) had been filed challenging the
acquisition proceedings in which this Court has granted interim order on
09.09.2009. Petitioner further claims that he is still in possession and submits
that no notice under Section 9 was issued to the petitioner. Counter affidavit
has been filed by the State, stating therein that after publication of Section 6
declaration, possession was taken over on 09.03.2009 and further about 70%
of the tenure holders have already accepted compensation under the
agreement. Award has also been published on 14.09.2011.
In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46636 of the 2011 (Jai Chand and others
Vs. State of U.P. and others) more or less similar grounds have been urged.
In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46129 of 2011 (Ganeshi and others Vs.
State of U.P. and others), Notification dated 11.07.2008 and 16.02.2009 have
been changed.
In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41962 of 2007( Natthu Singh Vs. State of
U.P. and others), Notification issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1)
and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 29.12.2001 and declaration under
Section 15.03.2002 have been challenged.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54028 of 2005 (Kishan Singh Vs. State of
U.P. and others) has been filed challenging the Notification dated 31.12.2004
issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land
Acquisition Act. Another prayer was made for quashing the Notification dated
28.03.2005 describing it under Section 6. The Notification under Section 4
dated 31.12.2004 is the same Notification which has been challenged in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 45193 of 2011 and the Notification dated 28.03.2005
which have been challenged in the writ petition filed by Kishan Singh, was
only munadi of Notification dated 31.12.2004. The declaration under Section 6
in continuance of Notification dated 31.12.2004 was issued on 01.07.2005.
In writ petition filed by Kishan Singh, petitioner states that petitioner is
bhumidhar of Gata No. 637 in which there are 33 shops for last 20 years.
Petitioner case is that Authorities have left out plots of various influential
104
persons and land of various persons but has taken the land of the petitioner
over which valuable Pucca constructions have been standing. Shop of one
Harish Chandra Bhati was regularized vide order dated 11.02.2003. There was
no reason for dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A and interim order
was passed by this Court in writ petition filed by Kishan Singh on 19.09.2005
directing the parties to maintain status quo. Counter affidavit has been filed
by the State stating therein that in plot no. 637 which is recorded in the name
of petitioner there are 110 eucalyptus trees and sheesham tree. Counter
affidavit as well supplementary affidavit has been filed by the authority stating
therein that award has been given on 23.03.2011 and possession of land was
taken on 28.12.2005, 30.05.32006 and 29.01.2011.
The writ petitions in Group-37 relates to village Rasulpur Rai. In Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 45748 of 2011 (Surendra Singh Bhati Vs. State of U.P.
and others), counter affidavit has been filed, as such aforesaid writ petition is
being treated as leading writ petition for this Group. Aforesaid writ petition
has been filed by petitioner challenging the Notification dated 28.11.2002
issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land
Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire 119.2116 hectare of land of village
Rasulpur Rai. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 29.01.2003.
Petitioner raises same grounds which has been raised in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 44611 of 2011 (Rajendra and others and others Vs. State of U.P.
and others) of village Maicha. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State
stating therein that after publication, Notification under Sections 4,
Notification under Section 6 has been issued and possession of land was taken
on 08.05.2003, 04.03.2005 and 26.12.2007, and out of 433 tenure holders,
416 tenure holders have already received their compensation under
agreement. Award has been declared on 05.06.2009. It has further stated
that there were sufficient material to invoke urgency clause. Counter affidavit
has also been filed by the Authority taking same grounds as has been taken
by the State in their counter affidavit. It has further been stated that writ
petition has been filed with delay and petitioner having received
compensation, cannot challenge acquisition and further development works
were carried out by the authority in the area. Plots have been allotted under
Group Housing Scheme between year 2003-08 and allotments of plots under
105
6% of Scheme has also done in the area of 6220 sq.mt. In other writ petitions
challenging same notification raises more or less similar ground which needs
no repetition.
The writ petition in Group-38 relates to village Yusufpur (Chak
Sahberi). In this group there is only one petition i.e. Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No. 17725 of 2010 (Omveer and others Vs. State of U.P. and others). In the
said writ petition pleadings are complete. In the aforesaid writ petition,
petitioners who are five in number have challenged Notification dated
10.04.2006 issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4)
proposing to acquire 55.146 heaters of land of village Yusufpur (Chak
Sahberi) and declaration under Section 6 was issued on 06.09.2007. It is
pleaded that some of plots of aforesaid village was not acquired due to reason
of Abadi existing in the aforesaid plots. Petitioners have been discriminated in
the matter of acquisition and without application of mind, State Government
has dispensed with inquiry and proposal lapsed since no award has been
made within two years. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State, stating
therein that after publication of Notification under Section 6, possession was
taken on 29.11.2007 and award has also been issued on 14.09.2011 and
there was sufficient material for invoking urgency clause. Petitioners have filed
aforesaid writ petition with delay as such writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
The writ petitions in Group-39 relates to village Khera Chauganpur.
In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42232 of 2011 (Subhash Chand Bhati
and others and others Vs. State of U.P. and others), counter affidavit has
been filed, as such aforesaid writ petition is being treated as leading writ
petition for this Group. Aforesaid writ petition has been filed by petitioners,
who are 40 in number, have challenged the Notification dated 31.08.2007
issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land
Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire 94.6923 hectare of land of village Khera
Chauganpur. Declaration under Section 6 was made on 27.02.2008.
Petitioners claim to be in possession of land and cultivating their land. There
was no such immediate urgency to issue notification under Sections 17(1)
and17(4). It has further been pleaded that land is being given to private
builders to construct high rise buildings. Reliance has also been placed on the
106
Division Bench judgment dated 30.05.2011 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No. 20156 of 2009 (Smt. Rajni and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) as
well as another judgement of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 500 of
2010 (Devendra Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) of village
Shahberi and Surajpur. Counter affidavit has been filed by State, stating
therein that after publication of Notification under Section 6 possession of land
was taken on 19.03.2008 proposing to acquire an area 86.6613 hectares and
out of 220 tenure holders 85 have taken compensation with regard to area
30.7591 hectares. Interim orders have been passed by this Court/Hon'ble
Apex Court. Award has been issued on 27.08.2011. Letter dated 30.11.2006
written by Collector, recommending issuance of Notification under Section 4
read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) has been filed as Annexure-CA-3. Counter
affidavit has also been filed by the Authority repeating pleas taken by State. It
has further been stated that land has been carved out of the acquired land is
institutional, and industrial. Other writ petitions of this group raises more or
less same grounds of challenge which needs no repetition.
The writ petitions in Group-40 relates to village Devla. In Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 31126 of 2011 (Chaval Singh and others and others Vs. State
of U.P. and others), counter affidavit has been filed, as such aforesaid writ
petition is being treated as leading writ petition for this Group. Aforesaid writ
petition filed by the petitioners who are six in number challenging the
Notification dated 26.05.2009 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1)
and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire 107.0512 hectare
of land of village Devla. Declaration under Section 6 was made on 22.06.2009.
Petitioners claim to be bhumidhar of plot mentioned in paragraph 3 of the writ
petition. Some of the plots of village in question have not been acquired
because there is abadi existing whereas petitioners have been discriminated
There was no urgency in the matter to invoke Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the
Land Acquisition Act. It is mandatory on the part of the State Government to
afford opportunity of hearing to the persons whose land has been sought to
be acquired, plots in question are used for abadi and for other purpose and
their plots in question are liable to be excluded from acquisition. Petitioners
are living there and abadi in the plots as mentioned above. Affidavit has been
filed by petitioners stating that petitioners have not accepted compensation
107
with regard to the plots no. 215.223.181,218, 64, 320 and 11. Counter
affidavit has been filed by State stating therein that after issuance of
Notification under Section 6 possession was taken on 14.09.2009, details have
been mentioned in paragraph-11 clearly indicating that out of 698 tenure
holders 130 tenure holders have already accepted compensation. It has
further been stated that there was sufficient material to invoke urgency
clause. It has been stated in paragraph 23 that possession has not been taken
of those area of which interim orders of any competent Court was granted or
where dense abadi or constructions had been found. Possession memo has
been filed as Annexure No. CA-4 to the counter affidavit.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42812 of 2009 (Mohd. Shakil and others Vs.
State of U.P. and others) has been filed by three petitioners in which this
Hon'ble Court has granted interim order directing for maintaining status quo
with regard to khasra nos.451, 452, 453 and 461 of the revenue village Devla,
Pargana Dadri, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Buddha Nagar. Writ petition has
been filed challenging the Notification dated 26.05.2009 issued under Section
4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to
acquire 107.0512 hectare of land. Declaration under Section 6 has been made
on 22.06.2009. Petitioners' case is that possession has not been taken.
Applications were filed before for declaration of land as non-agricultural land.
Counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating therein that possession
was taken 14.09.2009. Petitioners case is that possession memo filed as
Annexure CA-3 to the counter affidavit clearly indicating that possession has
not been taken in view of the interim order passed in present writ petition
filed by Mohd. Shakil and others. It has further been pleaded by the petitioner
that greater Noida Authority has also made recommendation for invoking
urgency clause but no details of any material have been given, even 10% of
the amount was not deposited at the time of recommendation. Petitioners
further alleged that there is no compliance of Section 17(3A).
In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.50417 of 2009 (M/s Tosha International
Limited and others Vs. State of U.P. and others), petitioners who are five in
number, have challenged the Notification dated 26.05.2009 issued under
Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, and
108
the declaration under Section 6 has been made on 22.06.2009. Interim order
was passed in the aforesaid writ petition directing to maintain status quo
which is continuing. The petitioners case is that after purchase of the property
by petitioner no. 1 Company was registered and application was moved under
Section 143 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dadri vide order
dated 21.01.1991 declared the land to be non-agricultural. Petitioner no. 1
started manufacturing picture tube since year 1990. Petitioner no. 1 is running
industrial unit after having obtained necessary licences. Petitioner claim to
have initiated proceedings for declaration of entire land as SEZ and petitioners
application for grant of SEZ status is pending consideration in accordance with
Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. Further, Government of India has already
issued letter on 17.01.2006 to the petitioner requiring incorporation of
commitments by the State Government with regard to the matters mentioned
therein. State Government has also held meeting dated 20.12.2006 and the
matter is under active consideration. Petitioner has also written letter to
Greater Noidia for Spot Zoning. However in respect of aforesaid the State
Government has chosen to acquire plot 1.499 hectares belonging to the
petitioners. Petitioners has challenged the Notification stating that land
comprising 26 acres of area has already declared an industrial land and matter
regarding declaration of SEZ status is under consideration before the
Government of India. Petitioners claim to have sent application to the State
Government for exemption of their land on 23.10.2007 on which report was
called from Greater Noida Authority vide letter dated 27.02.2008, report was
submitted on 11.12.2008 recommending exemption of area 4.5649 hectare
from plots nos. 231 to 238. It has further been stated that no allotment has
been made in village Devla. Petitioners have also relied on the Division Bench
judgment of this Court dated 13.05.2011 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
48204 of 2009 (M/s R.P. Electronics & anr v. State of UP & ors). Petitioner has
also relied on the survey report dated 08.11.2007 in which report mention has
been made that M/s Tosha International Ltd. has been found which was
reported to be closed.
There are other writ petitions relating to village Devla which was filed
in the year 2009 itself which are included in this Bunch and in the aforesaid
writ petitions interim orders were also passed by this Court directing to
109
maintain status quo. More or less similar grounds have been taken for
challenge the Notification.
In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54424 of 2009 (Smt. Shakuntala and
others Vs. State of U.P. and others), interim order was passed by this Court
on 15.10.2009. Counter affidavit has been filed stating therein that possession
was taken on 14.09.2009. However there is no mention of any allotment in
the village in question.
In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57032 of 2009 (Manaktala Chemical
(Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others), petitioners have challenged the
Notification dated 26.05.2009 and 22.06.2009. Interim order was granted on
29.10.2009 which is continuing. It has been stated that there does not exist
any order of the State Government with regard to dispensation of the inquiry
under Section 5-A. Petitioner's company is using the plot for industrial
purposes. Report filed as Annexure-6 has been referred to which inspection
report indicates that petitioners factory was over plot Nos. 563, 564, 573 and
574 which was reported closed. Petitioners claims that factory is in existence
since 1993 and reiterated that license has been granted by the Director
Industries. It is further pleaded that the land sought to be acquired by
impugned Notification is part of National Capital Region and the authority
responsible for approval of the master plan is National Capital Region Planning
Board, New Delhi and there is no approval of NCRP Board. In the counter
affidavit of the authority it has been pleaded that there is no provision in 1985
Act which required approval of NCRP Board before acquisition of land. Section
19 of the Act, 1985 clearly shows that same is regarding the observation and
suggestions. In the rejoinder affidavit it is asserted that prior approval of
NCRP Board having not been taken. Authority can not implement any project
affecting land use. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government
in which possession is claim to have been taken on 14.09.2009. It was
admitted that factory was established at plot no. 563, 564, 573 and 574. Copy
of the survey report has been attached to the counter affidavit as well as
possession memo. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed stating therein that
possession memo does not disclose that possession was taken and from
whom petitioners claim to be still in possession and possession memo is
110
termed to be paper transaction only. Other writ petitions challenging above
Notifications raises more or less same grounds which needs no specific
mention.
The writ petitions in Group-41 relates to village Junpat. In Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 48253 of 2011 (Khem Chand and other and others Vs. State
of U.P. and others), counter affidavit has been filed, as such aforesaid writ
petition is being treated as leading writ petition for this Group. Aforesaid writ
petition filed by the petitioners who are ten in number have challenged the
Notification dated 31.01.2008 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1)
and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, and the declaration under Section 6
made on 30.06.2009. Petitioners claim to be bhumidhar of plots mentioned in
paragraphs 3 of the writ petition. Petitioners' case is that State Government
has wrongly and illegally mentioned that land has been acquired for Planned
Industrial Development. In fact land has been sought to be acquired to
transfer the same to the Private Builders, as such entire exercise is colourable
exercise of power and there was no sufficient material to dispense with the
inquiry under Section 5-A. Petitioners under bonafide impression that land of
village junpat shall be utilised for Planned Industrial Development have not
challenged the acquisition earlier. Counter affidavit has been filed by the
Authority stating that after the Notification was issued under Section 6
possession was taken after issuance of notice under Section 9, development
work has taken place and there was sufficient material available before the
State Government for dispensing the inquiry. There is delay in filing writ
petition. Possession was taken on 21.11.2008 and 16.09.2010. It has been
specifically stated that land of village Junpat has not been allotted to any of
the builders.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41558 of 2009 (Surendra Singh Vs. State of
U.P. and others) has been filed by the petitioner challenging the same
Notification. Writ petition was filed on 11.08.2009 in which interim order was
also passed by this Court on 13.08.2009 which is still continuing. Counter
affidavit has been filed by the State in this writ petition also stating therein
that possession was taken on 21.11.2008 and the letter dated 14.02.2009 was
written by the Authority alongwith justification for invoking Section 17 and
111
enquiry under Section 5A was dispensed with on the basis of relevant
materials available on record. Land is agricultural land and no abadi was there
at the time of constructions.
The writ petition in Group 1 to 41 relates to different villages of Greator
Noida and Group-42 to 65 relates to different villages of Noida, which shall
now be noted. Writ petition of Group 42 relates to Village Asdullapur. There
is only one writ petition of this group, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
47486 of 2011 (Rajee and others Vs. State of U.P. and others). By this writ
petition, petitioner has challenged notification dated 27.1.2010 issued under
Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act for
acquiring 39.561 hectares of land, as published in the daily newspaper
“Dainik Jagaran” dated 4.2.2010, situated in village Asdullapur, District
Gautambudh Nagar. Declaration under Section 6 was issued vide notification
13.7.2010, which has filed as Annexure-5A to the writ petition. Petitioners'
case is that they are agriculturists and earning their livelihood from
agricultural land. Residential accommodation of the petitioner No.1 over Plot
No. 156 is claimed to be valued more than Rs. 21 Lacs. Petitioners
represented the matter before the respondent nos. 2 and 3 not to acquire the
land. Petitioners' case is that although land has been acquired for Planned
Industrial Development, but same has been given to several private builders
to construct residential accommodation. Petitioners claimed to be in actual
physical possession of the land. It is stated that there was no sufficient
material for dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act.
Counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit has been
filed by the State Government. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that
possession of the land was taken on 24.6.2011 of 22.432 hectares of land.
Out of 122 tenure holders, no one has accepted compensation. It has been
stated that since 103 tenure holders were involved going through normal
procedure would have taken to decide the objection, hence inquiry has been
dispensed with. Writ petition has been filed with delay. Award has not yet
been declared. Counter affidavit has been filed by Noida Authority repeating
the pleadings as has been mentioned in the counter affidavit of the State
Government. Possession is claimed to have taken on 24.6.2011.
112
The writ petition in Group Group-43 relates Village Aleverdipur. Writ
Petition No. 46470 of 2011 (Vinod Kumar Bindal Vs. State of U.P. and others)
has been filed challenging the Notification dated 22.3.1983 issued under
Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act for
acquiring 299.421 hectares of land, situated in village Aleverdipur, District
Gautambudh Nagar. Declaration under Section 6 was issued vide notification
dated 23.3.1983. Petitioner claimed to be purchaser from one Kalu by means
of registered sale deed dated 31.5.2008. Petitioner’s case is that he came to
know only few days back that Noida authority has acquired the land by
notification dated 22.3.1983 and 23.3.1983. Petitioner claimed to be in
possession of the land after sale deed and has come up in the writ petition
praying for quashing the aforesaid notifications. Counter affidavit has been
filed by the State Government stating therein that in pursuance to the
notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act, possession was taken on
26.8.1983 and award was also issued on 28.11.1984. Writ petition is highly
barred by laches and deserves to be dismissed, on this ground alone. Land
having been acquired Kalu could have sold the property in favour of the
petitioner. Original tenure holder has already received compensation and got
alternative site under scheme. Authority has also filed counter affidavit
reiterating the pleadings as taken in the counter affidavit of the State
Government. Original tenure holder Kalu had accepted the compensation and
has also got residential plot No. C-22 in Sector-49 in the year 1997. Writ
petition being highly barred by time, deserves to be dismissed.
The writ petition in Group-44 relates Village Asgarpurjagir. In Writ
Petition No. 46919 of 2011 (Girish Bansal and another Vs. State of U.P. and
others), counter affidavit has been filed by the state Government as well as
authority, which is being treated as leading writ petition. By the writ petition,
petitioners has prayed for quashing of Notification dated 24.8.2007 issued
under Section 4 Read with Section 17(1) & 17(4) of the Act for acquiring
17.415 hectares of land, situated in village Asgarpurjagir. Declaration under
Section 6 was issued on 12.8.2008. Petitioners' case is that according to the
Government Order dated 17.8.1993 and 8.8.1997 land is to be acquired by
negotiation and settlement. Reliance has further been placed on Government
113
Order dated 8.2.2005 that for housing purpose lands be not acquired where
any construction is standing. Petitioners claim to be still in possession over the
land. Petitioner preferred an application dated 29.4.2011 by which petitioners
requested the respondents to great their application for receiving
compensation as rejected. Petitioners case is that inquiry under Section 5-A of
the Act has been wrongly dispensed with. Petitioners have not received any
compensation till date. On the land there is abadi of the petitioners. State
Government has also filed counter affidavit stating therein that in pursuance
to the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act possession of the land
was taken on 16.1.2009 and 14.10.2009. Out of 144 tenure holders, 88
tenure holders had received compensation. Award has also been declared on
3.9.2011. Assertion is that abadi exists on the spot is not correct. No
construction was found in 'Prapatra 17. Counter affidavit has also been filed
by the authority in which apart from repeating pleadings of State Government,
it has been stated that writ petition has been filed with delay. There was
sufficient material available with the State Government for invoking urgency
clause. Petitioner is not in possession of the land and award has been
declared on 3.9.2011.
Writ Petition No. 24295 of 2010 (Mawasi Vs. State of U.P.Thru. P.S.
Industrial Devp. & Ors) has been filed challenging the notification dated
24.8.2007 and 12.8.2008. This writ petition was filed on 29.4.2010 and
interim order was granted on 5.5.2010 directing for maintaining status-quo
with regard to plot No. 183.
Supplementary affidavit has been filed annexing copy of the lease deed
dated 31.3.2009 by which land measuring 10951.98 Sq. Meter was allotted to
M/s Anushriya Infotech Pvt. Ltd. for development of form house on
agricultural land. Petitioner case is that land was acquired for planned
Industrial Development and on Plot No. 183 there is abadi of the petitioner.
Petitioner submitted that an application dated 14.9.2007 had been moved
before Sub Divisional Officer for declaring the land as non agricultural.
Petitioner has filed objection before the Additional District Magistrate praying
that petitioner's plot No. 183 in which he is owner 1/7th share be kept out of
the acquisition. Petitioner's case is that Revenue Officer has written letter
114
dated 24.11.2008 to the Additional District Magistrate for transfer of
possession of 17.415 Hectares of land of Village Asgarpur Jagir except the
land which was mentioned in the schedule. Petitioner's case is that area of
0.69A hectares was mentioned in the scheduled, copy of which has been filed
as Annexure-18 to the writ petition. Petitioner has stated that urgency clause
has been wrongly invoked by the State Government. In the supplementary
affidavit, petitioner has brought on record, the lease for development of form
house. Counter affidavit has been filed by the authority stating that writ
petition is barred by the laches. Possession of the land has been taken on
16.1.2009. It has been stated that since there were 155 tenure holders,
hearing their objection would have taken much time, hence urgency clause
was invoked. It has been stated that possession of Plot No. 183 has not been
taken.
The writ petition in Group-45 relates to village Badoli Bangar, Pargana
Dankour, Tehsil Sadar, District Gautambudh Nagar. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No. 38057 of 2011 (Ratan Vs. State of U.P. and others), counter affidavit has
been filed both by the State Government as well as respondents- authority,
which writ petition is being treated as leading writ petition. By this writ
petition, petitioner challenges the notification dated 7.11.2007 issued under
Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act for
acquiring 234.448 hectares of land situated in village Badoli Bngar.
Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made vide
notification dated 9.5.2008. Petitioner's case is that petitioner is Bhoomidhar
in possession of Plot No. 421 on which he has constructed his house.
Petitioner's case is that he having using the land as abadi, same deserved to
be left out of the acquisition. Petitioner's case is that inquiry under Section 5-
A of the Land Acquisition Act was dispensed with without there being any
urgency in the matter. According to Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act,
acquisition has lapsed, since no award has been issued. Petitioner's case is
that proposal was submitted on 24.11.2005 but the notification was issued
only in November, 2007 which also shows that that there was no urgency, no
compensation has been received by the petitioner. Counter affidavit has been
filed by the State Government stating therein that possession was taken on
2.6.2008. Out of 188 tenure holder, 149 tenure holders have received
115
compensation. Award has also been declared on 19.9.2011. It is stated that in
Plot No. 421, no abadi was found in the survey. There was sufficient material
on the record to invoke urgency clause. In the counter affidavit filed by the
authority, plea raised in the counter of State Government have been
reiterated. The authority has developed the village Badoli Bangar and spend
huge amount on the development of infrastructure. More than Rs. 62 Crores
has been spend on the development. Petitioner's case is that no allotment has
been made in this village nor any development has taken place. Other writ
petitions of this group raises more or less similar grounds to challenge the
notification which needs no repletion.
The writ petition in Group-46 relates to village Basi Brahauddin
Nagar, Pargana Dadri, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar. In Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 44492 of 2011 (Manoj Yadav and others Vs. State of U.P.
and others) counter affidavit has been filed both by the State and the
authority, which writ petition is being treated as leading writ petition. By this
writ petition, petitioners have prayed for quashing the notification dated
12.4.2005 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the
Land Acquisition Act for acquiring 145.849 hectares of land situated in village
Basi Brahauddin Nagar. Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act was made vide notification dated 6.10.2005. Petitioners' case is that
possession of petitioners is there on part of Khasra No. 373. Petitioners plead
that some of the plot of village in question have not been acquired on account
of existence of abadi whereas petitioners has been discriminated since their
plot having the abadi, have not been released. There was no urgency for
invoking Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. Petitioners claim that no
notice has been served under Section 9 of the Act, the acquisition have
lapsed under Section 11-A of the Act. Counter affidavit has been filed by the
State Government in which it has been stated that possession has been taken
on 30.12.2005. Out of 1265 tenure holders, 752 tenure holders have received
compensation. Award has also been declared on 29.12.2010. Writ Petition
suffers from delay and laches. There was sufficient material for invoking
urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition. Counter affidavit
has been filed by the authority repeating the plea taken by the State
Government in its counter affidavit. It has been further stated that
116
development work has been carried out and the area in question has been
demarcated as Sector No.67,68, and 73. It has been stated that allotment
have been made to private individuals for Industrial use and Institutional use.
Petitioners are not in possession of the land. Writ Petition No. 46688 of 2011
(Mukesh Vs. State of U.P. and others) raises more of less similar ground which
needs no repetition.
The writ petition in Group-47 relates to village Chaprauli Bangar,
Pargana Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar. There is only one writ petition
being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.43392 of 2011 (Bhushan Singh and others
Vs. State of U.P. and others). Petitioners have challenged the notification
dated 21.7.2003 issued under Section 6 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of
the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring 27.9106 hectares of land, situated in
village Chapruli Bangar in continuation of earlier notification dated 4.7.2003.
Petitioners claim to be small tenure holder of the village. Petitioners' case is
that against the will of farmers, the compensation was paid at the rate of Rs.
378 per square yard in the year 2003, which is now being allotted to the
builders'/colonizers for the group housing in the year 2010 on at the rate of
Rs. 22440 per sq. yard. Petitioners' case is that acquisition of land is totally
illegal, which has been done for earning profit. There was no urgency for
invoking Section 17(1) & 17(4) of the Act. Petitioners case is that they came
to know in the year 2010 that land was allotted to the builders like 3-C
Company, Urbtech and Paras Group Housing. Counter affidavit has been filed
by the State Government stating that possession of the land was taken on
22.8.2003 and 11.1.2005. Out of 138 tenure holders, 118 tenure holders have
received compensation. Award have also been declared on 19.9.2011. It has
been stated that compensation have been accepted by the petitioners.
Petitioners having remains silent for such long time, cannot be allowed to
challenge the acquisition. Authority has also filed counter affidavit reiterating
the plea taken by the State Government. It has been further stated that
authority has spend huge amount of Rs. 25 Crores on the development of
infrastructure of the village. Petitioners have received compensation at the
rate of 378 per sq. Yard.
The writ petition in Group-48 relates to village Chaura Sadatpur,
117
Pargana Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar. There is only one writ petition of
this group being Civil Writ Petition No. 46407 of 2011 (Liley Ram Vs. State of
U.P. and others). Petitioner has challenged the notification dated 16.9.1976
issued under Section 6 of the Act in continuation of Section 4 of the Act
issued earlier for acquiring 1008.40 Acres of land situated in Village Chaura
Sadatpur, Pargana Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar. Petitioner claims to be
the owner of the Plot No. 760M and 788. Petitioner's case is that now the land
has been sold to private builders at the rate of Rs 1,00,000.00 per sq. yard.,
whereas petitioner was given only nominal compensation. Counter affidavit
has been filed by the State Government stating that the land was acquired in
the year 1976 of which possession was taken on 28.10.1976. Award was also
declared on 29.7.1978. The award has been brought on record. It has been
stated that writ petition is highly barred by laches of about 36 years and be
dismissed on this ground alone. Counter affidavit has been filed by the
authority reiterating the same facts.
The writ petition in Group-49 relates to village Dostpur Mangrauli
Bangar, District Gautambudh Nagar. In Civil Writ Petition No. 47259 of 2011
(Rajveer and others Vs. State of U.P. and others), 11 petitioners have
challenged the notification dated 17.3.2009 issued under Section 4 read with
Section 17(1) and 17(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring 66.684
hectares of land situated in village Dostpur Mangrauli Bangar, District
Gautambudh Nagar. Declaration under Section 6 was issued vide notification
dated 8.4.2010. Plot Nos. 222, 423, 268, 328 are being used by the
petitioners as abadi, which is recorded in the revenue record. There is delay of
more than one year in issuing of notification under Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act, which clearly indicates that there was no urgency in the
matter. Petitioners claim that possession has yet not been taken. It is stated
that there is no material with the State Government to invoke urgency clause.
Counter affidavit has been filed by the authority stating that possession was
taken by the State Government on 22.5.2010. There was no reason to exempt
the land of the petitioners. Petitioners are not in possession of the land.
The writ petition in Group-50 relates to village Jhatta, District
Gautambudh Nagar. Civil Writ Petition No. 47257 of 2011 (Bharte and others
118
Vs. State of U.P. and others) is being treated as leading writ petition. Counter
affidavit has been filed by both State Government as well as authority.
Petitioners who are 42 in number have approached for quashing of
Notification dated 12.4.2005 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1)
and 17(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring 76.8367 hectares of land
situated in village Jhatta, District Gautambudh Nagar. Declaration under
Section 6 was issued vide notification dated 28.10.2005. Petitioners claim to
be owner in possession of plot as mentioned in paragraph no. 4 and 5 of the
writ petition. Petitioners claim that purpose of acquisition shown as Planned
Industrial Development is not correct, since the respondent no. 4 is
transferring the aforesaid land to builders. Possession have not been taken
from the petitioners. Petitioners are peacefully residing on the aforesaid plot
and there was no urgency for invoking Section17(1) & 17(4) of the Land
Acquisition Act. Under Section 11-A, the acquisition have lapsed. Petitioners
have stated that State Government and the authority instead of playing role
of facilitator in acquiring the land, has proceeded to colourable exercise of
power. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government stating that
possession has been taken on 10.7.2006 and out of 165 tenure holders, 122
tenure holders have received compensation. Award under Section 11(1) of the
Act has been declared on 10.2.2010. There was sufficient material with the
SDtate Government to invoke Section 17(4) of the Act. Survey report as well
as copy of the award has been filed along with counter affidavit. Counter
affidavit has also been filed by the authority reiterating the same pleadings as
has been made by the State Government. It has been stated that
development work was carried out by the authority on the acquired land.
Ownership of the villagers has vested in the State by the acquisition, hence
petitioners cannot challenge the acquisition. Petitioner No. 6 has received
compensation. Authority has spend huge amount more than Rs 8 Crores on
the infrastructure development. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47267 of 2011
(Kanhaiya Lal and others Vs. State of U.P. and others), petitioners have
challenge the Notification dated 17.6.2003 issued under Section 4 read with
Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring 56.567
hectares of land, situated in village Jhatta, District Gautambudh Nagar.
Declaration under Section 6 was issued vide notification dated 21.7.2003.
Petitioners who are 39 in number claim to be owner in possession of the plots
119
as mentioned in the paragraph 4 of the writ petition, same grounds have been
taken as was taken in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47257 of 2011. An
application has been filed by the petitioners for deleting the name of the
petitioner Nos. 27,28 and 29 from the array of the parties, which is allowed
and aforesaid petitioners are deleted from the parties. In the counter affidavit
filed by the State Government, it has been stated that possession of the land
was taken on 10.9.2003 and out of 51 tenure holders, 48 tenure holders have
received compensation. Award was also declared on 17.12.2007. Writ petition
has been filed with delay. In the counter affidavit filed by the authority, same
plea has been repeated. It has been denied that the petitioners are in
possession of the land. It has been stated that there was no colourable
exercise of power in the acquisition. Land has already vested with the State
Government, it cannot be reverted back to the original owners.
The writ petitions in Group-51 relates to village Khoda, Pargana Loni,
Tehsil Dadri, (Sadar) District Gautam Budha Nagar. Writ Petition No. 45196 of
2011 Rampat and others Versus State of U.P. and others, counter affidavit has
been filed by the respondents-authority, which is being treated as leading writ
petition. Petitioners have challenged the Notification dated 17.3.1988 under
Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) & 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act.
Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act made vide
notification dated 11.7.1988. Petitioners claim to be owner in possession of
Bhoomidhar of plot as mentioned in paragraph no. 3 of the writ petition.
Petitioners allege that invocation of the urgency was not justified.
Respondents have illegally changed the purpose of acquisition. Respondent
No.3 is making huge profit. Acquisition have lapsed under Section 11-A of the
Land Acquisition Act. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents-
authority wherein it has been stated that award was declared on 1.2.1991 and
against the award, petitioners have already filed an application for reference
being LAR No. 563 of 1998 for enhancement of compensation. It is stated
that writ petition is filed in-ordinate delay, and same is liable to be dismissed
on this ground alone. Other writ petitions of this group challenges same
notification on more or less similar grounds. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45224
(Preetam and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) challenges the Notification
dated 12.2.1988, issued under Section 4 as well as Notification dated
120
27.3.1990 under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Counter affidavit has
been filed by the respondents-authority in which it has been stated that award
has been declared on 1.2.1991. It is further stated that Village Khoda,
Pargana Loni, Tehsil Dadri, (Sadar) District Gautam Budha Nagar is well
developed village. Writ petition having been filed with in ordinate delay, same
is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
The writ petitions in Group-52 relates to village Kondli Banger, Post
Office Kasna, District Gautambudh Nagar. In Writ Petition No. 49093 of 2011
(Beliram Vs. State of U.P. and others), counter affidavit has been filed by
authority which writ petition is being treated as leading writ petition. In the
present writ petition, petitioners have prayed for quashing of the notification
dated 8.9.2008 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) & 17(4) of
Land Acquisition Act for acquiring 215.83 hectares of land situated in village
Kondli Banger, Post Office Kasna, District Gautambudh Nagar. Declaration
under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made vide notification dated
16.9.2009. Petitioner's case is that they are Bhoomidhar in possession of Plot
No. 206. It is stated that some plot of village have not been acquired due to
the reason that abadi exist there, whereas petitioner has been discriminated.
Urgency clause was invoked without application of mind. Petitioner submitted
that there being delay of more than one year in issuing of Notification under
Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Ground of urgency is falsified. Counter
affidavit has been filed by the authority in which it has been sated that
notification under Section 4 dated 8.9.2008 was published in two daily
prominent daily news paper namely “Rashtriya Sahara” and “Amar Ujala” on
15.8.2009 and Munadi was made on 21.8.2009. Declaration under Section 6
of the Land Acquisition Act was made vide notification dated on16.9.2009.
Petitioner submitted in paragraph no. 13 of the counter affidavit it has been
mentioned that publication of Section 6 of the Act having been made after
about one year which clearly indicated that invoking of urgency was misused.
It is submitted that publication in the news paper on 15.8.2008 and Munadi
on 21.8.2009 was made to facilitate the issuance of Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act.
In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40265 of 2011(Sunil Kumar Vs. State of
121
U.P. and others) notification dated 8.9.2008 and 16.9.2009 has been
challenged. It has been stated that notification under Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act was issued nearly after passing of one year, which shows that
there was no urgency and urgency has wrongly been invoked. Counter
affidavit has been filed by the State Government in which it has been stated
that Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 8.9.2008
was published in two local news paper “Amar Ujala” on 15.8.2009 and notice
for general information was issued on 21.8.2009 and thereafter declaration
under Section 6 was issued on 16.9.2009. Award has been made on
14.9.2011 and to the similar effect counter affidavit has been filed by the
authority.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59121 of 2009 (Ajeet Singh Versus State of
U.P. and others) was filed on 4.11.2009 challenging the aforesaid notification
dated 15.8.2009 and 16.9.2009 and interim order was passed on 6.11.2009
directing that if the petitioner has not been dispensed with, there shall be
status-quo with regard to the petitioner. Interim order was continued by
subsequent order passed by this court. only 9.12.2009, if the petitioner has
not been dispensed with, status-quo shall be maintained with regard to the
petitioner. Interim order was continuing by subsequent order passed by this
court. Apart from Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59121 of 2009 (Ajeet Singh Vs.
State of U.P. and others), Writ Petition No.59122 of 2009, Writ Petition No.
59761 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 59762 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 64564 of
2009,Writ Petition No. 65544 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 66163 of 2009, Writ
Petition No. 68487 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 69329 of 2009, Writ Petition No.
69331 of 2009 and Writ Petition No. 69332 of 2009 were filed in the year
2009 itself immediately after issuing notification under Section 6 of the Land
acquisition Act and in all the writ petitions, interim order is still operating.
Other writ petitions in this group raises more or less similar grounds which
needs no repetition. One Writ Petition No. 48232 of 2011 Charan Singh and
others Versus State of U.P. and others challenges although notification under
Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act dated 8.9.2008, which has been filed as
Annexure-1 in which petitioners plot as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the writ
petition are mentioned, but date of notification in the prayer has wrongly
been given. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 16.9.2009
122
which has been filed in other writ petition of the same group. Writ Petition No.
48232 of 2001 is also to be treated writ petition challenging the notifications
under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 8.9.2009 and
16.9.2009 and relief has to be accordingly moulded. In the short counter
affidavit, which was filed by the authority it has been mentioned in paragraph
7 that plots in question were not acquired by the declaration as claimed by
the petitioner, since the said plots were indicated in the subsequent
notification dated 8.9.2008 and 16.9.2009 as observed above; In all the writ
petitions of this group challenging notification under section 4 dated 8.9.2008
read with Section 17(1) & 17(4) and declaration dated 16.9.2009 under
Section 6 more or less similar ground are raised, which has already been
noted, which needs no repetition.
The writ petition in Group-53 relates to village Nagla Nagli, District
Gautambudh Nagar. Only one writ petition in this village being Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 46469 of 2011 has been filed challenging the notification dated
17.3.2009 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the
Land Acquisition Act. Declaration was issued vide notification dated 8.4.2010
under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Petitioners, who are 16 in
number claim to be Bhoomidhar of plot in possession as mentioned in
paragraph nos. 2 and 3 of the writ petition. Petitioners claim that they have
old abadi and in spite of their representation land was not exempted.
Petitioners have further alleged that respondents with malfide intention has
initiated acquisition proceeding, there was no ground for dispensing with the
inquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Declaration under
Section 6 was issued after more than one year which shows that there was no
urgency at all. Petitioners has preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27366 of
2010 in which interim order was granted on 14.5.2010. Counter affidavit has
been filed by the State Government stating therein that possession was taken
on 13.7.2010 and out of 82 tenure holders, 20 tenure holders have accepted
the compensation. Award relating to the land has not yet been declared.
Authority has filed counter affidavit reiterating same submission.
The writ petition in Group-54 relates to village Nithari, Noida. There
are two writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition No. 45933 of 2011 (Ravindra Sharma
123
and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) and Writ Petition No. 47545 of 2011
(Babu Ram and others Vs. State of U.P. and others). In Writ Petition No.
45933 of 2011 (Ravindra Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others)
counter affidavit has been filed by both State as well as authority, which is
being treated as leading writ petition. Petitioners have challenged the
Notification dated 1.6.1976 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1)
and 17(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land, situated in
village Nithari (Suthari). Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 16.9.1976.
Petitioners claimed to be owner in possession of plot No. 171 and 172.
Notification is sought to be challenged on the ground that property is still
vacant and has been auctioned in favour of private builders. Land was
acquired in 1976, which is lying vacant. Counter affidavit has been filed by the
State Government stated that possession of land was taken on 28.10.1976
and award was declared on 15.7.1978. Filing of the writ petition after more
than 33 years has not been explained and writ petition deserves to be
dismissed on the ground of laches alone. Copy of the award has also been
filed as Annexure-1. Counter affidavit has also been filed by authority stating
that writ petition is highly barred by laches, after having been filed more than
three decades. It has been stated that plots fall in developed Sector-29.
Application for intervention has also been filed by M/s Wave Mega City Ptv.
Ltd.
Writ Petition No. 47545 of 2011(Babu Ram and others Versus State and
U.P. and others) also challenges the notification dated 1.6.1976 and
16.9.1976 issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Petitioner
had also filed application praying that writ petition be de-linked from the
bunch of the writ petition. We do not find any reason to de-link the aforesaid
writ petition from bunch of the writ petition. Application for de-link stands
rejected. Counter affidavit has been filed by the authority, it has been stated
that writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. Award has
already been declared in the year 1978.
The writ petition in Group-55 relates to village Sadarpur, Pargana and
Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
45694 of 2011(Jai Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others), counter
124
affidavit has been filed by the State Government as well as authority which is
treated as leading writ petition. Writ Petitions have been filed praying for
quashing of Notification dated 30.3.2002 issued under Section 4 read with
Section 17(1) & 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act for acquiring 779.55 Acres of of
land situated in village Sadarpur, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam
Budh Nagar. Declaration under section 6 of Land Acquisition Act was issued
on 28.6.2003 and award has been made on 29.1.2010, which have been
sought to be quashed. Petitioners who are 14 in number claim to be owner of
plots as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, which is being used
for agricultural purposes as claimed by them. Petitioners' case is that
possession has not been taken and they are residing in their plot. Petitioners
case is that they were issued printed notice to appear before the Additional
District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Gautambudh Nagar, who intended to
pay compensation @ 378.92 per sq. yard. Petitioners were told that land has
vested with the State Government and petitioners shall be deprived from
receiving the compensation for long time, hence there is no option except to
accept the compensation. Petitioners have accepted 90% compensation and
entered into agreement. Petitioners' case is that instead of developing
industries on the spot, respondents-authority have allotted the land to
various private builders @ 11531/- per Sq. Metre and 21,000 per Sq. Meter
and other builders with different rate. In the present case, even allotment
have been made in July, 2011. Petitioners case is that there is no urgency in
the matter and entire exercise is tainted with mala fide and colourable
exercise of power. Acquisition have lapsed under Section 11-A of the Land
Acquisition Act. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government
stating therein that possession was taken on 3.9.2003 and 3.3.2005. Out of
138 tenure holders, 85 tenure holders have received compensation. There
was sufficient material before the State Government for invoking urgency
clause. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the authority in which apart
from reiterating the fact mentioned in the counter affidavit of the State
Government, it is stated that area stand demarcated as Sector 44,45,96,98,46
and 43, which are developed sector. Authorities have developed the sector
and has invested huge amount. It has been stated that only 45% of the land
is capable of allotment. It is further stated that against the notification
impugned, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29031 of 2003 (Amar Singh and others
125
Vs. State of U.P. and others) was filed in this court which was dismissed by
the Division Bench judgment dated 11.7.2003. Other writ petitions of this
group challenging the same notification are more or less on similar grounds
which needs no repetition.
Writ Petition No. 47522 of 2011( Kalu and others Vs. State of U.P. and
others) has been filed challenging the Notification dated 28.1.1994 issued
under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) & 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act for
acquisition 97.219 Acres of land. Declaration under section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act was issued vide notification dated 10.11.1995 and award was
also declared on 23.10.2009. Petitioners claim to be owner in possession of
the Plot Nos. 281,313,513. It is alleged that inquiry under Section 5-A of the
Land Acquisition Act has wrongly been dispensed with. Petitioners' case is that
they are in possession and they have not been given any compensation so far.
It is further alleged that land has been transferred to builders. Counter
affidavit has been filed by the respondents-authority stating therein that
possession of the land was taken on 3.9.2003 and 3.3.2005. It is stated that
plots have been developed. Writ Petition is barred by laches, it having been
filed after long lapse of time.
The writ petition in Group-56 relates to village Salarpur Khadar,
Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar. In Writ Petition No.
46682 of 2011 (Begram @ Began Vs. State of U.P. and others), counter
affidavit has been filed by the respondents-authority as well as State
Government, which is being treated as leading writ petition. Petitioner has
challenged the Notification dated 11.9.2008 issued under Section 4 read with
Section 17(1) & 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act for acquiring 227.077 Hectares
of land situated in village Salarpur khadar. Declaration under Section 6 of
the Land Acquisition Act made vide notification dated 30.9.2009. Petitioner's
case is that he is Bhoomidhar of plot , as mentioned in paragraph no.4 of the
writ petition. Respondents have failed to pay compensation in accordance with
law. It has been stated that there was no urgency in the acquisition to
dispense with the inquiry. Against the same Notification Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 23640 of 2011 (Hari Kishan Versus State of U.P. and others) has
been filed in which this court has already granted interim order on 4.5.2010.
126
Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government in which it has been
stated that possession of the land was taken on 3.2.2010 and 25.9.2010. Out
of 1970 tenure holders 246 tenure holders have received compensation i.e.
about 13%. There was sufficient material to invoke urgency clause. Writ
petition has been filed with delay. Counter affidavit has been filed by the
authority repeating averments made in the counter affidavit of the State
Government. It has been stated that development work was carried out and
the area has been demarcated as Sector 49,78, 79,81,104,101,106 and 107.
Allotment was made to private individual as well as Industrialist, Green
Residential and Industrial purpose from time to time. Application for
intervention has been filed on behalf of the M/s Three Platinum Softech Pvt.
Ltd and therein claims that for allotment of 33 thousand Sq. Meters of land
in Sector 107, lease deed was also institute in favour of the applicant on
31.3.2010.
The writ petition in Group-57 relates to village Shahadara, Pargana
Dadari, Tehsil Sadar, District Gautambudh Nagar. In Writ Petition No. 44493
of 2011 ( Jagdish Vs. State of U.P. and others), petitioners have challenged
Notification dated 16.4.2008 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1)
& 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act for acquiring 171.0945 Hectares of land
situated in village Shahadara, Pargana Dadari, Tehsil Sadar, District
Gautambudh Nagar. Declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act
was made on 16.6.2008. Petitioner's case is that he is owner of Bhoomidhar
of Khasra No. 589 area 0.9170 hectares. It is stated that there was no
urgency for the acquisition of the land for the planned industrial development
and respondents in order to fulfil their political obligations/promise to the
private builders dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land
Acquisition Act. Authority was in dominating position, the petitioners were
left with no option but to accept the compensation under the provision of
Karar Niyamawaly 1997. Respondents have changed the purpose of
acquisition by transferring the land to private builders, copy of the lease deed
granted to private builders on 7.7.2011 has been annexed as Annexure, 4,5,
and 6 to this writ petition. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State
Government as well as authority. In the counter affidavit of the State
Government, it has been stated that possession of land was taken on
127
14.7.2008 and out of 560 tenure holders, 316 tenure holders have already
received their compensation under agreement. Award has also been declared
on 14.9.2011. There was sufficient material before the State Government for
dispensing with the inquiry. Petitioner having accepted compensation, cannot
be allowed to challenge the acquisition. In the counter affidavit filed by the
Authority it has been stated that petitioners have received compensation to
the tune of Rs. 91 Lacs and 17 thousand. Notification impugned was upheld
in the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29575 of 2008, against which Special Leave
Petition has also been dismissed.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46037 of 2011( Rishipal Singh Versus State
of U.P. and others) raises similar ground to challenge the aforesaid
notification which needs no repetition.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46405 of 2011 (Sri Pal Singh Versus State
of U.P. and others) has been filed for challenging the Notification dated
16.4.2008 which has been impugned in other writ petition of this group.
Petitioners' plot being included in the aforesaid notification. Declaration under
Section 6 of the Act have already been issued on 16.6.2008 which has already
been filed in above writ petition, this petition be also treated as the writ
petition against both the notification it shall be decided accordingly.
The writ petition in Group-58 relates to village Soharkha Jahidabad,
District Gautambudh Nagar. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42834 of 2011
(Amar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) has been filed challenging the
Notification dated 27.7.2006 issued under Section 6 read with Section 17(1)
and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring 4848 hectares of land
situated in Village Soharkha Jahidabad. Section 4 notification was issued on
12.4.2005( copy of the notification has been filed alongwith supplementary
affidavit). Petitioners' case is that he has 1/7th share in plot No. 719 and
whole plot is covered by Pucca construction. Petitioner claims to be moved an
application before the Noida Authority for exempting the land from the
acquisition. In the revenue Record, plot has been recorded as abadi.
Petitioner has not taken compensation under agreement. Respondents after
acquiring the land allotted to the private builders. There was no urgency to
128
dispense with the inquiry. Application for intervention in this writ petition has
been filed by M/s Unitech Pvt. Ltd., who claims to have invested 53 Crores in
the project.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43825 of 2011 (Nepal and others Vs. State
of U.P. and others) has been filed by 34 persons challenging the notification
dated 12.4.2005 issued under section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of
the Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire 449.412 hectares of of land
situated in village Soharkha Zahidabad, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautambudh
Nagar. Declaration under Section was made on 27.7.2006. Petitioner claimed
to the agriculturalist, dependent on the agriculture income. Petitioner case is
that declaration under section 6 was issued after period of 15 months
whereas declaration is required to be issued within one year. It is further
submitted that issuance of declaration after 15 months clearly indicates that
there was no urgency in dispensing with the inquiry. Land is still in possession
of the petitioner and now for the year 2010-11 plots have been sought to be
allotted to various private builders. In paragraph 19 to 25 of the writ petition
details of various plots allotted to the builders of different area have been
indicated. M/s Unitech Limited has been transferred an area of 288500.00 sq.
meter of Plot No. 001 by lease deed dated 3.3.2008. M/s Ajnara India Limited
vide lease deed dated 1.10.2010 has been transferred an area of 49410.00
sq. Meter of Plot No. GH-01/B -Sector 74, Noida. By another lease deed dated
1.9.2010 an area of 20000.00 Sq. Meter of land has been transferred in
favour of M/s Express Builders and Promoters Private Limited. Another lease
dated 17.6.2010 an area of 2000.00 Sq. meter of Plot No. GH-01/C -Sector 78
has been transferred in favour of M/s G.S. Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Again vide
lease dated 31.8.2010 an area of 20500.00 sq. Meter of Plot No. GH-02/C-
Sector-77, Noida has been transferred in favour of M/s Civitech Developers
Pvt. Ltd. Further vide lease deed dated 28.5.2010 an area of 21393.83 Sq.
Meter of Plot No. GH-05/B-Sector 78, Noida has been transferred in favour of
M/s Sunshine Infrawell Pvt. Ltd. Further vide lease deed dated 7.10.2010 an
area of 200000.00 Sq. Meter of Plot No. GH-01/A-Sector 74, Noida has been
transferred in favour of M/s Supertech Limited. All the aforesaid builders
have filed intervention application in this writ petition. In the intervention
application it has been stated that they have invested huge amount in the
129
development of infrastructure of area and in this regard photograph of the
spot has also been annexed. Counter affidavit has been filed by the authority
stating therein that possession of land has been taken on 16.10.2006 and co-
tenure holders have received the compensation amount of an area in
percentage 64.14%. Award have already been made on 27.7.2011.
Development has taken place in the village land has been vested with the
authority. Authority has invested huge amount in the development of the
area.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.45462 of 2011 (Parsu Ram and others Vs.
state of U.P. and others) has been filed challenging the notification under
Section 6 dated 27.7.2006. Petitioners claim that they are Bhoomidhar of plot
mentioned in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. Notification under Section 6 of
the Act has been issued after more than one year of issuance of notification
under Section 4 dated 12.4.2005. In the possession memo dated 16.10.2006
is only paper possession, reference of various lease granted to different
builders have been given in paragraph no. 14 of the writ petition.
Compensation under agreement was paid @ of Rs. 424 Sq. Meter whereas
transfer is being made on exorbitantly in order to take huge profit from the
petitioners. Transfer was made more than 22 thousand per sq. meter of land
in favour of the builders. There was no urgency for dispensing with the
inquiry under section 5-A of the Act. Petitioner being illiterate agriculturist and
being in possession, after acquiring knowledge have filed writ petition
reiterating the full fact. In camouflage of the acquisition for the aforesaid
development, respondents have issued impugned notification and thereafter,
transferred the land to private builders at huge profit. Application for
intervention has been moved on behalf of Mahagun Real Estate also.
The writ petition in Group-59 relates to village Sultanpur, Pargana &
Tehsil Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar. In Civil Writ Petition No. 46764 of
2011 (Ramesh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) petitioners have
challenged the notification dated 11.2.1994 issued under Section 4 read with
Section 17(1) and 17(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land
situated in village Sultanpur, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri, District Gautambudh
Nagar. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 18.7.1994. Petitioners
130
claimed to be Bhoomidhar of the land which has been shown in the Map 11-A
(Annexure-1) to the writ petition. Petitioner claims to have received
compensation under agreement. Petitioners case is that there was no urgency
for invoking urgency clause and in the year 2010-11 land has been transferred
to private builders. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government
stating that possession of the land was taken on 24.8.1995 and award was
declared on 9.5.1997. After such long lapse of period, writ petition cannot be
entertained, it is highly barred by laches and deserves to be dismissed on this
ground alone.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46766 of 2011 (Jeet Ram and others Vs.
state of U.P. and others) challenges the notification dated 2.5.2003 issued
under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(1-A) of the Land Acquisition
Act for acquiring the land. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on
29.5.2003. Petitioner case is that they are Bhoomidhar of the land mentioned
in paragraph no. 3 of the writ petition. Allegations is that land has not been
used for the purposes it was acquired and have been transferred to various
builders. There was no urgency for dispensing with the inquiry. Counter
affidavit has been filed by the State Government stating that possession of the
land was taken on 24.6.2003. Out of 49 tenure holders, 42 tenure holders
have received compensation. Award have already been declared on
10.9.2010. Writ Petition is barred by laches. Counter affidavit has been filed
by the authority taking similar ground. It is stated that petitioner nos. 1 to 5
have received compensation on 5.3.2003 and petitioner nos. 6 to 9 have
nothing to do for plot No. 639 to 646 nor any documents have been filed in
that regard.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46785 of 2011(Jeet Ram and others Vs.
State of U.P. and others) has been filed challenging the Notification dated
6.12.1999 issued under Section 4. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was
issued vide notification dated 9.3.2000. Petitioners claim to be Bhoomidhar in
possession of the land as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the writ petition.
Petitioners' case is that land was acquired for Planned Industrial Development
but same has not been used for the aforesaid purpose, rather it has been
transferred to private builders. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State
131
Government stating that possession of the land was taken on 14.12.2000 and
award was issued on 18.6.2005. Writ Petition is highly barred by time and
deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.
Writ petitions of Group No.60 relate to village Suthiyana. In Writ
Petition No.43264 of 2011, Hariom and others Vs. State of U.P. and others,
counter affidavit has been field by the State as well as by the NOIDA
Authority, which is being treated as leading writ petition. By this writ petition,
the petitioners have prayed for quashing the notification dated 24.09.2006,
issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) & 17(4) of Land Acquisition
Act proposing to acquire 189.691 hectares land of village Suthiyana.
Petitioners’ case in the writ petition is that petitioners are bhoomidhars of
Khasra No.258. The petitioners were in bona fide belief that their lands were
being acquired to serve the purpose, i.e. Planned Industrial Development and
the acquiring body being in dominating position, they were left with no option
but to accept the compensation under Rules 1997. The petitioners later on
came to know that the very purpose of acquisition i.e. Planned Industrial
Development had been changed by playing fraud and the land had been
transferred to the private builders to construct commercial complexes. The
petitioners are now challenging the acquisition. Petitioners entered into
agreement under compulsion. No award had been made. The acquisition has
lapsed under Section 11-A. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State
Government stating that possession of land was taken on 13.12.2006 and out
of 464 tenure-holders, 378 have accepted the compensation, the award has
been declared on 05.07.2010, the writ petition filed by the petitioners has
been filed with delay and there was sufficient ground for invoking urgency
clause. In the counter affidavit filed by the Authority, it has been stated that
village Suthiyana has now been developed in Sector No.90, which is industrial
sector, Sector No.91 as park and play ground, Sector No.136 as an
institutional sector in which 187 plots have been allotted and Section No.137
as residential and institutional, Sector No.140-A as an institutional sector. The
Authority has spent crores of rupees in providing facilities in the area. In this
writ petition, intervention application has been filed on behalf of M/s
Paramount Towers claiming allotment of land and having carried out huge
development. Certain photographs showing under construction buildings have
132
been filed along with supplementary affidavit. Another intervention
application has been filed on behalf of NOIDA Extension Flat Buyers Welfare
Association.
The other writ petitions of this group raise more or less similar grounds
to challenge the aforesaid notifications which need no repetition.
Writ petition of Group No.61 relates to village Wazidpur. In this
group there is only one writ petition being Writ Petition No.47256 of 2011,
Anoop Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others. The writ petition has
been filed by five petitioners praying for quashing the notification dated
04.07.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Act proposing to acquire 275.92
acres land of the village Wazidpur. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on
19.07.2003. Petitioners’ case in the writ petition is that petitioners are owners
of plots mentioned in Paragraph-4 of the writ petition. It is pleaded that
notifications under Sections 4 & 6 were issued in colourable exercise of power
since the respondent No.4 is transferring the land to builders for constructing
residential flats. Possession of the land has not been taken by the State and
the petitioners are residing on the said plots. There was no urgency in the
matter so as to invoke Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act. Compensation for
villagers was fixed @ Rs.378.92 per square yard whereas the plots are being
transferred on exorbitant amount by earning huge profit by the respondent
No.4. The land has been transferred to builders namely M/s Unitech and M/s
Amrapali, who have started constructions recently. Counter affidavit has been
filed by the State stating that possession of land has been taken on
22.08.2003, out of 549 tenure-holders, 467 have accepted the compensation,
award has already been declared on 08.01.2010 and there is delay in filing
the writ petition. To the same effect is counter affidavit filed by the Authority.
It has been stated in the counter affidavit that village Wazidpur falls in
different sectors namely Sectors No.91, 135 & 136. Third party right has
been created. Allotments were made in the year 2005-06 and details of
allotment has been filed as Anenxure CA-1 to the counter affidavit of the
Authority.
Writ petition of Group No.62 relates to village Achcheja. Only one
133
writ petition is in this group being Writ Petition No.44985 of 2011, Tejpal
Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others. The petitioner has challenged the
notification dated 09.05.2011 issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1)
and 17(4) of the Act. As no notification under Section 6 has been referred to
the writ petition, hence it appears to be premature.
Writ petitions of Group No.63 relate to village Yakubpur. There are
two writ petitions being Writ Petition No.5670 of 2007, Keshari Singh and
others Vs. Government of U.P. and others and Writ Petition No.6726 of 2007,
Hargyan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others. Writ Petition No.5670 of 2007 has
been filed challenging the notification dated 26.09.2006 issued under Section
4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act proposing to acquire 74.848
hectares land of village Yakubpur. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on
09.01.2007. This writ petition was filed on 13.01.2007. The writ petition was
dismissed by Division Bench through order dated 09.02.2009 as having
become infructuous as the land had been vested in the State there being no
interim order. It is useful to quote the order of Division Bench dated
09.02.2009 dismissing the writ petition:
“This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the
land acquisition proceedings dispensing with the provisions of Section
5-A, urgency clause 17(4) and notification under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act. There is no interim order in the writ petition. By
efflux of time, the writ petition has rendered infructuous, as the land
has vested in the State free from all encumbrances.
The writ petition is dismissed.”
The petitioners filed a special leave petition against the judgment and
order dated 09.02.2009 in which leave had been granted and the appeal was
allowed by judgment of Apex Court dated 01.02.2010.
Petitioners’ case in the writ petition is that the NOIDA Authority has
been constituted with the object of securing Planned Development of the
Industrial Area. The primary and basic purpose of the Authority is the
planned development of area into industrial area. The commercial or
134
residential development carried out by the respondent Authority should have
direct and cogent nexus with primary and basic object of development. It is
pleaded that respondent has started selling residential property which is
beyond its purpose and object. It is alleged that Government is working at
the instance of developers. Petitioners have prayed for quashing the
notifications on the grounds set up in the writ petition. Counter affidavit has
been filed by the NOIDA authority seeking that acquisition proceedings have
been concluded, the land acquisition proceedings cannot be quashed and
notification has rightly been issued invoking urgency clause. A supplementary
affidavit has been filed by the petitioners taking ground that invocation of
urgency clause was made without any rational basis. Counter affidavit has
also been filed by the State stating that possession of the land has been taken
on 27.01.2007. It is pleaded that there was substantial material for invoking
the urgency clause by the State Government and compensation has been paid
to the tenure holders under agreement under Rules 1997. The award has
also been given on 21.11.2009, which has been filed along with the counter
affidavit.
Another Writ Petition No.6726 of 2007, Hargyan Singh Vs. State of U.P.
and others has been filed challenging the aforesaid notifications dated
26.09.2006 and 06.01.2007. Petitioner claims that Plot No.70 is agricultural
property of him, which is adjacent to old abadi of the village. Petitioner has
purchased 100 square yard by sale deed dated 24.02.2006. Inquiry under
Section 5A has wrongly been dispensed with.
Writ petitions of Group No.64 relate to village Shafipur. Writ Petition
No.46011 of 2011, Hari Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others has
been filed challenging the notification dated 02.05.2003 issued under Section
4 read with Sections 17(1) & 17(4) of the Act proposing to acquire 86.0427
acres land of village Shafipur. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was
issued on 16.06.2003. Petitioners’ case in this writ petition is that petitioners
are pushtaini bhoomidhars of Plots No.164, 166 & 167. Petitioners submit
that for the village Shafipur the rate notified was Rs.78.92p per square yard
for the relevant period. Petitioners were paid compensation at the rate of
Rs.204.50p per square yard. Petitioners accepted compensation under some
135
mis-conception. Inquiry under Section 5A has been dispensed with without
any valid reason. Petitioners were misrepresented that land fell within the
jurisdiction of respondent No.3 whereas the land fell within the jurisdiction of
respondent No.2 and petitioners were entitled for compensation @
Rs.329.76p per square yard. Only on 25% of the area, road has been
constructed, rest of the land is in the possession of the petitioners. Counter
affidavit has been filed by the State stating that possession of the land was
taken on 18.07.2003. Award was also declared on 25.05.2007. Out of 47
tenure-holders, 40 have received compensation in terms of the agreement.
For rest, the award has been declared. As petitioners accepted compensation
in accordance with the agreement, hence they have no right to challenge the
acquisition. The land of the petitioners lies in territorial jurisdiction of
Respondent No.3, Greater NOIDA Authority.
Writ Petition No.46393 of 2011, Azaad and others Vs. State of U.P. and
others has been filed challenging the notification dated 15.12.1999 issued
under Section 4 and the notification dated 22.04.2000 issued under Section 6
for acquiring 57.587 acres land of village Shafipur. Petitioners’ case in this
writ petition is that they are bhoomidhars of plots mentioned in paragraph 4
of the writ petition. Petitioners claim that the area of village Shafipur falls
within the jurisdiction of respondent No.2 and the land should not have been
acquired for the purposes of respondent No.3. Petitioners were given the
compensation at the rate prescribed by respondent No.3. Inquiry under
Section 5A has wrongly been dispensed with.
Writ petitions of Group No.65 relate to village Khodna Khurd. In Writ
Petition No.46602 of 2011, Lekhraj Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and
others, counter affidavit has been filed by the State as well as by the
Authority hence the said writ petition is being treated as leading writ petition.
The writ petition has been filed by 15 petitioners challenging the notification
dated 26.05.2009 issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) & 17(4) of
the Act proposing acquisition of 201.7386 hectares of land of village Khodna
Khurd. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 22.06.2009. Petitioners
claim to be owners of plot as mentioned in Paragraphs No.4 to 13 of the writ
petition. Petitioners’ case in the writ petition is that some of the petitioners
136
have not received compensation and only few have accepted the same under
protest. There is no urgency in the acquisition and without application of
mind, the State has invoked Sections 17(1) & 17(4). Although the plot in
dispute was acquired for Planned Industrial Development but the same has
been allotted to different builders at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per square meter.
No notice under Section 9 has been received by the petitioner till date. Same
notification was challenged in this Court through Writ Petition No.31611 of
2011, Smt. Neelam Vs. State of U.P. and others in which this Court directed
the parties to maintain status quo. Entire acquisition proceedings were
tainted with mala fide. Petitioners claim to be in actual physical possession of
the land in dispute. The counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating
that possession of land was taken on 14.09.2009 of an area of 201.7386
hectares. Out of 679 tenure-holders, 518 have accepted the compensation.
There is no mention of declaration of award. In the counter affidavit there is
substantial material on record to invoke urgency clause by the State
government. Compensation having accepted under the agreement petitioners
cannot challenge the acquisition. The compensation of an area 6.3196
hectares has not been taken. It is wrong to say that exercise of power of
State Government was mala fide or colourable exercise. Counter affidavit has
also been filed by the Authority reiterating the pleas raised in the counter
affidavit of the State. It has further been stated that after taking over of the
possession of land, land development work has been carried out in Sector 20
as an sport city. Petitioners having taken compensation under the agreement
cannot challenge the acquisition. Copy of the possession memo of
14.09.2009 has been filed along with the counter affidavit.
The other writ petitions of this group raise more or less similar grounds
to challenge the aforesaid notification which need no repetition.
After having completed the narration of facts, we proceed to consider
the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as well as learned counsel
for the interveners and to decide the contentious issues raised in this group of
writ petitions. As noted above, a Division Bench hearing several writ petitions
pertaining to land acquisition of villages of Greater Noida and Noida made a
reference for formation of the larger Bench to consider issues raised in the
137
writ petitions and to decide other writ petitions raising same issues to avoid
multiplicity of the proceedings. The Division Bench referring the matter did
not frame specific issues although some of the issues which had arisen have
been noted in detail in the order. All the writ petitions having been placed
before the Full Bench for decision, we proceeded to hear learned counsel for
the parties and each writ petition was called for hearing. All the learned
counsel for the parties had agreed that all the writ petitions be finally decided.
By our order dated 29.8.2011, we directed learned Chief Standing Counsel to
produce the original records of the State Government pertaining to the land
acquisition. Original records of the State Government were produced by
learned Chief Standing Counsel. We had also by our order dated 26.9.2011
directed learned counsel for the Greater Noida/Noida Authority to produce
original records pertaining to the decision taken by the Authority in
preparation of the plan as per 1991 Regulations and to various allotments
made in different villages with regard to which land has been acquired.
Learned Counsel for the Authority has also placed the original record of the
Authority for perusal of the Court. By our order dated 21.9.2011, we directed
learned counsel for the Greater Noida to file supplementary affidavit indicating
certain details as enumerated in the order. The Greater Noida Authority has
filed four supplementary affidavits. Along with 4
th
supplementary affidavit, the
authority has filed chart showing the details of the acquisition and the
development of the acquired land and other relevant information in separate
folders of each villages which were taken on record.
We have heard Sri H.R. Misra, Sri V.M. Zaidi, Sri W.H. Khan, Sri U.N.
Sharma and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocates, Sri Pankaj Dube, Sri
B.B. Paul, Sri A.P. Paul, Sri Anil Sharma, Sri Dhiraj Singh Bohra, Sri C.K.
Parekh, Sri K.K. Arora, Sri Saurabh Basu, Sri Shiva Kant Misra, Sri N.P. Singh,
Sri Vinod Sinha, Sri S.K. Tyagi, Sri Kamal Singh Yadav, Sri Ram Surat Saroj,
Sri J.J. Munir, Sri Pavan Bhardwaj, Sri Chandan Sharma, Sri Siddharth
Srivastava, Sri A. Prasad, Sri Lal Singh Thakur, Sri Anoop Trivedi, Sri Sunil Rai,
Sri J.J. Muneer, Sri Manish Goyal, Sri Suneel Kumar Rai, Sri Sidhant Mishra, Sri
M.K. Gupta, Sri Ram Kaushik, Sri Neeraj Tiwari, Sri R.S. Saroj, Sri S.C. Verma
and several other counsels for the petitioners. Sri L. Nageswara Rao, learned
Senior Advocate, Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate and Sri M.C.
138
Chaturvedi, learned Chief Standing Counsel have been heard on behalf of the
State. For interveners/allottees, we have heard Sri S.P. Gupta, Sri R.N. Singh,
Sri Navin Sinha, Sri Sashi Nandan, Sri C.B. Yadav, Sri B.K. Srivastava, Sri
Pramod Kumar Jain, Sri R.B. Singhal, learned Senior Advocates, Sri Ashwini
kumar Misra, Sri Adarsh Agrawal, Sri Amit Saxena, Sri S.K. Singh, Sri Rahul
Agarwal, Sri Nikhil Agarwal and several other counsels. We have also heard
Sri Dhruv Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Developers
Association. Sri J.H. Khan appeared before us for National Capital Regional
Planning Board, we allowed time to file counter affidavit on behalf of the
Board, however, subsequently Sri Khan appeared and stated that no counter
affidavit is proposed to be filed. In some of the writ petitions, allottees from
Noida and Greater Noida Authority/builders were also parties, but no notices
were issued to private parties in those writ petitions in view of the fact that
we have permitted the allottees/builders to file intervention application along
with affidavit by our order dated 29.8.2011 and large numbers of intervention
applications along with detailed affidavits have been filed and their counsels
were also heard and intervention applications on behalf of the Developers
Association of which builders are members have also been heard by us.
The writ petition No. 37443 of 2011, Gajraj Singh and others Vs. State
of U.P. and others in which reference was made by the Division Bench is the
main writ petition. We have treated one writ petition of each village of Greater
Noida and Noida as a leading writ petition in which counter affidavits have
been filed. Although in different writ petitions different notifications under
Section 4 read with Sections 17(1),17(4) and declaration under section 6 have
been challenged but issues raised in most of the writ petitions are common
issues. The State, Greater Nodia/Noida Authority as well as interveners have
also raised similar submissions in all the writ petitions except some differences
of facts. The issues arising in this bunch of writ petitions being more or less
common, we proceed to note the various submissions raised by learned
counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State authority
and learned Counsel for the allottees/interveners.
SUBMISSIONS
The substance of the submissions raised by learned counsel for the
139
petitioners is as follows:
(1)The Greater Nodia/Noida authority (hereinafter referred to as
authority) was constituted for the development of certain areas in
the State into industrial and urban township. The dominant object
of the constitution of the authority was industrial development of
the area. The authority having been established under the U.P.
Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as
‘1976 Act), the primary and basic purpose for which the respondent
authority has been established is planned development of the area
into industrial area. The intention of the Act in establishing the
Authority was to promote the industrial development in the area
and earmarking the land use as industrial, commercial, residential
has only been given to facilitate the Authority in achieving the
primary object of industrial development. The Authority instead of
promoting the object of the Act has embarked upon the activity of
transferring the substantial area of the land acquired to the private
builders, colonizers to unduly help them and to earn profit which is
not the object and purpose of the Act. The land of the petitioners
which was acquired in the name of planned industrial development
was not utilized for planned industrial development rather has been
diverted to private persons which is impermissible and clearly
indicate the malafide and colourable exercise of powers.
(2)The authority is laboring under misconception that only when the
authority acquires area falling in the industrial development area it
can carry on developments as required under the Act. Without
assessing proper requirement and need, the authority has initiated
process for acquiring huge area of land with intent and purpose to
help private persons.
(3)Various recommendations made by the authority to the State
Government for acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 were made without any appropriate plan or project for
industrial development. The reasons given for acquisition of land
140
were only repeating the set words without there being any genuine
need for acquisition.
(4)The invocation of Sections 17(1)and 17(4), while issuing notification
under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was 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.
The provisions of Section 5A is mandatory and embodied a just and
wholesome purpose that a person whose property is being or
intended to be acquired should have occasion to persuade the
authority concerned that his property be not touched for
acquisition.
(5)There has been considerable delay in several cases in issuing
notification under Section 4 of the Act which proves that there was
no urgency in the acquisition. Even after publication of notification
under Section 4 long delay was caused in issuing declaration under
Section 6 which again proves that there was no urgency in these
matters 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 not specifically applied their
mind as to whether the inquiry under section 5A be dispensed with
or not. There was not even specific recommendation by the
Authority and the Collector for dispensation of inquiry under section
5A. The State Government without adverting to the relevant
materials dispensed with the inquiry under section 5A which again
vitiates the whole acquisition process. Dispensation of inquiry under
section 5Abeing invalid, the entire acquisition proceedings and
consequential actions taken thereon fall on the ground and be
quashed with consequential reliefs.
(7)The acquisition of fertile agricultural land of the petitioners in the
141
name of planned industrial development of Gautam Buddha Nagar
is in colourable exercise of power to achieve a different purpose
and object i.e. to benefit the 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 nothing but 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 the State in accordance with
law. Neither actual, physical possession was taken nor Collector
went on the spot. No Panchnama as required for evidencing the
transfer of actual, physical possession has been prepared nor there
are signatures of the land owners or independent witnesses on the
alleged possession memos which have been filed along with the
counter affidavit by the State/Authority on the record. The delivery
of possession as alleged by the respondents being only paper
transactions , the land never vested in the State. Most of the land
owners are still in possession of their agricultural/Abadi land which
is being used for the aforesaid purpose.
(10)The respondents never offered 80% compensation of the land as
mandated by Section 17(3A) of the Land Acquisition Act to the land
owners which vitiates the entire acquisition.
(11)No award having been declared within two years from the date of
the publication of the award under section 6, the entire proceedings
for the acquisition has lapsed under section 11A of the Land
Acquisition Act.
(12)The compensation received by land holders under agreement under
U.P. Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and
Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997 was under
142
compulsion and in forced circumstances. The land holders were
told that unless they accept compensation under agreement in the
award which shall be prepared under section 11, they shall be paid
very meager amount and even if any proceeding is initiated by
them for enhancement of compensation under section 18, the same
shall take years which shall make the land holder loose even the
amount which is being offered under 1997 Rules.
(13)That State and Authority being in dominating position, the
petitioners had to accept the compensation under agreement under
force of circumstances which acceptance of compensation cannot
prejudice the rights of the petitioners to point out illegality in the
acquisition proceedings.
(14)The petitioners being law abiding citizens were under bonafide
belief that the acquisition of their land being for planned industrial
development, plenty of industries shall come up in their area
providing avenues of livelihood and opportunity to their children to
get employment in view of which factors some of the petitioners
did not initially rush to the Court challenging the acquisition but
subsequently when the petitioners came to know that the land
which was acquired in the name of planned and industrial
development is being transferred to the builders/colonizers in huge
area permitting them to construct multistoried complexes towards
huge profit, the petitioners then realized that the entire acquisition
was in colourable exercise of powers and a fraud has been played
by the authority in acquiring their land. Although some of the
petitioners have already filed writ petitions challenging the
notifications in question in this Court which writ petitions are still
pending and in some of the writ petitions which were filed
immediately after the notification, there was no objection of any
kind of delay.
(15)The petitioners belong to agriculturist class and are not much
familiar to legal proceedings. Further they being in possession of
143
their land and there being no development for years together, they
did not rush to the Court immediately. The petitioners never waived
their right nor acquiesced to the acquisition but being helpless
agriculturist they did not know what to do in such circumstances.
(16)The petitioners land were taken on payment of compensation under
Agreement Rules as well as in some cases award given under
section 11 for few hundred rupees per square yard which land has
been transferred by the Authority to the builders and colonizers for
an amount of more than Rs. 10,000 to 20,000 per square yard. The
Authority which is statutory authority constituted for industrial
development has to carry on development without any intention of
earning any profit, has converted itself into broker for private
colonizers, builders and other interested parties.
(17)In several writ petitions challenging the notifications under section
4 and 6, this Court has granted interim order directing the parties
to maintain status-quo and in spite of their being interim order by
this Court, the authority proceeded to allot the land creating third
party rights.
(18)The Division Bench judgment of Har Karan Singh lays down the
correct law and has rightly taken the view that invocation of
urgency in notification issued under section 4 by invoking sections
17(1) and 17(4) was unjustified and has rightly quashed the
notifications of acquisition relating to village Patwari. The Division
Bench has rightly followed the judgment of the apex Court in
Radhey Shyam Vs. State of U.P. (2011) 5 SCC 553 and the
judgment of the apex Court in 2011 (6) ADJ 480 Greater Noida
Industrial Development Authority Vs. Devendra Kumar. The
apex Court in the aforesaid cases on similar facts and circumstances
had laid down that urgency under section 17(1) and 17(4) cannot
be invoked. The Division Bench in Har Karan Singh was bound by
the aforesaid pronouncement of the apex Court and did not commit
any error in not following the earlier Division Bench judgment in
144
Harish Chand’ case. Similarly several other Division Bench judgment
of this Court upholding the notifications which are under challenge
in some of the writ petitions need not be followed in view of the
clear pronouncement of the apex Court in the aforesaid cases.
Moreover, the said judgments were between the different parties
and are not binding on the petitioners of these writ petitions. The
creation of their party right in favour of builders/colonizers and
other allottees being result of colourable exercise of power by the
respondents cannot come in the way of the petitioners for getting
the notifications quashed and restoration of land and these third
party rights having been created in spite of entertaining various writ
petitions by this Court, the respondents cannot be allowed to claim
any benefit. The development as alleged by the interveners of some
of the areas of land is on their own risk and cost and cannot be
taken as shield to protect the illegal arbitrary actions of the
respondents.
(19)After order dated 26.7.2011 in writ petition No. 37443 of 2011, the
authority themselves called the land owners of village Patwari and a
settlement was entered between them by which additional
compensation of Rs. 550/- per square meter was paid by the
Authority. The Authority however, has not called the land owners of
other villages for any such settlement which is discriminatory and
arbitrary.
(20)The authority having not obtained approval of Greater Noida Master
Plan 2021 from National Capital Regional Planning Board
constituted under National Capital Regional Planning Board Act,
1995, cannot proceed with any development or to allot the land to
builders/colonizers as per Plan 2021.
Arguments on behalf of the State were lead by Sri L. Nageswar Rao,
Senior Advocate and Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate.
Learned Counsel appearing for the State respondent refuting the
145
submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners contended that most of the
writ petitions filed by the petitioners is barred by delay and laches and
deserve to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is submitted that most of the
petitioners were prompted by the judgment of the apex Court in the cases of
Radhey Shyam and Devendra Kumar (supra) and as a matter of fact the
petitioners in the aforesaid two cases were vigilant and approached the Court
within time, cannot give a cause of action to others to rush to this Court at
this belated stage. The petitioners ought to have challenged the land
acquisition proceedings immediately after declaration under section 6 was
issued. The petitioners having not approached the Court immediately after
issuance of declaration under section 6, the writ petitions are barred by
laches. Possession was taken by the State in accordance with law and in
consequence of taking possession under section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, the land has vested in the State free from all encumbrances which cannot
be divested. The writ petition challenging the acquisition at this stage when
the land has already vested in the State cannot be entertained. Taking of
possession by the State was by executing a Panchnama which is recognized
mode of taking possession where large tract of land is acquired. Taking of
actual physical possession is not possible in the circumstances when large
tract of land is involved and taking of symbolic possession is sufficient
compliance of section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The majority of the
land owners have accepted compensation voluntarily under 1997 Rules. After
accepting compensation under 1997 Rules, it is not open for them to
challenge the acquisition. The land owners have waived their right after
accepting compensation under 1997 Rules. . In the event the land owners
were not satisfied with the payment of compensation under Agreement it was
open for them to approach the Collector under Rule 6 of 1997 Rules for
setting aside of the agreement which having not been done in any case it is
not open for the petitioners to contend otherwise. The petitioners having
acquiesced to the acquisition proceedings they are stopped from challenging
the notifications under section 4 and 6. In most of the cases, award has
already been declared and those who have not accepted compensation under
1997 Rules can very well take recourse of Section 18. The Division Bench
judgment in the case of Harkaran Singh Vs. State of U.P. which is latter
judgment to the Division Bench judgment in the case of Harish Chand Vs.
146
State of U.P. is per in curium. In Harkaran Singh’s case, the Division
Bench after perusing the records of the State Government returned the
finding that invocation of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) was in accordance with
law. The subsequent Division Bench in Harkaran Singh’s case could not
have taken the contrary view and only course open for the subsequent
Division Bench was to make a reference for consideration by larger Bench
which having not been done, the judgment of Harkaran Singh's case has to
be ignored. Several notifications which are under challenge in these writ
petitions have already been upheld by different Division Benches of this Court,
in view of which decisions, the impugned notifications have also to be upheld.
In some cases against the Division Bench judgment upholding the
notifications under sections 4 and 6, Special Leave Petition have already been
dismissed by the apex court. Following the judgment of Harish Chand’s
case, all the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. After taking possession of
land by the Authority, the same was dealt with by the authority in accordance
with Master Plan 2021 by allocating it for different uses namely; industrial,
commercial, residential, green area etc. Third party rights have been created
by making various allotment and allottees are in possession and have carried
on various development work. The prayer of the petitioners to quash the
acquisition at this stage cannot be allowed. There was no colourable exercise
of power by the State. There was sufficient material before the State
Government for invocation of Section 17(1) and 17(4). Subjective satisfaction
of the State Government in invoking urgency clause can be challenged only on
limited grounds of malafide and there being no pleadings or grounds alleging
malafide against the State, subjective satisfaction cannot be interfered with by
this Court. Non compliance of Section 17(3A) is not fatal to the acquisition
proceedings as has already been held by the apex Court in various judgment.
Section 11 A is not applicable in the present case since possession was taken
by the State under section 17(1) and land has already been vested in the
State which cannot be divested. The apex Court in various judgment has
already held that Section 11 A is not attracted in the cases where possession
is taken under section 17(1). The creation of third party rights and
subsequent developments have to be taken into consideration by this Court,
while considering the claim of the petitioners for quashing the notifications.
The petitioners having allowed creation of third party rights and substantial
147
developments on the spot cannot complain at this stage. Sri L. Nageswara
Rao in his concluding submissions has laid much emphasis on this aspect of
the matter i.e. creation of third party rights and substantial development on
the spot. He submits that assuming without admitting that urgency clause was
wrongly invoked, this Court in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall not quash the notifications under
sections 4 and 6. The nature of the land has been changed on the spot which
is irreversible. Buildings and constructions have come on the spot with huge
investments and developments. He submits that in several judgments of the
apex Court subsequent developments have taken into consideration by the
Courts and the relief of quashing the notifications under sections 4 and 6 have
been refused by the High Court and the apex Court. He submits that equitable
approach has been applied in cases in which notifications under section 4 and
6 have been found to be illegal. He submits that petitioners were never
interested in the land and their grievance is only with regard to quantum of
compensation. It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the State that
factum of allotment made much subsequent to the acquisition is wholly
irrelevant for judging the validity of the acquisition proceedings and validity of
the notifications under section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) and 6.
The correctness of notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 have to be
judged according to the materials available at the relevant time and any
subsequent action of the Authority in making the allotment cannot be made
the basis for challenging the notifications which can neither be looked into nor
is relevant.
Sri S.K. Patwaliya, learned Senior Advocate (who appeared only on first
day of hearing), Sri Ravindra Kumar and Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh have
appeared on behalf of the Authority. Learned Counsel for the Authority has
adopted the submissions raised by learned Counsel for the State. It is further
submitted by learned counsel for the Authority that there is no error in the
notifications issued under section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) as well
as declaration under section 6. It is submitted that there was sufficient
material before the State Government for invoking the urgency clause. The
authority has submitted proposal for acquisition in accordance with the Master
Plan 2021 and the land acquired has been used in accordance with the Master
148
Plan 2021. He submits that allotment of residential plots to individual as well
as for group housing purpose for commercial use, for institutional use for
green area are part of development activity as entrusted to Authority. The
extent of land use has already been fixed under the plan as prepared under
Regulation 4 of Noida Preparation and Finalization of Plan (Regulations), 1991
which has also been adopted by Greater Noida and all allotments made by
Authority is in accordance with the aforesaid plan. Learned Counsel for the
Authority submits that after acquisition, the authority 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 other development activities. Huge amount
has been invested by the Authority running in several crores in carrying out
the development in different sectors after acquisition. There has been several
allotment for industrial plots and large 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 entire area has been fully developed. Most of the petitioners
have accepted compensation under 1997 Rules without raising any objection
and it is not open for them to raise any objection after taking compensation.
The allegation that any force or compulsion was used by the respondents in
paying the compensation is without any basis and incorrect. 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 the land and huge amounts
have been invested by the allottees. Group housing allotments have also been
made to various private individuals who have booked their flats by taking
bank finance. At this stage, the petitioners cannot be allowed to challenge the
acquisition nor at their instance acquisition deserves to be quashed. Most of
the writ petitions 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.
Several writ petitions have been filed even after decade of completion of
acquisition proceedings. The petitioners are only interested in obtaining more
and more compensation from the respondents out of their greed. Substantial
compensation has already been received by the land owners. Land owners
149
whose land has been acquired has been provided Abadi plots to the extent of
6% minimum of 120 square meters and maximums of 25000 square meters
as per the policy of the respondents and they having accepted the Abadi
plots which means taking benefit of the acquisition, they cannot be allowed to
challenge the acquisition. It is further submitted that several persons who
have allotted Abadi plots have sold their plots to third party after taking
handsome money. There is no foundation or ground laid down in the writ
petition regarding allegations of malafide or colourable exercise of power.
Without there being any basis or foundation, the petitioners cannot be
allowed to urge the aforesaid grounds.
Learned Counsel for the interveners have also reiterated the
submissions as have been noted above. Much emphasis has been laid down
on the ground that due to delay and laches, the writ petitions deserve to be
dismissed. The acquired land having been put to developmental use and third
party rights having intervened, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief.
All the allottees have made substantial payment to the authority as well as
invested huge amount in developmental activity including construction of
building. The interveners after due care and caution have obtained the
allotments from the authority who had valid title. It is denied that land which
was acquired for planned industrial development is being used for any other
purpose. Planned industrial development is a comprehensive term which
includes development of residential, commercial, institutional and industrial
sites. In any view of the matter the acquisition cannot be faulted even if the
authority after acquisition uses 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 the Bank. The petitioners are not entitled for any reliefs in
these writ petitions. The interveners have obtained allotment in open tender
proceedings and after getting allotment got possession from the Authority and
after getting 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
under 1997 Rules and having not taken any steps to challenge the acquisition
within reasonable time. Subsequent developments after allotment are the
150
relevant factors to be considered, while considering any challenge to the
acquisition belatedly made. Learned Counsel for the interveners referred to
detail figures of payment made to the Authority and investments made by
them in developing the sites allotted to them including photographs which
have been filed along with affidavit showing the developments made on the
spot. Leaned Counsel for the developers association has also referred to and
given details of allotment made to various allottes, the extent of
developments carried out by them.
Learned Counsel for the parties have placed reliance on various
judgments of the apex Court and this Court which have been extensively read
by them in support of their respective submissions which shall be referred to
hereinafter, 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, following issues fell for consideration in this
bunch of writ petitions:-
ISSUES
1.Object and Purpose of the 1976 Act: Whether the development of
industries is the dominant purpose and object of U.P. Industrial Area
Development Act, 1976?
2.Whether Acquisition Compulsory: Whether for carrying out the
development of industrial area under 1976 Act, it is 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 of Constitutional remedy under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
4.National Capital Regional Planning Board Act, 1985, its
Consequences: Whether the Authority can carry out development,
utilise the land acquired as per its Master Plan 2021 without its
151
approval/clearance by National Capital Regional Planning Board, and
what is effect on its function of land acquisition after enforcement of
the 1985 Act?
5.Invocation of Sections 17(1) and 17(4): Whether invocation of
Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act and dispensation
of inquiry under section 5A was in accordance with law in the cases
which are under consideration?
6.Pre-notification and Post-notification delay: Whether delay
caused before issuance of notification under Section 4 and delay
caused subsequent to notification under Section 4 can be relied for
determining as to whether urgency 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 exercise of powers?
8.Taking of Possession: Whether the possession of the land acquired
was taken under section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in
accordance with law?
9.Vesting: Whether after taking possession under section 17(1) of the
Act the challenge to the notifications under section 4 read with 17(1)
and 17(4) and Section 6 cannot be entertained due to the reason that
land which has already been vested in the State cannot be divested?
10.Section 11A: Whether acquisition under challenge has lapsed under
section 11A of the Act due to non declaration of the award within two
years from the date of publication of the declaration made under
section 6?
11.Section 17(3A): Whether non payment of 80% of the compensation
as required by Section 17(3A) of the Land Acquisition Act is fatal to the
acquisition proceedings?
152
12.Waiver: Whether the petitioners who have accepted compensation by
agreement have waived their right to challenge the acquisition
proceedings?
13.Acquiescence: Whether the petitioners due to having accepted the
compensation by agreement have acquiesced to the proceedings of
land acquisition and they are estopped from challenging the acquisition
proceedings at this stage?
14.Third Party Rights, Development & Constructions: Whether due
to creation of third party rights, development carried out by the
Authority and developments & constructions made by the allottees on
the acquired land subsequent to the acquisition, the petitioners are not
entitled for the relief of quashing the notifications under Sections 4
read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) and Section 6 of the Act?
15.Effect of Upholding of some of the notifications in some writ
petitions earlier decided: What are the consequences and effect of
earlier Division Bench judgment upholding several notifications which
are subject matter of challenge in some of these writ petitions?
16.Conflicts in views of Division Benchs: Which of the Division Bench
decisions i.e. Harkaran Singh's case holding that invocation of Section
17(1) and 17(4) was invalid or earlier Division Bench judgment in
Harish Chand's case holding that invocation of section 17(1) and 17(4)
was in accordance with law, has to be approved?
17.Relief: To what relief, if any, the petitioners are entitled in these writ
petitions?
1.Object and Purpose of the 1976 Act:
Under Constitutional scheme, distribution of legislative powers is
153
provided in Chapter I Part XI of the Constitution of India. According to Article
246 (3) subject to clauses (1) and (2), the Legislature of any State has
exclusive power to make laws for such State or any part thereof with respect
to any of the matters enumerated in List II in the Seventh Schedule. Before
enforcement of the Constitution, the provincial Legislature has enacted
several enactments for regulation of municipalities and town. U.P.
Municipalities Act, 1916 and U.P. Town Improvement Act, 1919 were two
legislations in that regard with object of providing municipal services and
improvement of towns in the State. In our State, U.P. (Regulations of Building
Operations) Act, 1958 was also an enactment regulating building operations
then thereafter came a comprehensive Act namely; U.P. Urban Planning and
Development Act,1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1973 Act’) to provide for
development of certain areas of U.P. according to plans and the matters
ancillary thereto. The Act provided for declaration of an area as development
area within the State which requires to be developed according to plan.
Section 4 of the 1973 Act provided for constituting an Authority for the
development area. The Act provided for preparation of Master Plan and Zonal
Development Plan and development of land according to such plan. The State
Legislature thereafter enacted the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976
to provide for constitution of authority for development of certain areas in the
State into Industrial and Urban Township . Section 3 provided for
constitution of the Authority for any industrial development area. Section 6
provided for functions of the authority. Section 12 made applicable certain
provisions of the 1973 Act. Section 17 gave overriding effect to the provisions
of the 1976 Act. The purpose for enactment of 1976 Act is to be found out
from the scheme of the Act. The preamble of a Statute is a part of the Act
and it is admissible aid to construction as said by Chief Justice Dyer in Stowel
v Lord Zouch, (1569) 1 Plowd 353 preamble is a “ key to open the minds of
the makers of the Act, and the mischief's which they intended to redress…..”
The preamble of the Act is as follows:
“An Act to provide for the constitution of an Authority for
the development of certain areas in the State into industrial
and urban township and for matters connected therewith.”
As noted above in the State of U.P. a comprehensive enactment i.e.
154
1973 Act was already enacted for development of certain areas of U.P.
according to plan and even thereafter 1976 Act was enacted which has to be
for a purpose and object as indicated into the preamble. The object of the Act
was for the development of certain areas in the State into industrial and urban
township. The object of the Act is further delineated from the Statement of
Object and Reasons as published in the gazette which is to the following
effect:
“With a view to stepping up the industrial development of
the State, it is essential to develop suitable areas in the
State into industrial township and to constitute an Authority
for that purpose. The Authority shall be a body corporate
and will have statutory powers similar to those of an
Improvement Trust in regard to the development of sites,
construction of buildings etc. In the first instance
Government's intention is to create such an industrial
complex in district Bulandshahr near Okhla and in future to
develop similar other areas.
This Bill is, accordingly, being introduced for carrying
out the above purposes.”
The statement of object and reasons as above clearly spells out the
purpose for enactment i.e. to step up industrial development of the State
which was possible only when suitable areas in the State were developed into
industrial township and to constitute an Authority for that purpose. The main
purpose of the Act for which the Act was enacted was industrial development
of the State. Legislative intendment was that by developing industrial
township in different area of the State, industrial development of the State
could only be possible. The dominant purpose and object of the Act was thus
to develop industrial township. Section 3 of the Act provided for constitution
of the Authority which is to the following effect :
“(1) The State Government may, by notification, constitute
for the purposes of this Act, An authority to be called (Name
of the area) Industrial Development Authority, for any
industrial development area.
(2) The Authority shall be a body corporate.
(3) The Authority shall consist of the following :–
155
(a) The Secretary to the Government, Uttar Pradesh, Industries
Department or his Nominee not below the rank of Joint Secretary-
ex-officio. -Member Chairman
(b) The Secretary to the Government, Uttar Pradesh, Member
Public works Department or his nominee not
below the rank of Joint Secretary ex-officio.- Member
(c) The Secretary to the Government, Uttar Pradesh, Local Self-
Government Department or his nominee not below the rank of
joint Secretary-ex officio. -Member
(d) The Secretary to the Government, Uttar Pradesh, Finance
Department or his nominee not below the rank of
Joint Secretary-ex officio. - Member
(e) The Managing Director, U.P. State Industrial Development
Corporation-ex officio. -Member
(f) Five members to be nominated by the State Government
Government by notification.- Members
(g) Chief Executive Officer. -Member Secretary”
Section 6 provided for functions of the Authority. At this very stage, it
is useful to quote the constitution of the Authority as provided in Section 4 (3)
of the 1973 Act which is to the following effect:
“(3) The Authority in respect of a development area which
includes whole or any part of a city as defined in the Uttar
Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act. 1959, shall consist of
the following members namely-
(a) a Chairman to be appointed by the State Government;
(b) a Vice-Chairman to be appointed by the State
Government;
(c) the Secretary to the State Government, in charge of
the Department in which, for the time being, the business
relating, to the Development Authorities is transferred, ex-
officio;
(d) the Secretary to the State Government in charge Of
the Department of Finance, ex-officio;
(e) the Chief Town and Country Planner, Uttar Pradesh, ex-
officio;
156
(f) the Managing Director of the Jal Nigam, established
under the Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sewerage Act,
1975. ex-officio;
(g) the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, ex-officio:
(h) the District Magistrate of every district any part of
which is included in the development area ex-officio;
(i) four members to be elected by Sabhasads of the Nagar
Mahapalika for the said city from amongst themselves;
Provided that any such member shall cease to hold office as
such as soon as he ceases to be Sabhasad of the Nagar
Mahapalika;
(j) such other members not exceeding three as may be
nominated by the State Government.”
There is a marked differences in the constitution of the Authority under
1976 Act and 1973 Act. Constitution of Authority as provided under section
3(3) of the 1976 Act provides that Secretary to the Government of U.P.
Industries Department or his nominee be the member chairman. Managing
Director of the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation is also an ex
officio member. The object being industrial development of the State, the
heading of the authority by Secretary to the Government of U.P Industries
Department or his nominee not below the rank of Joint Secretary throws clear
light on the purpose and object of the Act. The provisions of 1976 Act came
for consideration before the apex Court in a recent judgment pertaining to
Noida itself i.e. (2011) 6 SCC 508 Noida Entrepreneurs Association Vs. Noida
and others. Noticing 1976 Act following was observed by the apex Court in
paragraph 1:
“1. The Legislature of Uttar Pradesh enacted the U.P.
Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, (hereinafter
referred to as `Act 1976') for the purpose of proper
planning and development of industrial and residential units
and to acquire and develop the land for the same. The New
Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter
referred to as the `Authority'), has been constituted under
the said Act, 1976. The object of the Act had been that
genuine and deserving entrepreneurs may be provided
industrial and residential plots and other necessary
amenities and facilities. Thus, in order to carry out the
aforesaid object, a new township came into existence.”
157
The writ petitions which are up for consideration in these cases, it has
been submitted that although 1976 Act was enacted for purpose of industrial
development, the authority has forgotten the principal object of the Act and
has started functioning a body for acquiring land of farmers and selling it to
private colonizers and builders for construction of multi storied complexes
which activity of the authority in no way was connected with industrial
development of the area. It is submitted that construction of the residential
units has to be subservient to the main object of the Act i.e. construction of
residential unit may be undertaken as an aid to industrial development, but
instead of industrial development of area the allotment of land to individuals,
builders and colonizers have become primary functions of the authority. The
aforesaid submission has been forcefully put in some of the writ petitions.
Suffice to refer to the pleadings in writ petition No. 5670 of 2007 Kesari Singh
and others Vs. State of U.P. which writ petition was filed by the petitioners in
this Court on 31.1.2007 challenging the notifications dated 26.9.2006 issued
under section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) and the declaration dated
9.1.2007 under section 6 in respect of 74.546 hectares of land of village
Yakubpur. It is useful to note the specific pleadings in this regard made in the
writ petition. Paragraphs 5, 6, 8, 11, 24 of the writ petition are quoted below:
“5.That as set out in Section 6 of UPIADA, the object of
respondent Authority was to be to secure 'The Planned
Development of the Industrial Development Area'. It is
apparent that the primary purpose for which the
respondent no. 1 was established, was t develop the area
industrially and without prejudice to the generality of the
said object, the powers have been vested in the respondent
no. 1 to perform certain function sin Section 6(ii) of
UPIADA. It is submitted that the powers to demarcate and
develop sites for industrial, commercial and residential
purposes according to the plan hae been bestowed upon
the respondent Authority under the said Act only for the
purpose of facilitating the Authority to achieve the main
object of 'Industrial Development'. It is submitted that it is
apparent from the whole scheme of the said Act that the
very purpose of the establishment, the respondent
authority is the 'Planned Development' of the 'Industrial
Development Area'.
6.That the petitioners submit that the 'planned
158
Development' of the 'Industrial Development Area' is to be
distinguished from the 'Planned Development' of the
'Development Area' (simplicitor). The petitioners submit
that the same in Uttar Pradesh there is a separate Act
namely 'The Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning & Development
Act, 1973', which deals with the 'Planned Development' of
'Industrial Development Areas (Simplicitor)' The very fact
that a special Act has been enacted by the name of 'Uttar
Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act' in spite of the
existence of 'The Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning &
Development Act, 1973' even prior to the enactment of
UPIADA 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', the primary 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 Development
Area' carried out by the respondent No. 1 Authority should
have a direct and cogent nexus with its primary and
ultimate 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 consequence of
'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, is not 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 any land acquired from the farmer is transferred by
the respondent Authority to a third party without
developing the same that too for carrying out totally
'Residential Development' having no correlation with the
'Development of the Industrial 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 said
land. Also, such a big area of land is being sold for
developing residential units having no nexus with the
159
'industrial Development'. It is submitted that the
Residential Units proposed to be developed, are not going
to help the promotion of industry in any manner. The
entrepreneur or the industrial worker who may be working
or are interested in the industry, will only be discouraged by
such unbridled planning off of the property because this
single action of the respondent Authority will result in
escalation of rates of the residential property taking it
totally beyond the capacity of the entrepreneur or the
industrial worker. In fact, in place of augmenting the
industrial growth, such people unfriendly schemes are only
resulting in discouraging the industry. The industry to be
viable needs cheaper land, cheaper infrastructure and
cheaper labour. The increase in land prices by allowing the
private Developers to have a field day, can only result in
increasing the cost of all the inputs in the industry and thus
discouraging the industrial growth.”
State has filed a counter affidavit and there is no denial to the
averments made by the petitioners in paragraphs 5 to 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 the
provisions of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act,
1976, hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1976, need no
reply. However, the inference sought to be drawn by the
petitioner on the basis of the statutory provisions, are not
admitted in the manner as stated.”
While replying to paragraph 24 of the writ petition, it was stated by the State
that averments contained in paragraph under reply related to respondent no.
3 which may give appropriate reply. The authority has filed counter affidavit in
writ petition dated 22.4.2007 in which paragraphs 5 to 24 of the writ petition
have been replied in 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
are irrelevant 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
clearly provides that the Authority shall demarcate and
develop sites for industrial, commercial and residential
purposes according to the plan. Section 6 further provides
the function of the Authority to the infrastructure for
160
industrial, commercial and residential purposes. Hence the
Authority not only in its plan earmarks land for the purposes
of industrial and commercial development, but also carves
out plan for providing residential facilities. Hence it cannot
be 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 is only industrial development”
Pleadings of the petitioners as made in the aforesaid writ petition in
paragraphs 4,5,6,11 and 24 has virtually not been denied. However, the reply
given by the Authority indicates the stand of the Authority. Authority is under
misconception that purpose of the Act is not only industrial development. It is
true that development of the industrial township also contemplate
development of residential, commercial, institutional sites for wholesome
developments of an area and to provide all necessary facilities to the persons
residing in the said area, but other developments have to be in aid of
industrial development.
The contention of the petitioners is that Authority has forgotten its
main object for which it was constituted i.e. industrial development. The
Authority has proceeded with large scale acquisition of agricultural land
without any plan and project for industrial development rather with only
object to give benefit to private persons including the builders. The Authority
in reply had submitted that allocation of land out of the acquired land has
been undertaken as per Master Plan 2021, which prescribes percentage of
land uses and allotment to different purposes i.e. residential, industrial,
commercial etc. Master Plan 2021 has been brought on record as Annexure-3
to the supplementary affidavit. According to Master Plan, land uses have
been prescribed per following percentage:
Residential 23.2%
Industrial 19.6%
Commercial 5.6%
Institutional 16.2%
Green Area 23.2%
Transportation 12.1%
SEZ 0.2%
Total 100%
161
The Authority has filed four supplementary counter affidavits bringing
on record the details of land acquired by different notifications in Greater
Noida and land allocated for different uses in different villages. Along with
supplementary affidavit, the Authority has also brought on record details of
each village of Greater Noida along with folder which contains summary of
village including land use, total area of sector, area falling in the village and
other details. In the residential area, group housing, residential small plots,
residential flats, Abadi and 6% settlement as well as “Activities part of
residential area facilities” have been mentioned. Details of the industrial land
use and allotment have also been given. Since the submission of the
petitioners has been that majority of land acquired has been transferred for
residential purposes, we, to test the submission of the petitioner have
compiled the informations provided by the Authority with regard to each
village in a tabular form. The following information included in the tabular
form is on the basis of the supplementary counter affidavit and the details
submitted by the Authority in folders:
Name of the
village
Area of
village
acquired in
square meter
Residential Land Use (Area in square meter)
Group
Housing
Residential
plots/flats
Abadi and
6%
settlement
Facility Area
(residential
land use)
Total
Industrial
area in square
meter
Patwari 5891880 984220 570320 719676 557894 2832110
Sakipur 1260380 397872 303492 753355.43 1454719.4326600
Ghori
Bachhera
5801734 907190.31 404729.06 1412878.21242310.262967107.84
Pali 2258760 883268 883268 55240
Birondi
Chakrasenpur
1625507 718923.36 110742.00 364968.21 101755.801296389.37
Dadha 3083540 245450.5 165770 597299.68 4698382 5706902.18 1467533
Tusiyana 3732180 599300 599300
Dabra 1218506 23040 646835.37 669875.37 80725
Roja
Yakubpur
4848360 1362314.27 503170.20 13000 1878484.47546178.6
Aimnabad 1004280 171920 488225 12653.75 672798.75
Khanpur 1873250 357199 357199 1853025.28
Biraunda 589830 147153.64 200611.34 75806.99 423571.97
Chuharpur
Khadar
3502990 975409.97 531120.25 773397.68 187112.672467040.57
162
Name of the
village
Area of
village
acquired in
square meter
Residential Land Use (Area in square meter)
Group
Housing
Residential
plots/flats
Abadi and
6%
settlement
Facility Area
(residential
land use)
Total
Industrial
area in square
meter
Badalpur 2305540 272400 272400
Sadopur 1421600 247200 247200
Gharbara 595610 349040 349040
Chhapraula 909935 177457.8
Khairpur
Gurjar
3333062 23780 313505 941927.84 8500 1287712.84
Ajayabpur 373080 162006 162006
Nimauli 973170 281480.40 281480.40 878298.85
Jaitpur
Vaishpur
3045154 395693.5 720 424110 820523.5
Mathurapur 1222699 239527 184853 247784.23 52955.95 725120.18
Saini 3048830 982690.94 770070.01 89980 1842740.95
Murshadpur 3088220 186110 186110
Haibatpur 2404810 781949 317947 36073.49 1135969.49
Chhipyana
Khurd
1055600 441470.26 186333.69 627803.95
Bisrakh-
Jalalpur
6082590 1053612 232000 2207601.7549008 3542221.75
Rithori 1485391 991739 991739 598757
Itehra 3202560 1097586.91 609653.72 1707240.63
Luskar 1813000 353869 353869 1016192.29
Badpura 3036
Raipur
Bangar
1808114
Malakpur 1547791 384890 384890 775007.6
Maicha 3435881 1552712 1552712 440514
Kasna 2308880 131717.3 489936 301100 128046.1 1050799.4 2275375.7
Rasulpur Rai1192116 97532 569860 6220 128717 802329
Yusufpur
Chaksaberi
551460
Khera
Chauganpur
946923 333330 333330 011109.26
Devla 1006214
Junpat 1218829 123700
Total 87071292 11156012.963900087.3119427708.766382196.0140866005.0410325714.38
55% of the total acquired area 47889210.6
Percentage of the Group housing 23.30%
percentage of the land earmarked for
residential including Group Housing,
Residential Plots/Flats, Abadi and 6%
settlement and facility area for residential use
85.33%
percentage of land earmarked for industrial 21%
163
use
percentage of the residential area excluding
facility
72%
As noted above, the Master Plan 2021 provides for land use residential
only as 23.2%. The Authority in its counter affidavits have stated that out of
total area acquired only 55% is saleable area i.e. only 55% area is allocated
for different land use and the rest of the area is used for roads and other
amenities. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the pleadings of the
Authority in counter affidavit filed in writ petition No. 42455 of 2011, Ram
Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others. In paragraph 49 of the
aforesaid counter affidavit, following has been stated:
“At this stage, it is reiterated that the net saleable land does not
exceed 55% of the acquired land. Remaining area 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 be only to the extent of 55% of the total
acquired land. Thus, the percentage of land which was allocated to the
residential and industrial purposes have been computed on the basis of the
55% of the total land acquired. The figures as noted above, clearly indicate
that Authority is not even proceeding to allocate the land according to its
Master Plan 2021. The residential use of the land as noted above, is 85.33%
including all residential uses and the builders alone have been allotted to the
extent of 23.30%. In the information which has been supplied by the
Authority in different folders, there are certain informations which are not
complete and certain areas were under planning. This indicates that area of
land of the residential use as well as industrial use may further increase. The
above figures clearly supports the submission of the petitioners that Authority
has proceeded to allocate maximum land 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 and others Vs. State of U.P. and other
relating to village Roja Yakubpur, the petitioners have brought on record the
resolution of the Authority dated 2.2.2010 by which Authority took a decision
164
to change land use of the area adjoining to 130 meter road. The decision to
change the land user was taken with the object that if the said area is made
for group housing scheme for the purpose of marketing the Authority shall
earn big profit. The said resolution has been brought on record as Annexure
to the rejoinder affidavit and has also been placed by the authority along with
its supplementary affidavit. The apex Court in (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases
593 M/S Popcorn Entertainment & Anr vs City Industrial
Development Corporation and others laid down following in paragraph
48”
“It has been held by several decisions of this Court that
while developing a new township the objective of the
planning authorities is not to earn money but to provide for
systematic and all-round development of the area so that
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 the acquired land was subsequently changed
into industrial. Details of those villages in which the land use was admittedly
changed by the authority are as follows:
i.Patwari
ii.Junpath
iii.Ghori Bachera
iv.Chapraula
v.Pali
vi.Yusufpur Chak Saberi
vii.Kasana
viii.Haibatpur
ix.Chipiyana Khurd
x.Itehra
xi.Roja Yakubpur
xii.Bisrakh Jalalpur
It has not even been tried to explain in any of the affidavits filed by
the Authority that what purpose of industrial development shall be served by
permitting change of land use from industrial into residential. From the above
165
discussion, it is clear that 1976 Act was enacted with the purpose and object
of industrial development of the State. Various areas which according to the
State were fit to be notified for industrial development were declared by the
State as industrial development area. The notifications for declaring an area
as an industrial development area under 1976 Act presupposes appropriate
exercise to find out potentiality of industrial development in the area. State
was conscious that industries cannot be developed in the entire areas of the
State and certain substantial pockets have to be identified and consciously
developed. We have no doubt in our mind that development of industries
being primary object the activities of the Authority has to wear round along
with industrial development. Any activity dehors the industrial development
cannot be said to be within the bonafide and legitimate purpose of the Act.
The development of the residential area, commercial area and other areas
have to be developed as subservient to industrial development. It is useful to
note that in preamble of the Act two words have been used i.e. “industrial and
urban township”. The words “industrial and urban township” are conjunctive
and not disjunctive. The development of urban township is a corollary and
conjunctive to industrial development. We thus are of conclusive opinion that
dominant purpose of the Act is industrial development and the authority in its
action has not bonafide and truthfully followed the objective of the Act and its
several actions do not 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 Welfare Association and another
vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2008(5) ALJ 29. In the above case
land was acquired by the State Government for the purpose of industrial
development of Ghaziabad through Uttar Pradesh State Industrial
Development Corporation, Kanpur. A society of residents challenged the
acquisition. It was stated in the writ petition that land was no more required
for industrial purposes and acquisition has been made subject to Ghaziabad
Development Authority. In the aforesaid context, the Division Bench held that
when the land was acquired and taken over by the acquiring body for the
purposes of industrial development, then it can be public or commercial and
residential accommodation connected with the said industrial development but
166
it cannot be enter into simple housing development scheme performing the
job of the development authorities and Nagar Nigams. Following was laid
down in paragraph 30 of the said judgment:-
“13. We are of the view that once the land was acquired
and taken over by the requiring body for the purposes of
industrial development, then it can be public or
commercial and residential accommodation connected
with the said industrial development but it cannot enter
into simple housing development scheme performing the
job of the development authorities and Nagar Nigams
etc., which are authorised under the U.P. Urban Planning
and Development Act, 1973 and other similar Acts.”
2. Whether Acquisition Compulsory:
The next issue to be considered is as to whether it is compulsory and
necessary for the Authority to acquire the land for carrying out the
development as contemplated under 1976 Act. Section 6 of the Act provides
for the object of the Authority which is to secure the planned development of
the industrial development area. Sub Section (2) provides that without
prejudice to the generality of the objects of the Authority, the Authority shall
perform the following functions.
“ (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the objects of
the Authority, the Authority shall perform the following
functions :–
(a) to acquire land in the industrial development area, by
agreement or through proceedings under the Land
acquisition Act, 1894 for the purposes of this Act;
(b) to prepare a plan for the development of the industrial
development area;
(c) to demarcate and develop sites for industrial,
commercial and residential purposes according to the plan;
(d) to provide infrastructure for industrial, commercial and
residential purposes;
(e) to provide amenities;
(f) to allocate and transfer either by way of sale or lease or
otherwise plots of land for industrial, commercial or
residential purposes;
167
(g) to regulate the erection of buildings and setting up of
industries: and
(h) to lay down the purposes for which a particular site or
plot of land shall be used, namely for industrial or
commercial or residential purpose or any other specified
purpose in such area.”
The functions provided in sub section (2) thus are not exhaustive but
only enumerative. The object of the Act as provided is for development of
certain areas in the State into industrial and urban township. In the main writ
petition No. 37443 of 2011 Gajraj Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. and
others, Authority has filed its counter affidavit. The stand of the Authority is
clearly mentioned in paragraph 40 of the counter affidavit which is to the
following effect:
” ..... It is also pertinent to mention that upon declaration of
the industrial development area, which includes village
Patwari, the acquisition of land for the fulfillment of the
legislative intent of 1976 Act was always imminent. The
notification declaring the industrial development area which
included the village Patwari was never challenged by any of
the petitioners. It is also be borne in mind that when a new
city is to be conceived and developed it can only be
developed on land which is acquired.....”
Sri Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the Authority has categorically
submitted that for carrying out the development it is necessary to acquire land
and it is only after acquisition of the land that development as contemplated
by 1976 Act is possible. Learned Counsel for the Authority has referred to
Section 6(2)(a) as well as Section 7 . Section 7 of the Act provides as follows:
“7. Power to the Authority in respect of transfer of
land.-The authority may sell, lease or otherwise transfer
whether by auction, allotment or otherwise any land or
building belonging to the Authority in the industrial
development area on such terms and conditions as it may,
subject to any rules that may be made under this Act think
fit to impose.”
Section 2(e) defines “occupier” and Section 2(f) defines “transferee”.
Section 2(e) and 2(f) which have been used in subsequent sections are
quoted below:
168
2.(e) ‘Occupier’ means a person (including a firm or body of
individuals whether incorporated or not) who occupies a site
or building with the industrial development area and
includes his successors and assigns;
2.(f) ‘Transferee’ means a person (including a firm or other
body of individuals whether incorporated or not to whom
any land or building is transferred in any manner
whatsoever, under this act and includes his successors and
assigns,
The Act does not contemplate that after industrial development area
has been declared under 1976 Act all land situate therein shall stand
transferred to the Authority. The declaration of the industrial development
area does not mean that all area within the said development area comes in
the ownership of the Authority. The Authority is empowered to prepare a plan
for development and carry out the developments providing amenities as
contemplated under the Act. The development activities of the authority are
not confined only to the land which is acquired by the Authority or only to the
transferees of those land and their successors. The development of land and
buildings covered under the development area is under statutory and
regulatory control of the Authority and development is fully contemplated of
entire area irrespective as to whether the Authority is owner of the area or
not. The use of the two specific words namely; “transferee” or “occupier”
clearly contemplate that there are other persons apart from transferee in the
industrial development area when section 9(1) uses the words “ no person
shall erect or occupy any building in the industrial development area..” It
clearly contemplate that the persons may be transferee or occupier likewise
Section 11 which provides for levy of tax mentions both the words
“transferee” or “occupier”. Section 11 (1) is quoted below:
“11. Levy of tax.- (1) For the purposes of providing,
maintaining, or continuing any amenities in the industrial
development area, the Authority may with the previous
approval of the State Government, levy such taxes as it
may considers necessary in respect of any site or building
on the transferee or occupier thereof, provided that the
total incidence of such tax shall not exceed one percent of
the market value of such site including the site of the
building.”
169
The scheme of the Act thus clearly delineate that Authority is not to
compulsory or necessary acquire the entire land falling in the development
area and further the stand taken by the Authority in paragraph 40 of the
counter affidavit as quoted above that unless it acquires the land it cannot
carry out the development is also misconceived. From the stand taken by the
Authority, the mindset of the authority is clear that it is necessary to acquire
the land to carry out development which stand is not in accord with the object
and purpose of the Act. The object and purpose of the Act is much more than
only to acquire the land and thereafter carry on developments. The
Legislature intended that authority may be constituted to step up the
industrial development of the State. Appropriate measures and planning in
that regard is contemplated. The Authority under misconception that
industrial developments could be done by it only when it acquires the land
has proceeded with the acquisition of land in routine manner.
One more aspect in this regard is necessary to be noticed Section 12A
was inserted under the 1976 Act by U.P. Act No. 4 of 2001 which provides
that there shall be no Panchayat for industrial township. Section 12A is
quoted below:
“12-A.No Panchayat for industrial
township.- Notwithstanding anything contained to the
contrary in any Uttar Pradesh Act, where an industrial
development area or any part thereof is specified to be
an industrial township under the proviso to clause (1)
of Article 243-Q of the Constitution, such industrial
development area or part thereof, if included in a
Panchayat area, shall, with effect from the date of
notification made under the said proviso, stand
excluded from such Panchayat area and no Panchayat
shall be constituted for such industrial development
area or part thereof under the United Provinces
Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 or the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra
Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961, as
the case may be, and any Panchayat constituted for
such industrial development area or part thereof before
the date of such notification shall cease to exist.”
Learned Counsel for the State during his submissions has submitted
170
that Authority has already been declared as industrial township under proviso
to clause (1) of Article 243 Q of the Constitution of India.
Part IXA of the Constitution of India provides for the Municipalities.
Article 243 Q of the Constitution is as follows:
“243Q. Constitution of Municipalities.-
(1) There shall be constituted in every State,-
(a) a Nagar Panchayat (by whatever name called) for a
transitional area, that is to say, an area in transition from a
rural area to an urban area;
(b) a Municipal Council for a smaller urban area; and
(c) a Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area,
in accordance with the provisions of this Part:
Provided that a Municipality under this clause may not be
constituted in such urban area or part thereof as the
Governor may, having regard to the size of the area and the
municipal services being provided or proposed to be
provided by an industrial establishment in that area and
such other factors as he may deem fit, by public
notification, specify to be an industrial township.
(2) In this article, "a transitional area", "a smaller urban
area" or "a larger urban area" means such area as the
Governor may, having regard to the population of the area,
the density of the population therein, the revenue
generated for local administration, the percentage of
employment in non-agricultural activities, the economic
importance or such other factors as he may deem fit,
specify by public notification for the purposes of this Part.”
The proviso to Article 243Q(1) is an exception for requirement of
constituting a Municipality in every State. Exception has been provided in
cases where municipal services are being provided by an industrial
establishment in that area. Neither any Panchayat nor any municipality has
been constituted in the area of the Authority in view of the proviso to Article
243Q (1). The proviso to Article 243Q(1) is for a purpose and object. The
purpose and object being that industrial establishment in an area, which is
looking after the area should be left free to carry on its activities unhindered
171
by constitution of any Municipality or Panchayat, which may adopt their own
regulatory measures to hamper the industrial development. This scheme goes
to indicate that purpose and object for giving such exemption to the Authority
is again to be industrial development. Article 243Q(1) proviso came for
consideration before the apex Court in (1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 366
Saij Gram Panchayat vs The State Of Gujarat & Ors. In the State of
Gujrat, under Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962 notified industrial
area were converted by notification into industrial township. Saij Gram
Panchayat filed a writ petition challenging the notifications issued under
Gujrat Industrial Development Act. Further notification was issued excluding
the notified area from Saij Gram Panchayat under section 9(2) of the Gujrat
Gram Panchayat Act, 1961. The Gram Panchayat challenged the notifications
on the ground that Gujrat Industrial Development Act is contrary to part IX
and Part IXA of the Constitution of India. The above argument was rejected.
The apex Court further held that Gujrat Industrial Development Corporation
has been given power to develop land for the purpose of facilitating the
location of industries and commercial sectors. The plea of violation of the
Constitutional provision was rejected and following was laid down in
paragraph 16:
“16. The contention is based on a misconception about the
relationship of the provisions of Parts IX and IXA of the
Constitution with any legislation pertaining to industrial
development. The Gujarat Industrial Development Act
operates in a totally different sphere from Parts IX and IXA
of the Constitution as well as the Gujarat Panchayats Act,
1961 and the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1962 - the latter
being provisions dealing with local self Government while
the former being an Act for industrial development, and
orderly establishment and organisation of industries in a
State. The industrial areas which have been notified under
Section 16 of the Gujarat Industrial Development Act on
7.9.1993 were notified as industrial areas under the Gujarat
Industrial Development Act long back in the year 1972.
These industrial areas have been developed by the Gujarat
Industrial Development Corporation and they can hardly be
looked upon as rural areas covered by Part IX of the
Constitution. It is only such industrial areas which can be
notified under Section 16 of the Gujarat Industrial
Development Act, 1963. If by a notification issued under
Section 16, these industrial areas are deemed to be notified
areas under the Gujarat Municipalities Act and are equated
172
with industrial townships under the proviso to Clause (1) of
Article 243Q, the constitutional scheme is not violated. In
fact, under Chapter 3 of the Gujarat Industrial Development
Act, 1962, the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation,
has been given power, inter alia, to develop land for the
purpose of facilitating the location of industries and
commercial centers. It has also been given the power to
provide amenities and common facilities in such areas
including provision of roads, lighting, water supply,
drainage facilities and so on. It may do this either jointly
with Government or local authorities or on an agency basis
in furtherance of the purposes for which the corporation is
established. The industrial area thus has separate provision
for municipal services being provided by the Industrial
Development Corporation. Once such an area is a deemed
notified area under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1964, it
is equated with an industrial township under Part IXA of the
Constitution, where municipal services may be provided by
industries. We do not see any violation of a constitutional
provision in this scheme.”
From the above discussions, it is clear that the stand of the Authority
that unless the land is acquired by the Authority, it cannot carry any
developmental works under 1976 Act is misconceived and incorrect. It is not
far to seek that Authority labouring under above misconception has
concentrated only on acquisition of land without taking care of other modes
and means of industrial development and excessive acquisition of fertile
agricultural land is due to above mindset of the Authority.
3.Delay and Laches:
Whether delay and laches, in the facts of the present cases can bar
invocation of constitutional remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is the question to be considered.
From the facts of different cases, as noted above, it is clear that the
delay has occasioned on the part of the petitioners in invocation of jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, except in few cases where
the petitioners have filed the writ petition without any delay. In some of the
cases, there are inordinate delay in invoking the jurisdiction of this Court.
For illustrating the issue, the facts of the main Writ Petition i.e.
37443/2011, Gajraj & Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, be taken first. In the
173
said case the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) was issued on 12/3/2008, which was
published in the local newspaper 'Amar Ujala' on 20/3/2008 and in 'Dainik
Jagaran' on 20/3/2008 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued
on 30/6/2008 which was published in the newspaper 'Amar Ujala' on
09/7/2008 and in 'Dainik Jagaran' on 09/7/2008. The possession is claimed to
have been taken by the State and the Authority under Section 17 of the Act,
1894 on 05/9/2008 and 12/1/2009. The compensation was paid to the tenure
holders under the 1997 Rules to the extent of 87 percent. Out of 2048 tenure
holders 1624 tenure holders have accepted compensation under the 1997
Rules. With regard to petitioners following has been stated in paragraph 24 of
the counter affidavit which is quoted below:
“The petitioners have not applied for payment of
compensation under the agreement, hence they would
be paid compensation in terms of the Award to be
declared under the terms of the Section 11 which has
already been finalised and submitted for approval of
the competent authority”.
The counter affidavit of the State was sworn on 09/9/2011. Thus,
according to the own case of the respondents the award under Section 11 of
the Act with regard to Village in question has not yet been declared. The writ
petition has been filed on 07/7/2011. Petitioners in the writ petition pleads
that the respondents in order to fulfil their political obligations/promise to the
private builders have dispensed with the inquiry under Section 5A of the
Act,1894.
In paragraph 14 of the writ petition, it has been pleaded that although
the land was acquired for “Planned Industrial Development” in District Gautam
Bugh Nagar, but they have transferred the same to private builders for
construction and sale and since May, 2011 the employee of the respondents
and private builders are trying to dispossess the petitioners from their Abadi
Land. One of the copy of the lease deed by which M/s Supertech Ltd was
allotted Builders Residential/Large Group Housing Plot No.GH08, area 204000
Sq meter has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. It is useful to
quote paragraph 14 of the writ petition which is to the following effect:
174
“14.That, the respondents acquired the land for the
public purpose, namely for the “Planned Industrial
Development in District Gautam Budh Nagar through
Greater Noida” and on another hand they transferred
the some acquired area to the private builders for
construction and sale and in the May, 2011 the
employee of the Respondents and Private Builders are
trying to dispossess the petitioner from his Abadi
Land”.
In the writ petition, notifications issued under Section 4 read with
Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) as well as Section 6 have been termed as fraud
and in colourable exercise of power. As per the averments made in paragraph
24 of the counter affidavit, it is clear that the petitioners did not accept the
compensation under the 1997 Rules. However, the learned counsel for the
petitioners has stated that some of the petitioners have accepted the
additional compensation which was offered to the petitioners after the order
of this Court on 26/7/2011 in the main writ petition.
From the facts stated above, the dates of notifications of different
villages in which the land was acquired as well as the dates during which the
compensation was accepted by majority of land owners under the 1997 Rules
are different. However, the dates of notifications indicate that in majority of
cases award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 has been declared in the year
2011, in some of the cases after filing of the writ petition, and in some cases
even during the course of hearing of these writ petitions. The dates of
notifications, the date on which possession is claimed to have been taken and
the percentage of disbursement of compensation and the date of award is
being given in following Tabular chart:
Name of villageDates of
Notification
s under
Sections 4
&6
Dates on
which
possession
claimed to
be taken
Period
during
which
compensati
on received
Percentage
of tenure
holders
receiving
compensati
on
Percentage
of total
compensati
on
disbursed
Status of
award
Patwari 12.3.2008 &
30.6.2008
5.9.2008
(572.592
hect.)
12.1.2009
(1.453 hect)
August 2008
to Feb.
2011
87% 82% Award not
declared.
Sakipur 31.12.200430.12.2005, December 76% The award
175
Name of villageDates of
Notification
s under
Sections 4
&6
Dates on
which
possession
claimed to
be taken
Period
during
which
compensati
on received
Percentage
of tenure
holders
receiving
compensati
on
Percentage
of total
compensati
on
disbursed
Status of
award
5.9.2005 7.3.2008,
28.1.2011.
2006 to 2007
and one in
April, 2009.
under section
11 of the Land
Acquisition Act
has been
declared on
6.8.2011.
Ghori Bachchera3.10.2005
5.1.2006
14.6.2006
and
6.10.2006
December
2006 to 2007
and one in
October 2008
2210/2285
tenure holder
Date of Award
25.7.2011
Pali 7.9.2006
23.7.2007
1.11.2007
and
10.4.2008
March, 2008
to August
2008
470/558 93.49% Award under
section 11 has
been declared
on 10.8.2011.
Biraundi-
Chakrasenpur
28.11.2002
29.1.2003
7.5.2003 December
2003 to
April 2005
85% 94% 9.9.2009
Tusiyana 10.4.2006
30.11.2006
2.2.2007 and
25.3.2008
February
2008 to
31.3.2010
88% 81% 27.4.2010
under section
11
Dabra 31.10.2005
1.9.2006
31.1.2007 March 2007
to December
2008
94% 88.76% Award
declared on
23.7.2011
Dadha W.P. 46160
of 2011
31.12.2004
1.7.2005
28.12.2005January 2006
to
December,
2007
100% 100% 15.5.2009
Dadha W.P. 45345
of 2011
3.10.2005
11.8.2006
27.10.2006December
2006 to
January 2007
536/588
tenure
holders.
96% 23.7.2011
Roja Yakubpur 31.8.2007
27.2.2008
19.3.2008 May 2008 to
March, 2011
1278/1533
tenure holders
87.164% 29.11.2010
Amnabad 24.8.2006
12.12.2006
20.7.2007 March, 2008
to
September,
2010
75.80% 81% 27.7.2011
Khanpur 31.1.2008
30.6.2008
10.10.2008September
2008 to
September
2009
89.6% 90.51% 10.8.2011
Biraunda 15.12.1999
22.4.2000
28.7.2000
and
11.10.2002
February
2002 to
March, 2009
51/80 tenure
holders
97% 9.1.2009
Chuharpur Khadar21.6.2003
7.8.2003
4.9.2004 October,
2003 to
December,
2008
100% 100% 18.3.2005
Badalpur 20.6.2007
18.6.2008
18.7.2008 July 2008 to
November
2008
86% 80.86% 19.8.2011
Sadopur 31.8.2007
30.6.2008
16.2.2009 May 2009 to
February
2011
74% 13.7.2010
Gharbara 3.10.2005
20.12.2005
1.6.2006 July, 2006 to
May 2008 and
88% 95% 6.9.2011
176
Name of villageDates of
Notification
s under
Sections 4
&6
Dates on
which
possession
claimed to
be taken
Period
during
which
compensati
on received
Percentage
of tenure
holders
receiving
compensati
on
Percentage
of total
compensati
on
disbursed
Status of
award
two in
February
2009
Chhapraula W.P.
No. 47068/11
18.9.2000
31.10.2000
23.12.200015.6.2002 80.5% - 14.6.2002
Chhapraula w.p.
46775/11
12.3.2008
3.2.2009
9.3.2009 June 2009 to
March, 2010
82% 76% 21.3.2011
Khairpur Gujar 8.11.2007
7.7.2008
11.10.2008- 78.50% 82.50% 25.7.2011
Ajayabpur 29.9.2005
20.12.2005
1.6.2006 August 2006
to
September,
2009
95% About 95%25.8.2009
Namoli 11.3.2008
12.6.2008
Due to
interim order
possession
not taken
- - - -
Jaitpur Vaishpur29.1.2003
28.2.2003
7.5.2003 May, 2003 to
July, 2009
93% - 23.7.2009
Mathurapur 3.10.2005
31.7.2006
27.10.2006December
2006 to
February
2007
94.48% 99.31% 25.9.2009
Saini 24.10.2005
30.6.2006
30.10.2006January,2007
to december
2008
82% 92% 2.8.2011
Mursadpur 25.6.2003
22.7.2003
22.01.2005
and
16.03.2005
March 2005
to june 2008
88.22% 93.27% 30.12.2010
Haibatpur 16.7.2008
23.3.2009
28.8.2009
and
11.2.2011
November
2009 to june
2011
1560/2150 71.29% 25.7.2011
Chipiyana khurd24.7.2008
29.1.2009
9.3.2009 July 2009 to
february 2010
187/389 58.34% 27.8.2011
Bisrakh jalalpur12.3.2008
30.6.2008
26.2.2009 May 2009 to
may 2011
1296/1905 80.79% 12.8.2011
Rithori
7.9.2006
31.8.2007
17.11.2007May 2008 to
october 2008
82% 91% 5.8.2011
Itehara 31.8.2007
4.7.2008
27.8.2008
and
16.9.2010
August 2008
to january
2010
72.45% 84.79% 25.7.2011
Luksar 11.7.2008
29.1.2009
9.3.2009 May 2009 to
june 2011
82.98% 87% 27.8.2011
Badhpura 20.10.2001
3.12.2001
16.3.2002 Nott received
compensation
31.3.2009
Raipur bangar 30.6.2006
16.1.2007
15.3.2007
November
2007 to
august 2009
630/680 92% 25.52011
Malakpur 2.5.2003
22.7.2003
5.8.2004 August 2004
to august
2006
93% 93% 11.9.2009
Maicha 17.4.2006 11.4.2007 May 2008 85% 85% 9.8.2011
177
Name of villageDates of
Notification
s under
Sections 4
&6
Dates on
which
possession
claimed to
be taken
Period
during
which
compensati
on received
Percentage
of tenure
holders
receiving
compensati
on
Percentage
of total
compensati
on
disbursed
Status of
award
19.2.2007
Kasna w.p
no.46848/11
31.12.2004
1.7.2005
28.12.2005,3
0.12.2006
and
29.1.2011
February
2005 to
august 2006
81.50% 83% 23.3.2011
Kasna
w.p.no.40852/11
11.7.2008
16.2.2009
9.3.2009 April 2009 to
june 2009
70% 80% 14.9.2011
Rasoolpur rai 28.11.2002
29.1.2003
8.5.2003 October 2004
to january
2005
416/433 96% 5.6.2009
Yusufpur
chakshahberi
10.4.2006
6.9.2007
29.11.2007 none none 14.9.2011
Kheda Chauganpur31.8.2007
27.2.2008
19.3.2008 June 2008 to
january 2009
85/220 32.80% 27.8.2011
Devla 26.5.2009
22.6.2009
14.9.2009 13 may 201119% 34.62% Pending for
approval
before
commissioner
Junpath 31.1.2008
30.6.2008
21.11.2008September
2008
632/678 93.21% 1.9.2011
VILLAGES OF
NOIDA
Asdullapur 27.1.2010
13.7.2010
24.6.2011 - Not received - -
Asgarpur Jageerpur24.8.2007
12.8.2008
16.1.2009,
14.10.2010
- 60.96% 92.31% Award
published on
3.9.2011.
Basi Brahauddin
Nagar
12.4.2005
6.10.2005
30.12.2005 59.45% - -
Nithari 1.6.1976
16.9.1976
28.10.197610
August,1978
510/588
tenure holders
95.56% 15.7.1978
Kondly Banger 8.9.2008
16.9.2009
3.12.2009 Apri 2010 to
June 2010
62.2% - 14.9.2011
Salarpur Khadar11.9.2008
30.9.2009
3.2.2010,
25.9.2010
- 19% 19% 14.9.2011
Sadarpur w.p.
45379/11
30.2.2002
26.6.2003
3.9.2003,
3.3.2005
February
2003 to
September
2008
75% 91% 29.1.2009
Sadarpur w.p.
47523/11
28.1.1994
10.11.1995
28.6.1999 September
2002 to Nov.
2003
139/200
tenure holders
69.5% 23.10.2009
Wazidpur 4.7.2003,
19.7.2003
22.8.2003 - 85.06% 96.30% 8.1.2010
Jhatta w.P.
47257/11
12.4.2005
28.10.2005
10.7.2006 30.12.200674% 77% 10.2.2010
Jhatta w.p.
47267/11
17.6.2003
21.7.2003
10.9.2003 March 2003
to Nov. 2003.
96% 97% 17.12.2007
Chhaprauli Bangar4.7.2003
21.7.2003
11.1.2005 September
2003 to
Dec.2006
34/40 tenure
holders
85% 19.9.2011
178
Name of villageDates of
Notification
s under
Sections 4
&6
Dates on
which
possession
claimed to
be taken
Period
during
which
compensati
on received
Percentage
of tenure
holders
receiving
compensati
on
Percentage
of total
compensati
on
disbursed
Status of
award
Khoda 17.3.1988
11.7.1988
1.6.1989,
1.9.1995,
12.7.1995,
15.3.1995
March 19919
to Nov. 1997
715/870
tenure holders
- 1.12.1991
Shahdara w.p.
44493 of 2011
16.4.2008
16.6.2008
14.7.2008 July 2008 to
October 2008
316/560
tenure holders
65% Award has
been
proposed.
Shahdara w.p.
46248 of 2011
17.6.2003
21.7.2003
22.8.2003 September
2003
280/284
tenure holders
- 7.9.2011
Sultanpur w.p.
46764 of 2011
10.2.1994
18.7.1994
24.8.1995 October,
1995 to June,
1997
179/229
tenure holders
- 9.5.1997
Sultanpur w.p.
46785/11
6.12.1999
9.3.2000
14.12.2000July 2000 to
March 2001
179/197
tenure holders
92% 18.6.2005
Sultanpur w.p.
46766/11
2.5.2003
29.5.2003
24.6.2003 nil 42/49 85% 10.9.2009
Nagli Nagla 17.3.2009
8.4.2010
13.7.2010 - 16.4% 16.4% Award not
declared.
Sorkha Jahidabad12.4.2005
27.7.2006
16.10.2006February
2007 to
November
2009
83.86% 86.83% 27.7.2011
Badaoli Bangar 7.11.2007
9.5.2008
2.6.2008 Feb. 09 to
June 09
72.48% 96.95% 19.9.2011
Suthiyana w.p.
43264/11
26.9.2006
21.11.2006
13.12.2006May 2008 to
June 2008
82% 82% 5.7.2010
Suthiyana w.p.
46295/11
29.1.2003
28.3.2003
7.5.2003 October 2004
to Dec.2004.
97.56% 97.56% 15.3.2007
Chaura Sadatpur 1.6.1976
16.9.1976
28.10.1976 - 100% - 25.9.1978
Dostpur Mangrauli 17.3.2009
18.4.2010
22.5.2010 Not received -
Alaverdipur 21.3.1983
22.3.1983
31.5.1984 Full paid -
A perusal of the above chart also indicates that insofar as the Villages
of Noida are concerned in certain writ petitions notifications issued even 20
years ago have also been sought to be challenged. It is useful to note some of
the notifications which have been sought to be challenged with inordinate
delay.
Name of Village Date of notifications
under Sections 4 and
6
Date of taking
possession
Date of award
Nithari @ Suthari 1/6/1976 28/10/1976 15/7/1978
179
16/9/1976
Sadarpur 28/1/1994
10/11/1995
28/6/1999 23/10/2009
Khoda 17/3/1988
11/7/1988
01/6/1989,
01/9/1995
12.7.1995,
15.3.1995
01/12/1991
Sultanpur 10/2/1994
18/7/1994
24/8/1995 09/5/1997
Sultanpur 06/12/1999
09/3/2000
14/12/2000 18/6/2005
Chaura Sadatpur 01/6/1976
16/9/1976
28/10/1976 25/9/1978
Alaverdipur 21/3/1983
22/3/1983
Learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the learned counsel
appearing for the Authority have vehemently submitted that most of the writ
petitions having been filed with great delay and laches deserve to be
dismissed on this ground alone. It is submitted that the petitioners who have
been not vigilant of their rights cannot be allowed to invoke the writ
jurisdiction of this Court after a long delay. It is further contended that after
taking possession the land was validly allotted to the third
parties/allottees/builders who have made huge investments in pursuance of
the allotment and have changed their position which is an additional factor for
not entertaining the writ petition. It is contended that the equitable
jurisdiction under Article 226 can be exercised in favour of only those persons
who have been vigilant of their rights and for not those who were indolent.
Furthermore, the mere fact that in cases of some vigilant persons, judgments
were given by this Court or the Apex Court cannot be a ground for permitting
the petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. It is contended that
most of the petitioners have filed the writ petition only after the judgment
given by the Apex Court in Greater Noida Industrial Development,
Authority Vs. Devendra Kumar & Ors, 2011 (6) ADJ 480, decided on
06/7/2011.
Shri L. Nageshwar Rao, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
State suggested that a cut off date be fixed taking the date of judgment of
180
the above case i.e. 06/7/2011 and all the petitions filed after 06/7/2011 who
have got impetus of filing the writ petition should be dismissed as barred by
time.
Learned counsel appearing for the intervenors have also vehemently
argued that the petitioners who have been sleeping over their rights and have
invoked the jurisdiction of this Court with delay and laches should not be
entertained and their petitions be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches
alone.
Learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand has submitted
that in the facts of the present case the petitioners claim be not rejected on
the ground of delay and laches. It is submitted that the petitioners have acted
bonafide in invoking the jurisdiction of this Court on a valid ground. Petitioners
were aggrieved from acquisition since very beginning because their
agricultural land which was source of their livelihood and part of their land on
which they have constructed “Abadi” and were residing have been taken away
by acquisition by making payment of a meagre amount, but the petitioners
were under bonafide belief that their land has been acquired for Planned
Industrial Development of the District and the establishment of the industries
of the area shall provide source of livelihood to their children in getting
employment in these industries which shall suitably mitigate their miseries
hence they accepted the compensation as their fate despite they being
aggrieved and dissatisfied. In some of the writ petitions, allegations have also
been made that farmers resorted to agitations which was crushed by police
force. It is useful to refer to the pleadings in some of the cases by which the
petitioners have given justifications for approaching the Court with delay. We
have already referred to the pleadings in the main writ petition.
In Writ Petition No.47502/2011, Jugendra and 75 others Vs.
State of U.P.& Ors. which relates to the acquisition of Village Tusiyana,
petitioners have stated following in paragraphs 7,8 and 31 which are quoted
below:
“7. That, after having taken possession, and as
against the purpose or which the lands in dispute was
alleged to have been acquired namely Planned
181
industrial Development the entire land was allotted to
different property developers, colonizers and builders.
The petitioners bring on record a copy of allotment
letter dated 14.8.2007 which is being filed herewith
and is marked as Annexure-6 to this writ petition. A
perusal of allotment letter dated 14.8.2007 would
clearly indicate that the land which was agricultural in
nature belonging to the petitioners and which was
acquired for Planned industrial Development was
actually allotted to various construction companies,
Builders and Colonizers. A reference of 9 such
builders and colonizers has been mentioned in the
allotment letter dated 14.8.2007. The fact of
allotment letter made through letter dated 14.8.2007
has come to the knowledge of the petitioners on the
3
rd
week of July 2001 which they also made an
enquiry and as to which was the fate of their land
specially in view oif the judgment of this Hon'ble
Court in Shah berries Case (Ref. Devendra Kumar
Versus State of U.P.). they obtained a copy of letter
dated 14.8.2007 which was made available to them
on 8
th
August, 2011 and are ow filing the present writ
petition.
8.That, at the time when the land in dispute was
acquired the petitioners were given to understand
that on account of acquisition of the land there would
be Industrial Development in the area which would
accommodate youths of the village who would all be
getting employment therein and that taking away of
their agricultural lands, would not financially effect
them. The petitioners were further informed that on
such acquisition being finalized the land belonging to
the petitioners would be allotted to the Industrial
interpenors, on understanding that they would be
employing the youth of the village and that no body
was to remain unemployed and there would be
industrial development in the area.
31. That, it has now come on record that it is for the
benefit of certain individual that the large population
of farmers and entrepreneurs are put to sword and
are mad to suffer on account of malice of the
respondents. In this context it may not be lost sight
that various farmers and entrepreneurs have lost
their land and although they have been paid some
compensation but the said compensation could not be
equated with an alternative arrangement for a
recurring source of income. It is a matter of common
knowledge that on account of such acquisition and
depriving the local youth in meaningful activity of
engaging themselves in some business including
182
business in industrial sector, the local youth is finding
its future rudderless and are now frequently engaging
themselves in criminal activities and that it is for this
reason that murders ad kidnapping etc. galore in that
part of the world. Planned development 'of the
society' should be matter of concern for the State and
not benefit of 'certain individuals.' The acquisition
proceedings result in pocketing of huge profits in the
limited few by depriving the bulk of population either
of their residential abode or their source of
livelihood. Averments relating to advancements,
development and such other 'colourful phrases' is in
effect of camouflage and is a false perspective of
development. It may be noticed that the acquisition
of petitioners land would not only deprive them of
their property and business but also result in
depriving the person who have been working with the
petitioners of their right of livelihood.”
In Writ Petition No.45672/2011, Adesh Choudhary and Ors Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors, one more ground was taken for approaching the Court.
Following was laid down in paragraph 19:-
“19. That the petitioners wish to bring to the notice of
this Hon'ble Court news item dated 7.8.2011
published in the daily newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' in
which it has been reported that the land owners of
village Patwari have been awarded an additional
compensation of Rs. 550/- per sq. yards of their land;
and it has been further reported that the land of
village Tusiyana along with land of other villagers
have been allotted to the private builders by
respondent no.3 for developing residential colonies.
The petitioners submit that the action of respondent
no.3 in treating the petitioners differently is arbitrary,
illegal and violative of the fundamental rights
guaranteed to the petitioners under article 14 and 19
(1) (g) of the Constitution of India. A photocopy of
the news item dated 7.8.2011 is being filed and
marked as Annexure no.4 to this writ petition.”
In Writ Petition No.37119/2011, Dal Chand & Ors. Vs. The
State of U.P. & Ors, the petitioners have also come up with the case that
the acquisition of land was made for Planned Industrial Development through
the Authority, but the authority has transferred the land to private builders by
various lease deeds executed in the year 2010 and 2011. Details of various
lease deeds granted by the Authority in favour of private builders have been
183
made in paragraphs 12 to 17. Petitioners have further submitted that the
lease deeds clearly reveal that the land of the petitioners in Village Roja
Yakubpur is not to be used for Planned Industrial Development, hence the
land be restored back to the petitioners. More pleadings have been made in
paragraph 27. It was further pleaded in paragraph 31 that the petitioners
were under bonafide impression that their land of Village Roja Yakubpur will
be utilised for Planned Industrial Development and when they came to know
that the same is being transferred to private respondents they have
approached to this Court and the delay caused is neither deliberate nor
intentional. It is useful to quote the pleadings made in paragraphs 7, 8, 12, 31
and 32:-
“7. That the purpose for which the land of
petitioners is sought to be acquired as per the
notifications is Plan Industrial Development through
the Authority which, on the face of it, is incorrect and
is, in fact, a camouflage. It may be stated here that
State Government wrongly and illegally mentioned in
the notification that the land is being acquired for
Plant Industrial Development through the Authority
while, in fact, the land is sought to be acquired for the
purposes of transferring the same to private builders
(in the present case respondents No.3 to 8) for
construction residential colonies/flats. Thus the entire
exercise which has been done is colourable exercise of
powers and on this ground alone the impugned
notifications and acquisition proceeding pursuant
thereof, are liable to be quashed.
8. That it is significant to note that since 2006
no steps whatsoever have been taken by Respondent-
Authority for making Plan Industrial Development on
the land in question inasmuch as the land of
petitioners was acquired on nominal payment of
compensation to them and in the acquisition
proceeding urgency provision was invoked but the
land throughout remained in possession of petitioners
and they are still in possession thereof.
12. That vide lease deed dated 28-07-2010 an
area of 106196.00 sq. meter of plot No.GH-01,
Techzone-IV Greater Noida is transferred in favour of
Respondent No.3 Amarpali Leisure Valley Developers
Pvt. Ltd. for the development and marketing of Group
Housing Pockets/flats/plots. A photocopy of the said
lease deed dated 28-07-2010 is being filed as
184
ANNEXURE-4 to this writ petition.
31. That entire acquisition proceeding in the
garb of Planned Industrial Development by
respondent no.2 is illegal and against provisions of the
Act. The petitioners were under bonafide impression
that their land of Village Roja Yakubpur will be utilised
for Planned Industrial Development by Respondent
No.2 but the Respondent No.2 illegally transferred the
land of petitioners to private builders. The land
acquired for Planned Industrial Development, will be
used by respondent No.3 to 8 for illegal gain.
32. That when petitioners came to know in the
last week of May, 2011 that their land of village Roja
Yakubpur will not be used for Planned Industrial
Development, they made frantic efforts to know the
details and then they came across lease deeds
(Annexure- 4 to 9) in favour of respondents No.3 to 8
the land acquired for Planned Industrial Development
was transferred to respondents No.3 to 8 for
construction of residential flats and respondent no.2
realized huge consideration from respondents no.3 to
8. Thus a little delay has been caused in filing instant
writ petition which is neither intentional nor deliberate
and as such delay in challenging the notifications U/s.
4 and 6 of the Act is liable to be ignored.”
In Writ Petition No.40356/2011, Satish Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
& Ors, petitioner who belongs to Village Ghoribachera has challenged the
notifications issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Act,1894 dated 03/10/2005
and 05/1/2006. Petitioner in the writ petition has pleaded that although the
land was acquired for Planned Industrial Development, however 60 percent of
the acquired land has neither been developed nor used for industrial purpose
and the land is still in possession of the resident/villagers. Petitioner has also
pleaded in the writ petition that after the publication of the notification in the
newspaper, the land owners objected to the acquisition which objections were
however not considered and in fact the objections were refused to be
entertained on the ground that acquisition is under the provision of urgency
clause and the opportunity of hearing shall not be granted. Peaceful
demonstration of the villagers have also been referred to on 13/8/2008, which
is claimed to be published in the prominent newspapers. It is useful to quote
the pleadings in paragraphs 23 of the writ petition:-
185
“23. That it is specifically stated here that the
Respondent did not pay any heed to the above
mentioned objections, as the Petitioner were neither
been called for personal hearing nor any notice has
ever been issued over the above mentioned
objections, by the Respondent authorities. It is also
worth to mention here that the respondents had even
refused to entertain the objections of the
residents/villagers of the village Ghori Bachera after
publication of Sec. 4 of the Act on the Ground that
the acquisition Notification, is under the provisions of
urgency clauses of the Act and the opportunity of
hearing shall not be granted by the
authorities/respondents to the concern Villagers/land
owner/Agriculturist. It is also important to mention
here that the villagers/residents/Agriculturist of the
village Ghoribachera had also protested the arbitrary
and unlawful acts of the respondents by way of
peaceful demonstration, which was brutally crushed
by the Lathi Charge and even Firing, resulting into Six
killing of innocent farmers as admitted by the
respondents and causing bullet injuries to more than
400 poor Farmers/land owners/demonstrate including
the women, children on dated 13.8.2008, that this
incident has been widely published in the prominent
newspapers of the country as well as State of U.P.
The petitioner reserves his valuable right to produce
the relevant documents before this Hon'ble Court,
during the course of hearing of the present writ
petition.”
The substance of the pleadings in different writ petitions is to the effect
that the petitioners were under the belief that the land is being acquired for
Planned Industrial Development which shall serve the public purpose and
provide employment to their children due to establishment of several
industries in the area. The land owners accepted the same as their fate and
did not immediately rush to the court. The reason given by most of the
petitioners for coming to the Court is that subsequently when the land was
started being transferred to private builders and colonisers it transpired that
the land is not being utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired and
instead of industries coming in the area only builders have come up.
Petitioners have also pleaded that the authority has given meagre some of
few hundred rupees per square yard to the land owners, but they have been
transferring the land to the builders for hefty amount ranging from Rs. 10,000
to 20,000 per square metre. On the aforesaid ground and other grounds as
186
noticed above, petitioners have approached the Court with delay, but the
petitioners case is that since the facts elaborated above indicate that the
respondents have played fraud and the acquisition was in colourable exercise
of power, the delay in approaching the Court may not stand in their way in
granting relief to them for which they are entitled in law. It is also relevant to
note that in some of the cases in this bunch there are cases where the
petitioners have immediately rushed to this Court and there is no delay in
filing the writ petition for example with regard to Village Patwari which is
under challenge, there are some writ petitions which were filed within the
reasonable time and there is no delay in such writ petitions at all. For example
Writ Petition No.62649/2008, Savitri Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors,
same notifications dated 12/3/2008 and 30/6/2008 are under challenge.
Similarly, with regard to Village Pali, Writ Petition No.25464/2008,
Ghyanendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, there is no delay. There are
writ petitions of Village Aimnabad i.e. Writ Petition 26162/2008, Shripal
Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, 26159/2008, Lakhi Ram Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors, and writ petition of Village Khanpur being
20227/2009, Parag & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., which cannot be
said to have been filed with laches.
We have referred to Writ Petition No.5670/2007, Keshari Singh
& Anr Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., of Village Yakubpur, in which declaration
under Section 6 was issued on 06/1/2007 and the writ petition was filed in the
Month of January, 2007 itself.
The issue to be answered is as to whether the writ petitions filed with
delay in the facts of the present case be not entertained and be thrown out or
the Court may consider to examine their grievance on merits inspite of the
petitioners having approached this Court with delay. Learned counsel for the
parties have referred to various judgment of the Apex Court and this Court in
support of their submissions. It is necessary to refer to the principles laid
down by the Apex Court in context of entertainment of the writ petitions
which have been filed with delay.
The first judgment which needs to be considered is the judgement of
187
the Apex Court in Moon Mills Ltd Vs. R. Meher, A.I.R 1967 SC 1450, in
which the Apex Court has reiterated the principle as has been laid down by Sir
Barnes Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Company Vs. Prosper Armstrong Hurd,
Abraham Farewell, and John Kemp, (1874) 5 P.C. 221. Following was laid
down in para 36 which is quoted below:
"36. In the circumstances of this case, we do
not consider that there is such acquiescence on the
part of the appellant as to disentitle it to a grant of a
writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It is true that
the issue of a writ of certiorari is largely a matter of
sound discretion. It is also true that the writ will not
be granted if there is such negligence or omission on
the part of the applicant to assert his right as, taken
in conjunction with the lapse of time and other
circumstances, causes prejudice to the adverse party.
The principle is to a great extent, though not identical
with, similar to the exercise of discretion in the Court
of Chancery. The principle has been clearly stated by
Sir Barnes Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v.
Prosper Armstrong Hurd, Abram Farewell, and John
Kemp, (1874) 5 PC 221 at p. 239, as follows:-
"Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity
is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it
would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either
because the party has, by his conduct, done that
which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a
waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he
has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put
the other party in a situation in which it would not be
reasonable to place him if the remedy were
afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases,
lapse of time and delay are most material. But in
every case, if an argument against relief, which
otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay,
that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any
statute of limitations, the validity of that defence
must be tried upon principles substantially equitable.
Two circumstances, always important in such cases,
are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts
done during the interval, which might affect either
party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in
taking the one course or the other, so far as related
to the remedy."
“In the present case, we are of opinion that
there is no such negligence or laches or acquiescence
on the part of the appellant as may disentitle it to the
grant of a writ."
188
Another judgment which needs to be considered is (1974) 1 SCC
317, Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar & Ors Vs. The State of
Maharashtra & Ors (Constitution Bench). Following was laid down in
paragraph 10:-
“10. It may also be noted that the principle on
which the Court proceeds in refusing relief to the
petitioner on ground of laches or delay is that the
rights which have accrued to others by reasons of the
delay in filing the petition should not be allowed to be
disturbed unless there is reasonable explanation for
the delay. This principle was stated in the following
terms by Hidayatullah, C.J. in Tilokchand v. H. B.
Munshi (supra):
"The party claiming Fundamental Rights must
move the Court before other rights come into
existence. The action of courts cannot harm
innocent parties if their rights emerge by reason
of delay on the part of the person moving the
Court."
Sikri, J., (as he then was), also restated the same
principle in equally felicitous language when he said in
R. N. Bose v. Union of India: "It Would be unjust to
deprive the respondents of the rights which have
accrued to them. Each person ought to be entitled to
sit back and consider that his appointment and
promotion effected a long time ago would not be set
aside after the lapse of a number of years." Here as
admitted by the State Government in paragraph 55 of
the affidavit in reply, all promotions that have been
made by the State Government are provisional and
the position has not been crystallised to the prejudice
of the petitioners. No rights have, therefore, accrued
in favour of others by reason of the delay in filing the
petition. The promotions being provisional, they have
not conferred any rights on those promoted and they
are by their very nature liable to be set at naught, if
the correct legal position, as finally determined, so
requires. We were also told by the learned counsel for
the petitioners, and that was not controverted by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
Government, that even if the petition were allowed
and the reliefs claimed by the petitioners granted to
them, that would not result in the reversion of any
Deputy Collector or officiating Deputy Collector to the
189
post of Mamlatdar/Tehsildar; the only effect would be
merely to disturb their inter se seniority as officiating
Deputy Collectors or as Deputy Collectors. Moreover it
may be noticed that the claim for enforcement of the
fundamental right of equal opportunity under Art. 16
is itself a fundamental right guaranteed under. Art. 32
and this Court which has been assigned the role of a
sentinel on the qui vive for protection of the
fundamental rights cannot easily allow itself to be
persuaded to refuse relief solely on the jejune ground
of laches, delay or the like.”
The judgment on which much reliance has been placed by the learned
counsel for the respondents is the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex
Court in Aflatoon & Ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors., (1975) 4 SCC
285.
In the aforesaid case, writ petitions were filed challenging the
notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 in the year 1959. The
argument which was put forward was that the public purpose as specified in
the notification issued under Section 4, namely, the 'planned development of
Delhi” was vague as neither a Master Plan nor a Zonal Plan was in existence
on the date of the notification and as the purpose specified in the notification
was vague, the appellants were unable to exercise effectively their right under
Section 5A of the Act. The Apex Court noted in the judgment that after
notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued about 6000 objections were
filed under Section 5A by interested persons and several writ petitions were
also filed in the year 1966 and 1967, but the petitioners choose to wait till
1972 on the ground that particulars of the public purpose were not specified.
In the above, background, the Apex Court laid down following in paragraphs
11,12 and 13:-
“11.Nor do we think that the petitioners in the
writ petitions should be allowed to raise this plea in
view of their conduct in not challenging the validity of
the notification even after the publication of the
declaration under Section 6 in 1966. Of the two writ
petitions, one is filed by one of the appellants. There
was apparently no reason why the writ petitioners
should have waited till 1972 to come to this Court for
challenging the validity of the notification issued in
1959 on the ground that the particulars of the public
190
purpose were not specified. A valid notification under
Section 4 is a sine qua non for initiation of
proceedings for acquisition of property. To have sat
on the fence and allowed the Government to
complete the acquisition proceedings on the basis that
the notification under Section 4 and the declaration
under Section 6 were valid and then to attack the
notification on grounds which were available to them
at the time when the notification was published would
be putting a premium on dilatory tactics. The writ
petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of
laches and delay on the part of the petitioners (see
Tilokchand Motichand and Others v. H. B. Munshi and
Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India).
12. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
the Government, it is clear that the Government have
allotted a large portion of the land after the
acquisition proceedings were finalised to Cooperative
housing societies. To quash the notification at this
stage would disturb the rights of third parties who are
not before the Court.
13. As regards the second contention that
there was inordinate delay in finalizing the acquisition
proceedings and that the appellants and writ
petitioners were deprived of the appreciation in value
of the land in which they were interested, it may be
noted that about 6,000 objections were filed under
Section 5A by persons interested in the property.
Several writ petitions were also filed in 1966 and 1967
challenging the validity of the acquisition proceedings.
The Government had necessarily to wait for the
disposal of the objections and petitions before
proceeding further in the matter. Both the learned
Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High
Court were of the view that there was no inordinate
delay on the part of the Government in completing
the acquisition proceedings. We are not persuaded to
come to a different conclusion.”
The next judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the
respondents is the judgment of the Apex Court in General Manager,
Telecommunication & Anr. Vs. Dr. Madan Mohan Padhan & Ors, 1995
Supp (4) SCC 268.
In the aforesaid case, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was
published in the year 1973 and thereafter declaration under Section 6 of the
191
Act was issued on 30/6/1975. Possession of the land was taken on 12/4/1976
and the award was given on 02/11/1976. Writ Petition No.1139/1976 was
filed challenging the validity of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act which
was disposed of on 16/3/1982, directing the Government to consider the
representation of the land owners for exclusion of the land from acquisition.
The representation was rejected on 03/6/1987. Then Writ Petition
No.435/1988 was filed again challenging the notifications. In the above
background of facts following was laid down by the Apex Court in paragraph 4
which is quoted below:-
“4. It is already seen that the possession
having already been taken on April 12, 1976 and
vested in the Government free from all encumbrances
and many others having accepted the award and
some had received the compensation under protest,
the High Court was wholly unjustified in interfering
with the acquisition. We have seen the plan produced
before us which would indicate that the land acquired
comprises the establishment of Officers' building and
2000 electronic exchange. Under theses
circumstances, it would be highly inconvenient to
exclude this land from acquisition. The purpose of
enquiry under Section 5A is only to show that any
other convenient and suitable land would be available
other than the land sought to be acquired, or there is
no public purpose. This issue would become an
academic once the construction started and was in
progress. The ratio in the case of Oxford English
School v. Govt. of T.N. has no application to the facts
of these appeals. In that case, neither the award was
made before the amendment act has come into force
nor was possession taken. In these circumstances,
this Court held that declaration under Section 6 was
invalid and direction given by the High Court to
conduct enquiry under Section 5A, after three years
had expired, is illegal. Section 4(1) also stood lapsed
by operation of proviso to Section 6 of the Act.
Therefore, the ratio is clearly inapplicable to the facts
of these appeals.”
Another judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the
respondents is the judgment of the Apex Court in Senjeevanagar Medical
& Health Employees' Co-operative Housing Society Vs. Mohd Abdul
Wahab & Ors, (1996) 3 SCC 600.
192
In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court held that the property under
acquisition having vested in the State, exercise of power to quash notification
under Section 4 (1) and the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act
would lead to incongruity. Therefore, the High Court should not have
interfered with the acquisition and quashed the notification and declaration
under Sections 4 and 6 respetively. Following was laid down in paragraph 12
which is quoted below:-
“12. That apart, as facts disclose, the award
was made on November 24, 1980 and the writ
petition was filed on August 9, 1982. It is not in
dispute that compensation was deposited in the court
of the Subordinate Judge. lt is asserted by the
appellant- Society that possession of the land was
delivered to it and the land had been divided and
allotted to its members for construction of houses and
that construction of some houses had been
commenced by the date the writ petition was filed. It
would be obvious that the question of division of the
properties among its members and allotment of the
respective plots to them would arise only after the
Land Acquisition Officer had taken possession of the
acquired land and handed it over to the appellant-
Society. By operation of Section 16 the land stood
vested in the State free from all encumbrances. In
Satendra Prasad Jain & Ors. v. State of U.P. the
question arose: whether notification under Section 4
and the declaration under Section 6 get lapsed if the
award is not made within two years as envisaged
under Section 11A? A Bench of three Judges had held
that once possession was taken and the land vested
in the Government, title to the land so vested in the
State is subject only to determination of compensation
and to pay the same to the owner. Divesting the title
to the land statutorily vested in the Government and
reverting the same to the owner is not contemplated
under the Act. Only Section 48(1) gives power to
withdrew from acquisition that too before possession
is taken. That question did not arise in this case. The
property under acquisition having been vested in the
appellants, in the absence of any power under the Act
to have the title of the appellants divested except by
exercise of the power under Section 48(1), valid title
cannot be defeated. The exercise of the power to
quash the notification under Section 4(1) and the
declaration under Section 6 would lead to incongruity.
Therefore, the High Court under those circumstances
would not have interfered with the acquisition and
193
quashed the notification and declaration under
Sections 4 and 6 respectively. Considered from either
perspective, we are of the view that the High Court
was wrong in allowing the writ appeal.”
To the same effect there is another judgment of the Apex Court in
State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. D.R. Laxmi & Ors, (1996) 6 SCC 445.
This is a three judge judgment. The Apex Court in the said case held that
when the award was passed and the possession was taken the Court should
not have exercised its power to quash the award. Following was laid down in
paragraph 9 which is quoted below:-
“9. Recently, another Bench of this Court in
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs.
Industrial Development & Investment Co. (P) Ltd. re-
examined the entire case law and held that once the
land was vested in the State, the Court was not
justified in interfering with the notification published
under appropriate provisions of the Act. Delay in
challenging the notification was fatal and writ petition
entails with dismissal on grounds of latches. It is thus,
well settled law that when there is inordinate delay in
filing the writ petition and when all steps taken in the
acquisition proceedings have become final, the Court
should be loathe to quash the notifications. The High
Court has, no doubt, discretionary powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the
notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under
Section 6. But it should be exercised taking all
relevant factors into pragmatic consideration. When
the award was passed and possession was taken, the
Court should not have exercised its power to quash
the award which is a material factor to be taken into
consideration before exercising the power under
Article 226. The fact that no third party rights were
created in the case, is hardly a ground for
interference. The Division Bench of the High Court
was not right in interfering with the discretion
exercised by the learned single Judge dismissing the
writ petition or the ground of latches.”
The next judgment which needs to be considered is of the Apex Court
in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Industrial
Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd.& Ors, (1996) 11 SCC 501.
In the aforesaid case the appellant has approached the High Court
194
after 4 years of passing of the award and possession was taken. The Apex
court laid down that although the High Court has, no doubt, discretionary
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the notification issued
under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6. But it should be exercised
taking all relevant factors into pragmatic consideration. When the award was
passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its
power to quash the award. Following was laid down in paragraph 29 which is
quoted below:-
“29. It is thus well settled law that when there is
inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and when all
steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have
become final, the Court should be loathe to quash the
notifications. The High Court has, no doubt,
discretionary powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution to quash the notification under Section
4(1) and declaration under Section 6. But it should be
exercised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic
consideration. When the award was passed and
possession was taken, the Court should not have
exercised its power to quash the award which is a
material factor to be taken into consideration before
exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that
no third party rights were created in the case, is
hardly a ground for interference. The Division Bench
of High Court was not right in interfering with the
discretion exercised by the learned single Judge
dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches.”
Another judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents
is Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors,
AIR 2008 SC 1494. The Apex Court in the said case referring to its earlier
judgment as noticed above laid down following in paragraph 17 which is
quoted below:-
“17. In the present case also, the writ petition having
been filed after taking over the possession and the
award having become final, the same deserves to be
dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge and
that of the Division Bench are affirmed to the extent
of dismissal of the writ petition and the special appeal
without going into the merits thereof. This appeal also
deserves to be dismissed without going into the merits
195
of the case and is dismissed as such. No costs.”
The Apex Court again had an occasion to consider the question of
delay and laches in Sawaran Lata & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 4
SCC 532. Considering the earlier judgments the Apex court laid down
following in paragraph 11 which is quoted below:
“11. Reference in this case may be made to the
decision of the National Commission rendered in
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gian Singh. In the
decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission (NCDRC) it has been held that in a case
of violation of condition of the policy as to the nature
of use of the vehicle, the claim ought to be settled on
a non-standard basis. The said decision of the
National Commission has been referred to by this
Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nitin
Khandelwal.”
Another judgment of the Apex Court relied on by the learned counsel
for the respondents is Sulochana Chandrakant Galande Vs. Pune
Municipal Transport & Ors, (2010) 8 SCC 467.
In the aforesaid case, suit land was acquired under Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976, in the years 1978-1979. A Bus Depot was
constructed on the part of the suit land. The appellant preferred revision
under Section 34 of the Act,1976 on 06/4/1998, to the State Government on
the ground that the land ought not to have been acquired under the Act,1976
that on the date of commencement of the Act, 1976 i.e. 17.2.1976, the suit
land was not within the limits of urban area. The revision was allowed on
29/9/1998. The Apex court in the aforesaid case considered the provision of
Section 34 of the 1976 Act, which empowers the State Government on its own
motion, call for and examine records of any order passed or proceeding taken
under the provisions of the Act. The Apex Court held that undoubtedly Section
34 does not prescribe any limitation during which the Revisional power can be
exercised by the State. However, the Apex Court laid down that the revisional
power can be exercised only within a reasonable time. Following was laid
down in paragraphs 28 and 29 which are quoted below:-
196
“28. The legislature in its wisdom did not fix a time
limit for exercising the revisional power nor inserted
the words “at any time” in Section 34 of the Act,
1976. It does not mean that the legislature intended
to leave the orders passed under the Act open to
variation for an indefinite period inasmuch as it would
have the effect of rendering title of the
holders/allottee(s) permanently precarious and in a
state of perpetual uncertainty. In case, it is assumed
that the legislature has conferred an everlasting and
interminable power in point of time, the title over the
declared surplus land, in the hands of the
State/allottee, would forever remain virtually insecure.
The Court has to construe the statutory provision in a
way which makes the provisions workable, advancing
the purpose and object of enactment of the statute.
29. In view of the above, we reach the inescapable
conclusion that the Revisional powers cannot be used
arbitrarily at belated stage for the reason that the
order passed in Revision under Section 34 of the Act,
1976, is a judicial order. What should be reasonable
time, would depend upon the facts and circumstances
of each case.”
Recent judgment of the Apex Court in Banda Development
Authority, Banda Vs. Moti Lal Agarwal & Ors, (2011) 5 SCC 394 has
also been relied by the learned counsel for the respondents. In the aforesaid
case, there was a delay of 6 years between the passing the award and filing
of the writ petition. Following principles were laid down in paragraphs
16,17,18,19 and 26 which are quoted below:-
“16. In our view, even if the objection of delay and
laches had not been raised in the affidavits filed on
behalf of the BDA and the State Government, the High
Court was duty bound to take cognizance of the long
time gap of 9 years between the issue of declaration
under Section 6(1) and filing of the writ petition and
declined relief to respondent No.1 on the ground that
he was guilty of laches because the acquired land had
been utilized for implementing the residential scheme
and third party rights had been created. The
unexplained delay of about six years between the
passing of award and filing of writ petition was also
sufficient for refusing to entertain the prayer made in
the writ petition.
17.It is true that no limitation has been prescribed
197
for filing a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution but one of the several rules of self
imposed restraint evolved by the superior courts is
that the High Court will not entertain petitions filed
after long lapse of time because that may adversely
affect the settled/crystallized rights of the parties. If
the writ petition is filed beyond the period of limitation
prescribed for filing a civil suit for similar cause, the
High Court will treat the delay unreasonable and
decline to entertain the grievance of the petitioner on
merits.
18.In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai, the
Constitution Bench considered the effect of delay in
filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
and held: (AIR pp.1011-12, paras 17 & 21)
“17.......It has been made clear more than once
that the power to give relief under Article 226 is
a discretionary power. This is specially true in
the case of power to issue writs in the nature of
mandamus. Among the several matters which
the High Courts rightly take into consideration
in the exercise of that discretion is the delay
made by the aggrieved party in seeking this
special remedy and what excuse there is for
it.....It is not easy nor is it desirable to lay down
any Rule for universal application. It may
however be stated as a general rule that if
there has been unreasonable delay the court
ought not ordinarily to lend its aid to a party by
this extraordinary remedy of mandamus.
* * *
21.The learned counsel is right in his
submission that the provisions of the Limitation
Act do not as such apply to the granting of
relief under Art 226. It appears to us however
that the maximum period fixed by the
legislature as the time within which the relief by
a suit in a Civil Court must be brought may
ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard
by which delay in seeking remedy under Article
226 can be measured. The court may consider
the delay unreasonable even if it is less than
the period of limitation prescribed for a civil
action for the remedy but where the delay is
more than this period, it will almost always be
proper for the court to hold that it is
unreasonable.”
19. In matters involving challenge to the acquisition of
land for public purpose, this Court has consistently held
198
that delay in filing the writ petition should be viewed
seriously and relief denied to the petitioner if he fails to
offer plausible explanation for the delay. The Court has
also held that the delay of even few years would be
fatal to the cause of the petitioner, if the acquired land
has been partly or wholly utilised for the public
purpose.
26. In this case, the acquired land was utilized for
implementing Tulsi Nagar Residential Scheme inasmuch
as after carrying out necessary development i.e.
construction of roads, laying electricity, water and
sewer lines etc. the BDA carved out plots, constructed
flats for economically weaker sections and lower
income group, invited applications for allotment of the
plots and flats from general as well as reserved
categories and allotted the same to eligible persons. In
the process, the BDA not only incurred huge
expenditure but also created third party rights. In this
scenario, the delay of nine years from the date of
publication of the declaration issued under Section 6(1)
and almost six years from the date of passing of award
should have been treated by the High Court as more
than sufficient for denying equitable relief to
respondent No.1.”
Another recent judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the
respondents of the Apex Court is State of M.P. Vs. Narmada Bachao
Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639.
In the aforesaid case, writ petition was filed in the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh in the year 2007, for issuing directions in terms of the
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy. Construction of Omkareshwar Dam
had started in the year 2002 and stood completed in October, 2006. In the
writ petition, prayer was made restraining the appellant i.e. State of M.P. from
closing sluice gates of the dam contending that the rehabilitation and
resettlement was not complete. The Court took the view that in the aforesaid
fact the Court ought not have examined any issue other than relating to
rehabilitation. Certain other decisions have also been referred to by the
learned counsel for the parties which reiterate the same proposition and it is
not necessary to burden this judgment by referring all such cases were the
same propositions were laid down.
199
To meet the attack of the respondents on the ground of delay and
laches as noticed above, petitioners come up with the plea that the petitioners
were under bonafide belief that the land acquired for Planned Industrial
Development shall be utilised for Planned Industrial Development, they
bonafide believing the purpose of acquisition accepted the same as their fate,
but subsequent events reveal that true intention of the authority and the
State Government was that the land was acquired to transfer it to private
builders and colonisers and the acquisition was nothing, but a fraud and
colourable exercise of power. The petitioners have come up in these writ
petitions for redressal of their grievances and grant of relief. The allegations
of the petitioners as has been noted above in several writ petitions are that
the acquisition proceedings were undertaken in colourable exercise of power.
Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the
judgment of the Apex Court in Vyali Kaval Housebuilding Coop. Society
Vs. V. Chandrappa, (2007) 9 SCC 304.
In the said case, notification under Section 4 was issued on
22.12.1984, declaration under Section 6 was issued on 21.2.1986 and award
was passed on 16.11.1987. The possession of land was taken on different
dates up to the year 1992. The writ petitions were filed in the year 1998
challenging the land acquisition proceedings. An objection was taken by the
society in whose favour the land was acquired contending that writ petition
was hopelessly barred by time being delayed by 14 years from the date of the
issue of the notification under Section 4. It was further contended that
petitioners have participated in the inquiry under Section 5-A and have
received substantial amount from the appellant society pursuant to the
agreement executed in their favour. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ
petition on the ground of delay and on the ground that the petitioners have
participated in the proceedings and they shall be treated to have acquiesced.
Appeal was filed by the respondents which was allowed by the Division
Bench. The Court held that acquisition was colourable exercise of the power
therefore, the delay cannot be a good ground to dismiss the writ petition.
Against the Division Bench judgment, the society filed Civil Appeals
challenging the Division Bench judgment. The Apex Court upheld the
judgment of the Karnataka High Court and dismissed the appeal. The Apex
200
Court laid down that when the acquisition was totally malafide and not for
bonafide purpose, the ground of delay and acquiescence had no substance. It
is useful to quote the relevant observations of the apex Court made in
paragraphs 3, 4 and 9 which are quoted below:
"3. This writ petition was contested by the appellant-
society as respondent and it was alleged that it was
hopelessly barred by time being delayed by 14 years and
it was also submitted that the writ petitioners had
participated in the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act
and have also received substantial amount from the
appellant-society pursuant to the agreement executed in
their favour. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ
petition on the ground of being hopelessly barred by time
and the writ petitioners participated in the proceedings
therefore they have acquiesced in the matter. Aggrieved
against this order passed by learned Single Judge, a writ
appeal was filed by the respondents which came to be
allowed by the Division Bench for the reasons mentioned
in another writ appeal decided by the same Division
Bench headed by the Chief Justice of the High Court on
17.1.2000. In that writ appeal the Division Bench held
that the entire acquisition on behalf of the appellant-
society was actuated with fraud as held in Narayana
Reddy v. State of Karnataka [ILR 1991 Kar 2248]. In that
case it was held as follows :
"As seen from the findings of G.V.K.Rao Inquiry Report,
in respect of five respondent societies and the report of
the Joint Registrar in respect of Vualikaval House Building
Co-operative Society, these Societies had indulged in
enrolling large number of members illegally inclusive of
ineligible members and had also indulged in enrolling
large number of bogus members. The only inference that
is possible from this is that the office bearers of the
societies had entered into unholy alliance with the
respective agents for the purpose of making money, as
submitted for the petitioners otherwise, there is no
reason as to why such an Agreement should have been
brought about by the office bearers of the Society and
the agents. Unless these persons had the intention of
making huge profits as alleged by the petitioners, they
would not have indulged in enrolment of ineligible and
bogus members. The circumstance that without
considering all these relevant materials the Government
had accorded its approval, is sufficient to hold that the
agents had prevailed upon the Government to take a
decision to acquire the lands without going into all those
relevant facts. The irresistible inference flowing from the
facts and circumstances of these cases is, whereas the
poser conferred under the Land Acquisition Act is for
201
acquiring lands for carrying out housing scheme by a
housing society, in each of the cases the acquisition of
lands is not for a bona fide housing scheme but is
substantially for the purpose of enabling the concerned
office bearers of respondent- societies and their agents
to indulge in sale of sites in the guise of allotment of
sites to the Members/ Associate members of the society
to make money as alleged by the petitioners and
therefore it is a clear case of colourable exercise of
power. Thus the decision of the Government to acquire
the lands suffers from legal mala fides and therefore the
impugned Notifications are liable to be struck down."
4. In view of aforesaid observation, their Lordships of
Division Bench held that since the acquisition was
colourable exercise of the power, therefore, delay cannot
be a good ground to dismiss the writ petition. The said
judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of
Karnataka was affirmed by this Court in Special Leave
Petition Nos.(c)..CC 525-532 of 1999 and Special Leave
Petition Nos.(c) ..CC 504-522 of 1999 decided on
14.7.1999 and it was held that the appellant-society is a
bogus house building society and accordingly, the order
passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside by
Division Bench. Against the order of the Division Bench
passed in Writ Appeal No.2294 of 1999 a review petition
was filed which was dismissed on 22.3.2002. Hence both
these appeals.
9.Learned counsel for the respondents has also
invited our attention that same notification was set aside
by the High Court and the said order of the High Court
was also upheld by this Court by dismissing the S.L.P.(C)
No.6196 of 1998 on 7.4.1998 and S.L.P.(c) ..CC 495-
a498 of 1999 on 14.7.1999 concerning the very same
appellant society. In this background, when the
acquisition has been found to be totally mala fide and
not for bona fide purpose, the ground of delay and
acquiescence in the present case has no substance.
Learned counsel for the appellant tried to persuade us
that as the amount in question has been accepted by the
respondents, it is not open for them now to wriggle out
from that agreement. It may be that the appellant might
have tried to settle out the acquisition but when the
whole acquisition emanates from the aforesaid tainted
notification any settlement on the basis of that
notification cannot be validated. The fact remains that
when the basic notification under which the present land
is sought to be acquired stood vitiated then whatever
money that the appellant has paid, is at its own risk.
Once the notification goes, no benefit could be derived
by the appellant. We are satisfied that issue of
202
notification was mala fide and it was not for public
purpose, as has been observed by this Court, nothing
turns on the question of delay and acquiescence.
Learned Counsel for respondents raised other pleas like
decree for partition was granted among brothers and
they were not made parties, we are not going into those
questions when we are satisfied that when acquisition
stand vitiated on account of mala fide, nothing remains
further."
In the above case the challenge to acquisition proceedings was
contested firstly on the ground that there is great delay in challenging the
acquisition proceedings and secondly that the compensation has already been
accepted by the land owners, hence the challenge is unsustainable. The Apex
Court repelled both the objections and has laid down following in paragraphs
9, "(i) ..... when the acquisition has been found to be totally malafide and not
for bona fide purpose, the ground of delay and acquiescence in the present
case has no substance.... and (ii) ..... learned counsel for the appellant tried
to persuade us that as the amount in question has been accepted by the
respondents, it is not open for them now to wriggle out from that agreement.
It may be that the appellant might have tried to settle out the acquisition but
when the whole acquisition emanates from the aforesaid tainted notification
any settlement on the basis of that notification cannot be validated. The fact
remains that when the basic notification under which the present land is
sought to be acquired stood vitiated then whatever money that the appellant
has paid, is at its own risk. Once the notification goes, no benefit could be
derived by the appellant". The Apex Court in the above case (Vyalikaval
Housebuilding Coop. Soceity vs. V. Chandrappa) approved the view of the
Division Bench of the High Court that since the acquisition was in colourable
exercise of the power, delay cannot be a good ground to dismiss the writ
petition.
Allegations of the petitioners are that the action of the Authority in
sending the recommendation for acquisition of land was fraud on power and
the acquisition is in colourable exercise of power which are to be thoroughly
examined.
Shri Dhruv Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
203
Developers Association has also placed reliance on a recent judgment of the
Apex Court in A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corpn. Ltd. Vs.
Chinthamaneni Narasimha Rao & Ors, 2011 (10) Scale 460. The Apex
court in the said case observed that challenge to acquisition proceedings be
made after a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, and the land owners
need not wait for years. Following was laid down by the Apex Court in
paragraphs 10 and 11 which are quoted below:-
“10. We see no reason for the land owners to wait for a few years
for challenging the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act on
the ground of delay. If the land owners had been really aggrieved,
they ought to have challenged the proceedings immediately after
declaration made under Section 6 of the Act.
11. This Court has held in several judgments that if the land
owners are aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings, they must
challenge the same at least before an award is made and the
possession of the land in question is taken by the government
authorities.
It has been held in Swaika Propeties (P) Ltd. & Another vs.
State of Rajasthan & Others [(2008) 4 SCC 695] as under:
"6. This Court has repeatedly held that a writ petition challenging
the notification for acquisition of land, if filed after the possession
having been taken, is not maintainable. In Municipal Corpn. of
Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. (P) Ltd.
(1996) 11 SCC 501 where K. Ramaswamy, J. speaking for a Bench
consisting of His Lordship and S.B. Majmudar, J. held: (SCC p. 520,
para 29)
"29. It is thus well-settled law that when there
is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and when
all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have
become final, the Court should be loath to quash the
notifications. The High Court has, no doubt,
discretionary powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution to quash the notification under Section
4(1) and declaration under Section 6. But it should be
exercised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic
consideration. When the award was passed and
possession was taken, the Court should not have
exercised its power to quash the award which is a
material factor to be taken into consideration before
exercising the power under Article 226.The fact that
no third-party rights were created in the case is hardly
a ground for interference. The Division Bench of the
High Court was not right in interfering with the
204
discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge
dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches."
Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs.
D.R. Laxmi & Ors. [(1996) 6 SCC 445] following the
decision of this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation
of Greater Bombay (supra) it was held :
".... When the award was passed and
possession was taken, the Court should not have
exercised its power to quash the award which is a
material factor to be taken into consideration before
exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that
no third party rights were created in the case, is
hardly a ground for interference. The Division Bench of
the High Court was not right in interfering with the
discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge
dismissing the writ petition on the ground of
laches. ...."
Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan &
Ors. vs. D.R. Laxmi & Ors. [(1996) 6 SCC 445]
following the decision of this Court in the case of
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (supra) it
was held:
“.....When the award was passed and
possession was taken, the Court should not have have
exercised its power to quash the award which is a
material factor to be taken into consideration before
exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that
no third party rights were created in the case, is
hardly a ground for interference. The Division Bench
of the High Court was not right in interfering with the
discretion exercised by the leaned Single Judge
dismissing the writ petition on the ground of
laches..............”
To the similar effect is the judgment of this Court in
Municipal Council, Ahmednagar & Another vs. Shah Hyder
Beig & Ors. [(2000) 2 SCC 48] wherein this Court,
following the decision of this Court in C. Padma and
Others vs. Dy. Secy. to the Govt. of T.N. and Others
[(1997)2 SCC 627] held: (Shah Hyder case SCC p. 55,
para 17)
"17. In any event, after the award is passed no
writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition
notice or against any proceeding thereunder. This has
been the consistent view taken by this Court and in
one of the recent cases (C. Padma v. Dy. Secy. to the
Govt. of T.N. [(1997) 2 SCC 627]...."
205
The Division Bench judgment of this Court in Puran & Ors Vs. State
of U.P. & Ors, 2009 (10) ADJ, 679, in which one of us (Justice Ashok
Bhushan) was a party has been heavily relied on by the learned counsel for
the petitioners. In the said case, bunch of writ petitions were filed by farmers
of District Ghaziabad challenging the acquisition of their agricultural land by
the State of U.P. for public purpose. The ground of challenge in the writ
petition was that the acquisition by the State of U.P. was in colourable
exercise of power and the acquisition was not for public purpose and the
acquisition was really for private Company. The notification under Section 4
was issued on 11/2/2004 and declaration under Section 6 was issued on
25/6/2004. The writ petitions were filed after more than 4 years. One of the
ground taken by the learned counsel for the respondents in opposing the writ
petition was that the petitions having been filed with delay and laches, the
same deserve to be dismissed on the aforesaid ground. The Division Bench
judgment in Puran Singh's case (supra) proceeded to examine the said
submission in detail. The Division Bench noticed the submission in the
aforesaid case and laid down following in paragraphs 49, 52 and 56 which are
quoted below:-
“49. To recapitulate, the submissions of the
petitioners in these writ petitions are that land
acquisition by the State in the present case was in a
colourable exercise of power. The application was
made by the company after depositing part of the
compensation and no part of the compensation was to
be paid by the State Government when the application
had been moved by the company or till the agreement
was executed by the Company and State under
Section 41 of the Act. Acquisition by the State as an
acquisition for public purpose by invoking section 17
was a colourable exercise of power. The acquisition
being acquisition for a company, part VII of the Act
and Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 were
required to be adhered to. The State with an intention
to bye pass the statutory provisions and to unduly help
the respondent no. 2 had proceeded to acquire the
land as acquisition for public purposes.
52. The acquisition in question was acquisition
proceedings initiated by State by dispensing inquiry
under Section 5-A denying opportunity of filing
206
objections. It is true that petitioners have signed
Kararnama and taken whatever compensation was
given by the respondents but it is clear that petitioners
have been raising their protests and continued their
agitations. Agitation was started being noticed since
May, 2006. The compulsory acquisition of land is a
serious matter and the persons, who were pitted
against the petitioners were the mighty State and
respondent no. 2 company, the petitioners being
thousands in number, took time in approaching the
Court raising their grievance specially when the farmers
had no opportunity and the inquiry under Section 5-A
had been dispensed with. It is relevant to quote the
observations of the apex Court in (1980) 2 SCC 471,
State of Punjab Vs. Gurdial Singh & others following
was laid down in paragraph 16:
".....It is fundamental that compulsory taking of
a man's property is serious matter and the
smaller the man the more the serious matter.
Hearing him before depriving him is both
reasonable and pre-emptive of arbitrariness and
denial of this administration fairness is
constitutional anathema except for good
reasons........."
56. Taking into consideration over all facts and
circumstances, we are not inclined to throw the writ
petitions on the ground of delay and laches. The writ
petitioners have made out a case for consideration of
various issues by this Court which have arisen in these
writ petitions. Thus, the submissions of learned counsel
for the respondents that writ petitions be thrown out on
the ground of delay and laches and other submissions
need not be considered, does not merit acceptance.”
A very recent judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal
No.7588/2005, M/s Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd & Anr. Vs. G.Jayarama
Reddy & Ors, decided on 29/9/2011 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and
Hon’ble Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya considering the issue of delay
and laches in the land acquisition case needs to be considered. It is useful to
note the facts in detail. On a request made by the Karnataka State Tourism
Development Corporation, the State Government of Karnataka acquired the
land of Village Kodihalli and Challaghata for the purpose of “Golf-cum-Hotel
Resort”. Notification under Section 4 (1) was issued on 29/12/1981 and
declaration under Section 6 was issued and thereafter an award was passed
207
by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 07/4/1986. However, instead of
utilising the acquired land for the purpose specified in the notification,
Corporation transferred the same to private parties. Writ Petitions were filed
in the year 1995, praying for quashing the notifications dated 29/12/1981 and
16/4/1983 issued under Section 4 of the Act and praying for a mandamus
directing the respondents to redeliver the possession of the said land. The writ
petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge as barred by time, against
which writ appeal was filed by the respondents which was allowed. Against
the said judgment, the appellants who were private transferee of acquired
land had filed civil appeal before the Apex Court. Submission was made by the
appellants that the writ petitions being highly barred by laches was rightly
dismissed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench committed error
in allowing the writ appeal. The question of delay was considered by the Apex
Court in the said case. Following was laid down in paragraphs 16, 17, 21 and
22 which are quoted below:-
“16. The first question which needs consideration is
whether the High Court committed an error by granting
relief to respondent No.1 despite the fact that he filed
writ petition after long lapse of time and the explanation
given by him was found unsatisfactory by the learned
Single Judge, who decided the writ petition after remand
by the Division Bench.
17. Although, framers of the Constitution have not
prescribed any period of limitation for filing a petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the
power conferred upon the High Court to issue to any
person or authority including any Government, directions,
orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas
corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo-warranto and
certiorari is not hedged with any condition or constraint,
in last 61 years the superior Courts have evolved several
rules of self-imposed restraint including the one that the
High Court may not enquire into belated or stale claim
and deny relief to the petitioner if he is found guilty of
laches. The principle underlying this rule is that the one
who is not vigilant and does not seek intervention of the
Court within reasonable time from the date of accrual of
cause of action or alleged violation of constitutional, legal
or other right is not entitled to relief under Article 226 of
the Constitution. Another reason for the High Court's
refusal to entertain belated claim is that during the
intervening period rights of third parties may have
208
crystallized and it will be inequitable to disturb those
rights at the instance of a person who has approached
the Court after long lapse of time and there is no cogent
explanation for the delay. We may hasten to add that no
hard and fast rule can be laid down and no straightjacket
formula can be evolved for deciding the question of
delay/laches and each case has to be decided on its own
facts.
21. Another principle of law of which cognizance
deserves to be taken is that in exercise of power under
Article 136 of the Constitution, this Court would be
extremely slow to interfere with the discretion exercised
by the High Court to entertain a belated petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Interference in
such matters would be warranted only if it is found that
the exercise of discretion by the High Court was totally
arbitrary or was based on irrelevant consideration. In
Smt. Narayani Debi Khaitan v. State of Bihar [C.A.
No.140 of 1964 decided on 22.9.1964], Chief Justice
Gajendragadkar, speaking for the Constitution Bench
observed:
“It is well-settled that under Article 226, the
power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ is
discretionary. There can be no doubt that if a citizen
moves the High Court under Article 226 and contends
that his fundamental rights have been contravened by
any executive action, the High Court would naturally like
to give relief to him; but even in such a case, if the
petitioner has been guilty of laches, and there are other
relevant circumstances which indicate that it would be
inappropriate for the High Court to exercise its high
prerogative jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner, ends
of justice may require that the High Court should refuse
to issue a writ. There can be little doubt that if it is
shown that a party moving the High Court under Article
226 for a writ is, in substance, claiming a relief which
under the law of limitation was barred at the time when
the writ petition was filed, the High Court would refuse
to grant any relief in its writ jurisdiction. No hard and fast
rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should
refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who
moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty
of laches. That is a matter which must be left to the
discretion of the High Court and like all matters left to
the discretion of the Court, in this matter too discretion
must be exercised judiciously and reasonably.”
(emphasis supplied)
22. In the light of the above, it is to be seen whether
209
the discretion exercised by the Division Bench of the
High Court to ignore the delay in filing of writ petition is
vitiated by any patent error or the reasons assigned for
rejecting the appellants' objection of delay are irrelevant
and extraneous. Though it may sound repetitive, we may
mention that in the writ petition filed by him, respondent
No.1 had not only prayed for quashing of the acquisition
proceedings, but also prayed for restoration of the
acquired land on the ground that instead of using the
same for the public purpose specified in the notifications
issued under Sections 4(1) and 6, the Corporation had
transferred the same to private persons. Respondent
No.1 and other landowners may not be having any
serious objection to the acquisition of their land for a
public purpose and, therefore, some of them not only
accepted the compensation, but also filed applications
under Section 18 of the Act for determination of market
value by the Court. However, when it was discovered
that the acquired land has been transferred to private
persons, they sought intervention of the Court and in the
three cases, the Division Bench of the High Court
nullified the acquisition on the ground of fraud and
misuse of the provisions of the Act.”
The Apex Court approved the Division Bench judgment which had
ignored the delay in filing the writ petition challenging the acquisition. The
Apex Court further laid down that where it was subsequently discovered that
the acquired land has been transferred to private persons and then petitioners
sought intervention of the Court, the Division Bench has rightly entertained
the writ petition ignoring the delay.
The aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court fully supports the contention
of the writ petitioners that writ petitions filed by the petitioners after knowing
about the transfer of land to private builders cannot be thrown out on the
ground of delay and laches.
We, however, cannot loose sight of the fact that the above grounds
taken are not applicable to those writ petitioners, where the acquisition was
finalised decades ago and allotment of private builders and colonisers which
were complained of were not applicable in the aforesaid cases. We, now
proceed to refer to cases in which there are inordinate delay and the
aforesaid ground pleaded are not applicable to them. These petitions with
inordinate delay relate to Noida. There are two writ petitions of Village Nithari
210
namely; Writ Petition No.45933/2011, Ravindra Sharma & Anr Vs.
State of U.P. & ors, 47545/2011, Babu Ram & Ors Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors. These two writ petitions have been filed in the year 2011, where as the
notification under Section 4 was issued on 01/6/1976 and declaration under
Section 6 was issued on 16/9/1976. The possession was taken by the
respondents on 28/10/1976 and the award was also declared on 15/7/1978.
The writ petitions have been filed after more than 2 decades. There are no
grounds in the writ petitions to entertain such highly barred writ petitions in
exercise of writ jurisdiction. Both these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed
on the ground of laches alone.
The next writ petition challenging the notification of 1976 is relating to
Village Chaura Sadatpur being Writ Petition No.46407/2011, i.e. Liley
Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. The writ petition was filed challenging the
notifications dated 01/6/1976 under Section 4 and 16/9/1976 under Section 6.
Possession was taken on 28/10/1976 and the award was also declared on
25/9/1978. The writ petition having been filed after more than 2 decades
deserves to be dismissed on the ground of laches.
There are 13 writ petitions relating to Village Khoda. The notification
under Section 4 was issued on 17/3/1988 and notification under Section 6 was
issued on 19/7/1988. Possession of the land was taken on 01/6/1989,
01/9/1995, 12/7/1995 and 15/3/1995. The award was declared on
01/12/1991. There are no grounds in any of the writ petitions on the basis of
which such highly barred writ petitions vsm be entertained by this Court in
exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. The aforesaid writ petitions of Village
Khoda also deserves to be dismissed.
Writ Petition No.46764/2011, Ramesh & Ors. Vs. Vs. State of
U.P & Ors., relates to Village Sultanpur in which notification under Section 4
was issued on 10/2/1994 and notification under Section 6 was issued on
18/7/1994 which has been challenged. The possession of the land was taken
on 24/8/1995 and the award under Section 11 was declared on 09/5/1997.
There are no such grounds in the writ petition which may deserve entertaining
the writ petition which has been filed with such an inordinate and
211
unexplainable delay. This writ petition also deserve to be dismissed on the
ground of laches.
There is another Writ Petition No.46785/2011, Jeet Ram & Ors.
Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, relating to Village Sultanpur, in which notification
under Section 4 was issued on 06/12/1999 and notification under Section 6
was issued on 09/3/2000. Possession was taken on 14/3/2000 and the award
was declared on 18/6/2005. There is no explanation worth considering in the
writ petition of inordinate delay and laches in approaching this Court. The said
writ petition also deserves to be dismissed.
In view of the foregoing discussions apart from writ petitions which
have been specifically mentioned above in which there are no satisfactory
explanation for inordinate delay and laches, we proceed to examine the other
writ petitions on merits taking over all facts and circumstances and the
grounds pleaded in the aforesaid writ petitions. We are not inclined to throw
the writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches.
4.National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985.
As noted above, the Greater Noida Authority as well as the Noida
Authority were constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Development
Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as “Act,1976”. The area of Noida or Greater
Noida is included in the National Capital Region. For co-ordinating and
monitoring the implemention of plan for development of National Capital
Region and for evolving harmonised policies for the control of land uses and
development of infrastructure in the National Capital Region, Parliament
enacted an Act namely, National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985
hereinafter referred to as “NCRPB Act, 1985”. The NCRPB Act, 1985 was
enacted by the Parliament on the resolutions passed by the legislature of
State of Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh under Article 252 of the
Constitution of India.
The NCRPB Act, 1985 is on the subject which is included in the State
list of VIIth schedule of the Constitution of India. The Act, 1976 was enacted
for industrial development and urban township of the area and the NCRPB
212
Act, 1985 was also enacted for co-ordinating and monitoring the control of
land uses and development of infrastructure, hence it is very necessary to
examine the effect and consequence of NCRPB Act, 1985 on the ambit and
scope of Act, 1976 and the actions of the Authority have to be tested on the
aforesaid basis.
The statement of objects and reasons of the NCRPB Act, 1985 as
published in the Gazette of India on 27/8/1984, throws light on the objects
and reasons of enactment which is to the following effect:
“STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
The objective of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (61 of
1957) was to promote and to secure the development of Delhi in
accordance with the Master Plan and Zonal Development Plans.
The Master Plan approved by the Central Government in 1962,
recommended that the plan for planning the metropolis could not
be considered complete without its metropolitan regional
dimensions; it highlighted among other things the need for
integrated planning and co-ordinating, development of the Delhi
Metropolitan Area and the National Capital Region to achieve an
orderly and balanced growth of Delhi and its surrounding areas.
Taking cognizance of this recommendation in the Master Plan for
Delhi, Government of India had set up a High Powered Board in
1961 for the co-ordination of the regional planning activities in the
National Capital Region so as to secure the collaboration of the
State Governments concerned in the formulation and the
implementation of regional plan. This Board, being only advisory
in its capacity, could not effectively tackle the programme of
preparation and implementation of the regional plan. In 1980 it
was decided that the National Capital Region concept should be
revitalised and the regioin as a whole should be taken up for co-
ordinated development. An agreement was reached in August,
1982, between the Chief Ministers of the States of Uttar Pradesh,
Haryana and Rajasthan and Lt. Governor of Delhi on the one hand
and the Union Minister of Works and Housing on the other on the
need for a coordinating statutory machinery at the central level
for the planning monitoring and development of the National
Capital Region and also of need for the harmonised policy for
land-uses and other infrastructure to avoid haphazard
developments in the region.
2. The Bill seeks to replace the aforesaid High Powered
Board by a statutory Board, to be known as the National Capital
Region Planning Board, which shall consist of the Union Minister
of Works and Housing as its Chairman, the Administrator of Union
territory of Delhi, the Chief Ministers of the States of Haryana,
Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan and 11 other members to be
213
nominated by the Central Government in consultation with the
participating States and Union territory of Delhi.
While the objects of the statutory Planning Board would
be the preparation, modification, revision and review of a regional
plan for the development of the National Capital Region and also
for the preparation of functional plans for the proper guidance of
the participating States and the Union territory of Delhi, the power
to prepare sub-regional plan and project plan shall remain with
the participating States and the Union territory of Delhi.
The functions of the Planning Board would also include the
power to co-ordinate and monitor the implementation of the
regional plan and the power to evolve harmonised policy for the
control of land-users and development of infrastructure in the
National Capital Region so as to avoid any haphazard
development of the region.
With a view to enabling the Planning Board to discharge its
functions, the Bill provides for the establishment of Planning
Committee consisting of the officers and town planners of the
participating States and the Union Territory of Delhi, to assist the
Planning Board to discharge its functions.
The Bill also contains the provisions which are necessary to
give effect to the aforesaid objects.”
NCRPB Act, 1985 contains following preamble which also throws
considerable light on the object and reasons of the NCRPB Act, 1985:
“An Act to provide for the constitution of a Planning
Board for the preparation of a plan for the development of the
National Capital Region and for coordinating and monitoring the
implementation of such plan and for evolving harmonized
policies for the control of land-uses and development of
infrastructure in the National Capital Region so as to avoid any
haphazard development of that region and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Whereas it is expedient in the public interest to provide
for the constitution of a Planning Board for the preparation of a
plan for the development of the National Capital Region and for
coordinating and monitoring the implementation of such plan
and for evolving harmonized policies for the control of land-uses
and development of infrastructure in the National Capital Region
so as to avoid any haphazard development thereof ;
And whereas Parliament has no power to make laws for
the States with respect to any of the matters aforesaid, except
as provided in articles 249 and 250 of the Constitution;
214
And whereas in pursuance of the provisions of clause (1)
of article 252 of the Constitution, resolutions have been passed
by all the Houses of the Legislatures of the States of Haryana,
Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh to the effect that the matters
aforesaid should be regulated in those States by Parliament by
law;
Be it enacted by Parliament in the Thirty-fifth Year of the
Republic of India as follows :-”
Now, a quick look on the scheme of NCRP Board Act, 1985 is needed.
The NCRPB Act, 1985 is constituted under Section 3. A planning committee is
constituted by the Board for assisting the Board for discharge of its function.
Section 7 of the NCRPB Act, 1985 defines Functions and Power of the
Board and of the Committee whereas Section 8 defines the Powers of the
Board. Sections 7 and 8 are quoted below:
“7. FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF THE BOARD AND OF THE
COMMITTEE
Functions of the Board.- The functions of the Board shall
be -
(a) to prepare the Regional Plan and the Functional
Plans ;
(b) to arrange for the preparation of Sub-Regional Plans and
Project Plans by each of the participating States and the
Union territory;
(c) to co-ordinate the enforcement and implementation of
the Regional Plan,Functional Plans, Sub-Regional Plans and
Project Plans through the participating States and the Union
territory ;
(d) to ensure proper and systematic programming by the
participating States and the Union territory in regard to
project formulation, determination of priorities in the
National Capital Region or sub-regions and phasing of
development of the National Capital Region in accordance
with stages indicated in the Regional Plan ;
(e) to arrange for, and oversee, the financing of selected
development projects. In the National Capital Region
through Central and State Plan funds and other sources of
revenue.
8.Powers of the Board.- The powers of the Board shall
215
include the powers to -
(a) call for reports and information from the participating
States and the Union territory with regard to preparation,
enforcement and implementation of Functional Plans and
Sub-regional Plans ;
(b) ensure that the preparation, enforcement and
implementation of Functional Plan or Sub-Regional Plan, as
the case may be, is in conformity with the Regional Plan ;
(c)indicate the stages for the implementation of the
Regional Plan ;
(d) review the implementation of the Regional Plan,
Functional Plan, Sub-Regional Plan and Project Plan ;
(e) select and approve comprehensive projects, call for
priority development and provide such assistance for the
implementation of those projects as the Board may deem
fit ;
(f) select, in consultation with the State Government
concerned, any urban areas, outside the National Capital
Region having regard to its location, population and potential
for growth, which may be developed in order to achieve the
objectives of the Regional Plan ; and
(g) entrust to the Committee such other functions as it may
consider necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
Functions of the Committee.”
Section 9 of the NCRPB Act, 1985 deals with The functions of the
Committee. Section 9 is quoted below:
“9. (1) The functions of the Committee shall be to assist the
Board in -
(a) the preparation and co-coordinated implementation of
the Regional Plan and the Functional Plans ; and
(b) scrutinizing the Sub-Regional Plans and all Project Plans
to ensure that the same are in conformity with the Regional
Plan.
(2) The Committee may also make such recommendation to
the Board as it may think necessary to amend or modify any
Sub-Regional Plan or any Project Plan.
(3) The Committee shall perform such other functions as
216
may be entrusted to it by the Board.”
Section 10 sub-section 2 of the NCRPB Act, 1985 provides that the
Regional Plan shall indicate the manner in which the land in the National
Capital Region shall be used, whether by carrying out different development
thereon or by conservation or otherwise. Section 10 is quoted below:
“10. Contents of the Regional Plan.- (1) The Regional
Plan shall be a written statement and shall be accompanied
by such maps, diagrams, illustrations and descriptive matters,
as the Board may deem appropriate for the purpose of
explaining or illustrating the proposals contained in the
Regional Plan and every such man, diagram, illustration and
descriptive matter shall be deemed to be a part of the
Regional Plan.
(2) The Regional Plan shall indicate the manner in which the
land in the National Capital Region shall be used, whether by
carrying out development thereon or by conservation or
otherwise, and such other matters as are likely to have any
important influence on the development of the National
Capital Region and every such Plan shall include the following
elements needed to promote growth and balanced
development of the National Capital Region, namely:-
(a) the policy in relation to land-use and the allocation of
land for different uses ;
(b) the proposals for major urban settlement pattern ;
(c) the proposals for providing suitable economic base for
future growth ;
(d) the proposals regarding transport and communications
including railways and arterial roads serving the NCR ;
(e) the proposals for the supply of drinking water and for
drainage ;
(f) indication of the areas which require immediate
development as "priority areas"; and
(g) such other matters as may be included by the Board with
the concurrence of the participating States and the Union
territory for the proper planning of the growth and balanced
development of the National Capital Region.”
Section 16 of the NCRPB Act, 1985 provides for Preparation of
217
Functional Plans as may be necessary for the proper guidance of the
participating States and of the Union Territory and Section 17 of the NCRPB
Act, 1985 provides for Preparation of Sub-Regional Plans. Each participating
State shall prepare a Sub-Regional Plan for the sub-region within the State.
Sections 16 and 17 are quoted below:
“16. Preparation of Functional Plans.- After the Regional
Plan has come into operation, the Board may prepare with the
assistance of the Committee, as many Functional Plans as may
be necessary for the proper guidance of the participating
States and of the Union territory.
17. Preparation of Sub-Regional Plans.- (1) Each
participating State shall prepare a Sub-Regional Plan for the
subregion within that State and the Union territory shall
prepare a Sub-Regional Plan for the sub-region within the
Union territory.
(2)Each Sub-Regional Plan shall be a written statement
and shall be accompanied by such maps, diagrams,
illustrations and descriptive matters as the participating State
or the Union territory may deem appropriate for the purpose
of explaining or illustrating the proposals contained in such
Sub-Regional Plan and every such map, document, illustration
and descriptive matter shall be deemed to be a part of the
Sub-Regional Plan.
(3)A Sub-Regional Plan may indicate the following
elements to elaborate the Regional Plan at the sub-regional
level namely:-
(a) reservation of areas for specific land-uses which are of the
regional or sub-regional importance ;
(b) future urban and major rural settlements indicating their
area, projected population, predominant economic functions,
approximate site and location ;
(c) road net-work to the district roads and roads connecting
major rural settlements ;
(d) proposals for the co-ordination of traffic and
transportation, including terminal facilities ;
(e) priority areas at sub-regional level for which immediate
plans are necessary ;
(f) proposals for the supply of drinking water and for
drainage ; and
218
(g) any other matter which is necessary for the proper
development of the sub-region.”
Section 19 of the NCRPB Act, 1985 provides for Submissions of Sub-
Regional Plans to the Board to ensure that such Plan is in conformity with the
Regional Plan and Section 20 of the NCRPB Act, 1985 provides for
Implementation of Sub-Regional Plans. etc. Sections 19 and 20 are quoted
below:
“ 19.Submission of Sub-Regional Plans to the Board:-
(1) Before publishing any Sub-Regional Plan, each
participating State or, as the case may be, the Union
territory, shall, refer such Plan to the Board to enable the
Board to ensure that such Plan is in conformity with the
Regional Plan.
(2) The Board shall, after examining a Sub-Regional Plan,
communicate, within sixty days from the date of receipt of
such Plan, its observations with regard to the Sub-Regional
Plan to the participating State or the Union territory by which
such Plan was referred to it.
(3) The participating State, or, as the case may be, the
Union territory, shall, after due consideration of the
observations made by the Board, finalize the Sub-Regional
Plan after ensuring that it is in conformity with the Regional
Plan.
20.Implementation of Sub-Regional Plans, etc.-Each
participating State, or, as the case may be, the Union
territory shall be responsible for the implementation of the
Sub-Regional Plan, as finalized by it under subsection (3) of
section 19, and Project Plans prepared by it.”
Section 27 of the NCRPB Act, 1985 provides for an Act to have
overriding effect and Section 29 of the NCRPB Act, 1985 deals with violation
of Regional Plan. Sections 27 and 29 are quoted below:
“ 27.Act to have overriding effect.-The provisions of this
Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent
therewith contained in any other law for the time being in
force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law
other than this Act; or in any decree or order of any court,
219
tribunal or other authority.
29.Violation of Regional Plan.-(1) On and from the
coming into operation of the finally published Regional Plan,
no development shall be made in the region which is
inconsistent with the Regional Plan as finally published.
(2)Where the Board is satisfied that any participating State
or the Union territory has carried out, any activity which
amounts to a violation of the Regional Plan, it may, by a notice
in writing, direct the concerned participating State or the
Union territory, as the case may be, to stop such violation of
the Regional Plan within such time as may be specified in the
said notice and in case of any omission or refusal on the part
of the concerned participating State or the Union territory to
stop such activity, withhold such financial assistance to the
concerned participating State or the Union territory, as the
Board may consider necessary.”
Section 40 of the NCRPB Act, 1985 deals with Acquisition of land and
determination of rights in relation to land to be made by the Government of
the participating State or Union territory. Section 40 is quoted below:
“ 40. Acquisition of land and determination of rights in
relation to land to be made by the Government of the
participating State or Union territory.- For the removal
of doubts, it is hereby declared that the acquisition of land or
the determination of any right or interest in, or in relation to,
any land or other property, where necessary to give effect to
any Regional Plan, Functional Plan, Sub-Regional Plan or
Project Plan, shall be made by the Government of the
concerned participating State, or, as the case may be, the
Union territory, in accordance with the law for the time being
in force in that State or Union Territory.”
Before we proceed to consider the purpose and objects of the NCRPB
Act, 1985, it is necessary to have a look on the pleadings of the petitioners in
different writ petitions regarding NCRPB Act, 1985.
In Writ Petition No.57032/2009,Manaktala Chemical (Private)
Ltd. Vs. State of U.P.& Ors, filed on 24/10/2009 the petitioners have
impleaded Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority as respondent no.
4 and National Capital Region Planning Board, New Delhi as respondent no.5.
In paragraph 24 following pleading was made which is quoted below:
220
“24. That the land sought to be acquired by impugned
notifications is part of National Capital Region and the
authority responsible for approval of the Master Plan is
respondent No.5. To the best knowledge of the petitioner
company there is no approval of the Master Plan of
respondent No.4 from respondent No.5. As such, acquisition
of land for industrial development without due approval of
respondent No.5 is impermissible. This is sufficient to quash
the impugned notifications.”
However, in Writ Petition No.41339/2011, Ramesh Kumar
Bhagchandka @ Ramesh Chand Bhagchandka Vs. State Of U.P. &
Others, a detail Supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioners on
08/9/2011, in which specific pleadings were made with regard to NCRPB Act,
1985. Following pleadings are made in paragraphs 41 to 45 which are quoted
below:
“41. That a master plan prepared by NOIDA does not have
any approval of the National Capital Regional Planning Board
which is a statutory body constituted under the Act, 1985.
The development proposed by the respondents is, therefore,
contrary to the law and there is no approval by the National
Capital Regional Planning Board.
42. That there is no permission accorded under Section 25
and 27 of the said Act and hence the entire development
conceived by the respondents is illegal and no township can
come into existence without concurrence of the National
Capital Regional Planning Board.
43.That Section 40 of the 1985 Act provides that firstly a
plan will be prepared and if necessary the acquisition will be
done. In the present case firstly the acquisition proceedings
have been undertaken and thereafter the land is sought to
be utilized by allotment to builders for raising construction
that go contrary to the plan. Under such circumstances the
acquisition proposed is totally illegal and is liable to be set
aside.
44. That town of Ghaziabad falls within the National
Capital Region. So far as the development in the town of
Ghaziabad is concerned, the same can take place under the
provisions of National Capital Regional Planning Board Act,
1985 where under a Regional Plan is to be prepared and the
States are to prepare a respective sub-regional plans. The
provisions of National Capital Regional Planning Board Act,
1985 overrides the provisions of any other Act. Moreover,
development in the area falling within the National Capital
Region take place only with prior concurrence of the National
Capital Region Board. The National Capital Regional Planning
221
Board has already prepared regional plan upto 2021. The
same will be produced before this Hon'ble Court at the time
of hearing of the present writ petition.
45. That as per the provisions under the National Capital
Regional Planning Board Act, 1985 no change or amendment
can be done in the Regional plan once it is prepared. The
regional plan 2021 does not cover any Hi-tech township or
development in a similar form. The policy therefore, is hit by
specific provisions of the National Capital Region Planning
Board Act, 1985inasmuch as neither any approval has been
obtained for said policy from the National Capital Region
Board nor the Regional Plan so prepared by the Board
contains any such concept of Hitech Township policy. Thus
the policy as such is contrary to the provisions contained
under the National Capital Regional Planning Board Act,
1985.”
While hearing these writ petitions, we noted the submission made by
the learned counsel for the petitioners that there has been no approval of the
plan by the National Capital Regional Planning Board as required by the
NCRPB Act, 1985. On 14/9/2011 we passed following order:
“Hearing pertaining to village Patwari, including the hearing
of interveners has been concluded. Regarding village Ghodi
Bachhera and village Sakipur hearing has also been
completed.
One of the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that there has been no approval of the plan by
the National Capital Regional Planning Board as required by
National Capital Regional Planning Board Act, 1985. Reliance
has also been placed on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in
Writ Petition (Civil) No.67 of 2007, Jai Prakash Tyagi and
others vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 23.08.2011.
Learned counsel appearing for Greater Noida
Authority may file supplementary counter affidavit explaining
the position.
Hearing in rest of the cases will continue tomorrow at
10 A.M.”
In pursuance of the order of the Court dated 14/9/2011,
supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by Vijay Shankar Mishra sworn
on 20/9/2011.
222
Learned counsel appearing for the Authority Shri Ravindra Kumar has
pleaded that there is no requirement in getting the master plan of the
authority approved by the National Capital Regional Planning Board. Referring
to para 17.5.1 of the Regional Plan 2021, prepared by National Capital Region
Planning Board, it is submitted that it is a local authority which is empowered
to prepare plan for detail land uses within the urbanizable area. In the
Supplementary Affidavit, National Capital Regional Planning Board of
proposed land uses 2011 has been brought on record in which the learned
counsel for the Authority submits that substantial area of Noida and Greater
Noida has been indicated as urbanizable area and it is for the Authority to
prepare a detail land uses plan.
Learned counsel appearing for the Authority Shri Ravindra Kumar has
also placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated
12/11/2010, in Writ Petition No.69432/2009, Natthi Vs. State of U.P.
& Ors, for the proposition that the NCRPB Act, 1985 does not prohibit
acquisition of land before any approval is granted by NCR Board and further
the NCRPB Act, 1985 does not require any prior approval by the Board of the
Master Plan 2021 prepared by the Authority.
The first issue to be dealt is as to whether the plan prepared by
Greater Noida requires consideration and approval of the Board or not.
Reverting to NCRPB Act, 1985, it is to be noted that Sub-Regional
Plans are to be prepared by each participating State and is required to be
submitted to the Board and the Board is required to communicate within 60
days its observation with regard to Sub-Regional Plans and thereafter the
participating State after consideration of the observation is required to finalise
Sub-Regional Plans after ensuring that it is in conformity with the regional
plan and thereafter it can be implemented under Section 20 of the NCRPB
Act,1985. The Sub-Regional Plan has to be in conformity with the Regional
Plan and functional plans.
Section 17 (3) of the NCRPB Act, 1985 requires that the Sub-Regional
Plan may indicate the elements to elaborate the regional plan at the sub-
223
regional level namely:-. (a) reservation of areas for specific land-uses which
are of the regional or sub-regional importance ;and (b) future urban and
major rural settlements indicating their area, projected population,
predominant economic functions, approximate site and location.
Section 7 (b) of the NCRPB Act, 1985 further provides for Functions of
the Board shall include arranging for the preparation of Sub-Regional Plans
and Project Plans by each of the participating States and the Union territory
and Section 19 of the Act, 1985 gives power to the Board to scrutinise Sub-
Regional Plans and issue appropriate directions which are required to be
implemented. It is clear that unless the directions of the Board are
implemented in Sub-Regional Plan, the Sub-Regional Plans cannot be
implemented. The provisions of the NCRPB Act, 1985 thus has to be
interpreted to mean that there is complete control over the Sub-Regional
Plans prepared by the participating State and the mechanism provided is such
that unless the Sub-Regional Plan is completely cleared by the Board, the said
plan can neither be implemented nor can be said to be enforceable.
In this context, it is relevant to refer to the Division Bench judgement
of this Court in Writ Petition No.26737/1993, Ravindra Singh & Ors.
Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (1997) 1 AWC 54 decided on 01/10/1996.
In the said writ petition land acquisition proceedings initiated by the
Greater Noida Authority under the 1976 Act were challenged. One of the issue
which arose for consideration was as to whether under the NCRPB Act, 1985,
the plans prepared by the Greater Noida Authority are required to be
approved.
The Division Bench in the said case has held that unless the National
Capital Region Planning Board gives a green signal nothing can go ahead. The
Court in the said case even called the Chairman of the Greater Noida and
Member Secretary of the Board and when they appeared before the Court it
was informed that the Master Plan has not been submitted to the Board. The
Court adjourned the hearing to enable the authorities to take appropriate
action. Following order was passed on 27/2/1996.
224
“The crucial question which was facing the Court is whether of
every aspect regarding plans for Greater Noida, approval has
been had from the National Capital Region Planning Board.
The Court refers to the different types of plans as are
mentioned in the 'definition' clause of the Act and references
to which are reiterated subsequently in the Act, for review,
approval or consultation with the Board within the meaning of
Section 8, for discussion Under Section 12, for modifications to
be considered Under Section 14, review and revision Under
Section 15 and then preparation of the National Plans, Sub-
Regional Plans and Project Plans under Chapter v within the
meaning of Sections 16, 17, 18 and 20.
One stipulation is inescapable that unless the National Capital
Region Planning Board gives the green signal nothing can go
ahead. The necessary implication of this is also that at every
stage in reference to the plans, aforesaid, each constituent
State as part of the National Capital Region Plan has to keep a
close consultation with, the federal agency which is the Board.
The Petitioners challenge the acquisition of certain areas for
the development of Greater Noida, particularly of village
Tugalpur and Rampur Jagir.
Prima facie upon perusal of the record and upon hearing the
parties, the Court at present is not satisfied that the
contention of either parties can be objectively considered
without the development plans attaining finality without
consultation of the National Capital Region Planning Board.
On behalf of Greater Noida much emphasis was laid on certain
correspondence which was exchanged between the Chairman
of the Greater Noida and the Member Secretary of the Board.
Yesterday after submissions were made by Member Secretary
and today by Counsel for the Board, Mrs. Sheila Sethi it is
clear that the Board had not had an occasion, as of date to
approve any detailed development plan for the simple reason
that these have neither been submitted nor has there been
any occasion for the Board to scrutinise these plans which
have yet to be sent to the Board. In these circumstances and
on the statement which has now come from the National
Capital Region Planning Board the doubts of the Court have
not been unfounded.
The issues which remain in the petition are, to the effect, that
a possibility cannot be ruled out that of the acquisition of land
which have been made, it may be a subject of scrutiny by the
National Capital Region Planning Board and possible the merits
and the purpose of the acquisition may need a revision. The
claim of some of the Petitioners that they have a certificate of
an appropriate authority Under Section 143 of the U.P.
225
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 may not be
of much help because if the conforming use of the area is
agriculture, and the Regional Plan 2001 respects agricultural
areas any diversion from the conforming use to urbanisation
may violate the spirit of Regional Planning 2001.
The question is the scope of these proceeding on a writ of
certiorari by the High Court. One authority whose business it is
to go into these matters has yet to engage its attention to it.
This is the N.C.R.P., an authority specially vested with
functions to discharge Its obligations under the Act. Clearly
before the Court, today, there is no document to verify that
the plans on which the Greater Noida may yet proceed have
the seal of approval by the National Capital Region Planning
Board and this aspect stands confirmed by the submission
which was made on behalf of the Board by its Member
Secretary, yesterday, and its learned Counsel today.
The National Capital Region Planning Act, 1985 Under Section
27 in no uncertain term makes it clear that the provision of
Act, aforesaid, shall have effect notwithstanding any other
law. This implies that the Board while examining this matter
must have absolute discretion notwithstanding that a
notification Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act has
been issued. The Board may thus, examine the Plans of
Greater Noida, In contest, without inhibition and come to an
independent decision while scrutinising plans lot-development
of Greater Noida, suffice it to say that the reservations which
have been provided to the Board Under Section 27 could not
be reservations for a High Court when matters are examined
under a prerogative writ.
Thus, to permit aspects, in context, to be examined by the
Board, the Court adjourns these proceedings for a period of
two months to enable the Board to approve, review, consult,
affirm or confirm the plans which are the subject-matters of
these writ petitions In total freedom notwithstanding that a
notification has been issued for acquisition of land by the State
of Uttar Pradesh or for that matter that these proceedings are
pending before the High Court. The only guidance which this
Court gives to the Board is to give effect to the intentions of
the Act co-coordinating, monitoring and scrutinising the
implementation of the plans and for harmoniously building
urban planning with excellence without disturbing the
ecological balance of nature and by respecting the green
cover, agriculture and not abdicating either in favour of
urbanisation but with a dedicated effort to respect the forests
and strive to retain the balance of nature and ecology and at
every given occasion not loosing the perspective in so far as
the Board it concerned in these matters, of the fundamental
duties as enshrined in Article 51A (g) (h) and (j) read with 48A
of the Constitution of India.”
226
Subsequently, when the matter was heard again by the division
Bench, Court noted the statement of the Chairman of the Greater Noida that
plans were submitted and the process under the Act, 1985 was complete.
The Division Bench further held following in paragraphs 13 and 14 and
ultimately issued direction in paragraph 21 which are quoted below:
13. A very pertinent question arises whether taking recourse
to Section 5A would have been a composite exercise where
the matter would have been examined on whatever the
Petitioners contend as objections not in acquisition
proceedings, but in these writ petitions. There are still many
aspects which need to be sorted out and this cannot be done
as a fact-finding spree in the jurisdiction of prerogative writs.
Not going into this question will also leave a void and
encourage further litigations and bog planned development.
Seeing the totality of the circumstances, in generality, the
Court Is of the view that where planned development has
been undertaken as part of an exercise as a statutory
obligation, the dominant purpose of this planned development
is the National Capital Region. The Petitioners would like to
resist this and prevent their property from being wrested out
of their hands. The Greater Noida does not desire to see
anything beyond the land acquisition proceedings which has
been initiated In Its favour. The State of U.P. has taken no
interest in these proceedings, planning urban development
itself, regard being had to the National Capital Region has
come to stay. The Petitioners cannot dislodge this exercise.
There are certain cardinal principles in executing plans within
the National Capital Region which are sacrosanct. Confirming
uses, whatever they may be, have to be respected. The
Petitioners forgot that their abadi is only consequential to
agriculture and it cannot stay independently so as to lake up
rivalry with planned urban development. Section 143 of the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950,
recognises that within an agricultural holding, there may be a
habitat. Declaring an area as abadi is not in Juxtaposition to
agriculture, it is compatible with it. Thus, the Petitioners
cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings to submit that
for the abadi which the Greater Noida will develop, they also
are entitled a proprietary right in the abadi which has been
declared by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in their favour
Under Section 143. The Greater Noida is developing the
region as a consequential aspect of preventing the
construction and asphyxiation of Delhi. Except that this
exercise has a method In Its madness. Delhi cannot be
contained and yet it cannot eat up, as a routine the sprawl of
227
what lies in its hinterland.
14. But, if agriculture and forestry is a recognised conforming
use and it is to be protected and there are several references
to this aspect in the report referred to in the order of 27
February, 1996, entitled Urban Plan 2001, itself an off-shoot
directly of the Greater Noida under the U.P. Industrial Areas
Development Act, 1976, and indirectly of the National Capital
Regional Planning Act, 1985, then, the spirit of the sanctity
given to these areas, as greens, forests and agriculture, is to
be respected. These areas were not meant to disappear, but
protected with bias towards increasing them. The constitution
says so.
21. Thus, to remove doubts and further to ensure that
planning of the National Capital Region is not jeopardised nor
any conforming uses which have been given sanctity within it
and further to eliminate racketeering in real estate, let the
State Government appoint an officer In the rank of Secretary
to the Government, State of U.P., to enquire and ensure
certain aspects of:
(a) Conforming uses as are part of the National Capital
Region, the plans having been approved by the National
Capital Region Planning Board are given their due sanctity
and respect without compromising on them notwithstanding
that industry is being developed.
..............”
The aforesaid Division Bench judgment clearly indicates that the
Greater Noida Authority was well aware that the master plan prepared by it is
required to be submitted and approved by the Board. Thus, the submission of
Shri Ravindra Kumar appearing for the Authority that no approval is required
from the Board does not appear to be correct.
In the Supplementary Counter Affidavit which has been filed by the
Authority on 20/9/2011, it has been stated that the master plan 2021 was
approved by the Authority on 09/11/2001 and was submitted to the National
Capital Regional Planning Board. It was also stated in the affidavit that minor
suggestions of the Board which do not at all relate to the land uses
were also incorporated.
Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Supplementary Counter Affidavit are
228
quoted below:
“6.That, without prejudice to what is submitted in para 5
above, it is further submitted that the Greater Noida
Industrial Development Authority was constituted on
28.1.1991 and the Development Plan, 2001 was prepared in
the year 1991-92 by the School of Planning and Architecture.
This Plan was approved by the Greater Noida Authority on
4.2.1992. The said plan, though not required under the law,
was also sent to the by National Capital Regional Planning
Board, which Board on 01.10.1992 formally approved the
same. Subsequently, in the year 2001, the Master Plan,
2021was prepared and approved by the Authority in its 40
th
meeting. Public objections were invited and the final
approval was granted by the Authority on 09.11.2001. As
stated earlier, this plan was also submitted to the National
Capital Regional Planning Board. The minor suggestions of
the NCRPB, which do not at all relate to the land use were
also incorporated. This plan was approved by the State
Government. Under the Plan Regulations, it is the Authority
which not only formulates the Plan but is also authorised and
empowered to effect changes therein. It is reiterated that
the Metro centre of Greater Noida and Noida have clearly
been demarcated in the NCR Plan-2021 but the land use
within the area of the Authority is to be demarcated fixed by
the Authority concerned.
7.That, Development Plan of the respondent Authority
has been duly published and is a public document. It is
incorrect on the part of the petitioners to state that there is
no Development Plan made by the GNIDA. It is wholly
incorrect on the part of the petitioners to allege that the city
of Greater Noida has no approval of the National Capital
Regional Planning Board. Further legal submissions with
regard to the provisions of law shall be advanced at the time
of hearing.
8.That after the acquisition, the land was developed
and demarcated in accordance with the Master Plan-2021
has been clearly stated in the Counter Affidavit filed on
behalf of the Authority. The petitioners ought to have
pointed out this while making (an incorrect) submission that
there is no plan. It is clarified that land use is fixed
sectorwise and not village wise. Therefore, the land use
percentage is taken of the city as a whole and not village
wise. The village boundaries, for the purpose of planning
and its implementation looses its colour as the Development
is done as per the demarcated sector.”
While hearing all the matters by our order dated 22/9/2011 following
229
order was passed:
“Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that although
the original records of the State Government have been
directed to be produced but since no orders have been
passed for producing the original records of the authority,
hence an appropriate order may be passed so that original
records may be available for perusal of the Court. In view of
the aforesaid,we direct that Greater NOIDA authority/ NOIDA
authority shall also produce original records pertaining to the
decisions taken by the authority, preparation of plan as per
1991 Regulations and the various allotments made in
different villages with regard to which land has been
acquired.”
Authority in pursuance of the aforesaid directions has submitted
original records being File No.M-II,V and VI Planning and Architecture.
The Booklet of Regional Plan-2021 (Published in September 2005 of
National Capital Regional Planning Board) has also been submitted by Shri
Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Authority.
Before we refer to the original files of Planning and Architecture
submitted by Noida Authority, it is useful to refer to certain features of
Regional Plan-2021.
Part 17 of the Book contains Regional Land uses. It is relevant to note
that National Capital Regional Planning Board has relied on two Division
Bench judgments of this Court which were dealt with regard to Planning and
Development and the Division Bench judgments noticed by the Board was to
the following effect:-
“Land uses cannot be changed except with the tacit
permission and close scrutiny of the National Capital Regional
Planning Board.”
Paragraph 17.1.2 of the chapter is quoted below:
“17.1.2 Legal Status of Regional Land Use
The Regional Plan-2001 of NCR was prepared with
the active participation, inputs and guidance by the
230
concerned Central Ministries and participating State
Governments through their departmental experts, and was
approved on November 3, 1988. This Plan came into force
from January 23, 1989. The actual implementation of the
Regional Plan policies is being undertaken by the concerned
Central Ministries and participating State Governments
through their various departments.
The Allahabad High Court, while going through the
various Plan-enabling provisions under the NCRPB Act, 1985,
considered the Regional Plan a major instrument of
development. In a judgment dated 18.12.1998 in the Civil
Misc. Petition No.13899 of 1998, it observed:
“The National Capital Region Plan Act, 1985 is a
central legislation. The intention of this central legislation is
to decongest Delhi, and yet retain the conforming uses of
agriculture and greens, and to harmoniously coordinate and
monitor industry and urbanisation without compromising
with the conforming area and usage..........”
“...........land uses cannot be changed except with the
tacit permission and close scrutiny of the National Capital
Region Planning Board.....Development of industry or
urbanisation by purchase of land reserved for conforming
uses of agriculture, forests or greens within the area
eclipsed by the National Capital Region, is prohibited.
whatever development is permissible must be strictly
monitored under the National Capital Region Plan Act, 1985
by the authorities named ad constituted under it.”
In the judgment dated 01.10.1996 in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No.26737 of 1993, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court
observed:
“.....One stipulation is inescapable that unless the
National Capital Region Planning Board gives the green
signal nothing can go ahead. The necessary implication of
this is also that at every stage in reference to the plans,
aforesaid, constituent State a part of the National Capital
Region Plan has to keep a close consultation with, the
federal agency which is the Board.........”
“........Thus, to permit aspects, in context, to be
examined by the Board, the Court adjourns these
proceedings for a period of two months to enable the Board
to approve, review, consult, affirm or confirm the plans
which are the subject-matters of these writ petitions in total
freedom notwithstanding that a notification has been issued
for acquisition of land by the State of Uttar Pradesh or for
that matter that these proceedings are pending before the
High Court. The only guidance which this Court gives to the
Board is to give effect to the intentions of the Act co-
231
coordinating, monitoring and scrutinising the implementation
of the plans and for harmoniously building urban planning
with excellence without disturbing the ecological balance of
nature and by respecting the green cover, agriculture and
not abdicating either in favour of urbanisation but with a
dedicated effort to respect the forests and strive to retain
the balance of nature and ecology and at every given
occasion not loosing the perspective in so far as the Board it
concerned in these matters, of the fundamental duties as
enshrined in Article 51A (g) (h) and (j) read with 48A of the
Constitution of India............”
At this juncture, it is also relevant to consider the relevant paragraph
which has been referred to by Shri Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel
appearing for the authority claiming that the land use according to the Master
Plan is in the domain of the Authority itself which have been left free in this
regard.
Paragraphs 17.5 and 17.5.1 (a) which are relevant are quoted below:
“17.5 ZONING REGULATIONS
Keeping in view rapid urbanisation, environmental
degradation and to ensure orderly development in the
region, a legislative tool in the form of Zoning Regulation is
required. In view of this, four broad zones have been
identified for application of strict land use control ad
development and enabling preparation for detailed Plans
such as Sub-regional/Master/Local Area Plans. The
elaboration of the land use details and zoning regulations
would be incorporated in the Sub-regional Plans ad
Mas/Development Plans by the respective State
Governments. Four broad zones and major activities/uses
permitted in these zones are given below:
17.5.1 Controlled/Development/Regulated Zone
(a) Urbanisable Areas (including existing built-
up/urban areas)
Within the urbanisable area proposed in the
Master/Development Plan of the respective town, the
functions and uses designated as under be continued:
i)Residential
ii) Commercial
iii) Industrial
232
iv) Government offices, public and semi-public
v) Recreational
vi) Utility Services
vii) Transport and communications
viii) Open spaces, parks and playgrounds
ix) Graveyards/cemeteries and burning ghats
x) Man-made heritage areas
xi) Natural heritage areas/eco-sensitive areas/
conservation areas
The local authority according to the prescribes uses in
the Master/Development Plans will govern detailed land uses
within the urbanisable area. The Master/Development Plans
of all the towns will be prepared within the framework of the
Regional Plan-2021 and Sub-regional Plans. In case any
amendment is required in the acts to implement the policies
of Regional Plan-2021 that be done by the respective State
Governments appropriately”.
The Regional Plan-2021 approved and notified on 17.9.2005 contains
provision for keeping strict control over the land use. Paragraph 17.5.1 which
has been referred to by Shri Ravindra Kumar, cannot be read to mean that
with regard to land uses in the area the Authority/State Government is free to
fix land use, the land uses have to be in accordance with the Regional Plan
and Sub-Regional Plan. Thus, the submission of Shri Ravindra Kumar, that
the authority is free to determine and change the land uses within the
development area cannot be accepted.
At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Apex
court in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Delhi Auto & General
Finance Private Ltd, (1994) 4 SCC 42.
In the aforesaid case, the master plan was prepared by the GDA under
the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 in which land uses of the
area in question was recreational. The said land uses was changed by the
GDA as 'residential' at the instance of the State Government. Subsequently,
within a short span of time it was again changed as recreational. The
respondents Delhi Auto and General Finance Ltd, had submitted a plan which
233
was rejected by the GDA. Writ petitions were filed in the High Court claiming
that the rejection was arbitrary. The High Court allowed the writ petition filed
by the respondents. Against the order of the GDA an appeal was filed before
the Apex Court. In the above context the provisions of the NCRPB Act, 1985
came up for consideration before the Apex Court. In the Master Plan which
was approved by the NCR Board, the land uses was recreational.
The Supreme Court in the aforesaid context stated that the change of
land uses from recreational to residential cannot confer any right. It was
further held that each participating State is under obligation to prepare Sub-
Regional Plan and is responsible to implement the Sub-Regional Plan.
Following was laid down in paragraph 16 which is quoted below:
“16. The four villages in question in which the lands of Delhi
Auto and Maha Maya are situate form part of the U.P. Sub-
Region of the National Capital Region. In the Master Plan of
1986 operative till 2001 A.D.(An-nexure I) the lands of Delhi
Auto and Maha Maya are included in the area set apart for
'recreational' use only. On this basis the Regional Plan was
prepared and approved under the NCR Act on 3.11.1988 and
finally published thereunder on 23.1.1989 according to which
the area in question was set apart for 'recreational' use only.
Admittedly no change in this Regional Plan to alter the land
use of that area to 'residential' purpose was made any time
thereafter in accordance with the provisions of NCR Act. The
overriding effect of the NCR Act by virtue of Section 27
therein and the prohibition against violation of Regional Plan
contained in Section 29 of the Act, totally excludes the land
use of that area for any purpose inconsistent with that shown
in the published Regional Plan. Obviously, the permissible
land use according to the published Regional Plan in
operation throughout, of the area in question, was only
'recreational' and not residential since no change was ever
made in the published Regional Plan of the original land use
shown therein as 'recreational'. This being the situation by
virtue of the overriding effect of the provisions of NCR Act,
the amendment of land use in the Master Plan under U.P. Act
from 'recreational' to 'residential' at an intermediate stage,
which is the main foundation of the respondents' claim,
cannot confer any enforceable right in them. However, if the
first amendment in the Master Plan under the U.P. Act
altering the land use for the area from 'recreational' to
'residential' be valid, so also is the next amendment reverting
to the original land use, i.e., recreational'. Intervening facts
relating to the private colonisers described as planning
commitments, investments, and legitimate expectations do
234
not have the effect of inhibiting the exercise of statutory
power under the U.P. Act which is in consonance with the
provisions of the NCR Act, which also has overriding effect
and lays down the obligation to each participating State to
prepare a Sub-Regional Plan to elaborate the Regional Plan
at the Sub-Regional level and holds the concerned State
responsible for the implementation of the Sub-Regional Plan.
The original land use of the area shown as 'recreational' at
the time of approval and publication of the Regional Plan
under the NCR Act having remained unaltered thereafter,
that alone is sufficient to negative the claim of Delhi Auto
and Maha Maya for permission to make an inconsistent land
user within that area.”
As noticed above, in the Supplementary Affidavit which was filed by the
Authority in pursuance of the direction of this Court to explain its stand under
the 1985, Act in which the fact mentioned was that 2021-Plan has been
submitted to the Board and certain minor suggestions of the of the Board
which do not relate to land use were incorporated. In this context, it is also
useful to refer to the pleading of the Authority in Writ Petition
No.57032/2009, Manaktala Chemical (Private) Ltd. Vs. State of
U.P.& Ors.
As noticed above, in the aforesaid writ petition there was a specific
pleading that no approval has been obtained from the Board.
In paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit filed by the Authority following
was observed which is quoted below:
“12.That the contents of Para 24 of the writ petition are not
admitted hence specifically denied. It is submitted that the
National Capital Regional Planning Board Act, 1985
(hereafter referred to as the Act 1985) does not prohibit the
acquisition before its permission for acquisition. There is no
provision in the Act 1985, which requires that if the State
Government acquires the land prior permission should be
taken. Both the Acts 1985 and 1894 operate in different
fields. the Act 1894 is not dependant upon the Act 1985. The
acquisition proceedings will not be vitiated if prior approval
of the Board under the Act 1985 has not been taken before
the acquisition. Any development on the land acquired will
have to be done in accordance with law. However The
notification has been issued under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894. The National Capital Region Planning Board Act 1985
235
does not prohibit, the acquisition of land. Nor any permission
is required for acquisition of land. The National Capital
Region Planning Board Act 1985 is to give suggestions and
observations on the Master Plan, Sub regional plan, which
are incorporated by the Greater Noida Authority from time to
time according to the Drafted Master Plan. It is further
clarified, the Section 19 of the Act 1985, clearly shows that is
for regarding the observations and suggestions. The paper
clip and relevant documents showing the letters and
correspondence with the National Capital Region Planning
Board is collectively being marked as Annexure CA-2 to
this Counter Affidavit.”
In the aforesaid counter affidavit, the Authority itself has brought on
record the letter dated 09/5/2007 of the National Capital Region Planning
Board in context of draft of Greater Noida Master Plan 2021. In the said letter
following was directed:
“To
Ms. Rekha Devyani
General Manager (Planning)
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority,
169,Chitvan Estate, Sector Gamma, Greator Noida
City, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar-201308.
Madam,
Please refer to your letter No.Niyojan/M-
I(iv)/2007/479 dated 2.2.2007 regarding the draft Greater
Noida Master Plan 2021. the point wise replies on the
observations and suggestions of Planning Committee have
been examined. It is observed that certain suggestions of
NCRPB have not been incorporated which is enclosed.
It is requested that the suggestions of NCRPB may be
incorporated in the draft Greater Noida Master Plan-2021 and
revised Plan document may be sent to the Board at the
earliest for consideration of Planning Committee.
Yours faithfully 9/5/07
(Rajeev Malhotra)
Chief Regional Planner”
The proceeding of 54
th
meeting of the Planning Committee of NCR
Planning Board held on 04/9/2006, was forwarded to Greater Noida
containing several observations and directions of Planning Board. In the
counter affidavit letter dated 02/2/2007 has been brought on record by which
236
a request was made on behalf of the Greater Noida Authority that
observations have been incorporated and on the basis of the amendment as
approved on 21/12/2006, by the Authority approval of Board be obtained. In
none of the pleadings on behalf of the authority any subsequent event has
been referred to or dealt with. The original proceedings which were submitted
by the Authority for our perusal contains the developments which took place
subsequent to 09/2/2007, which we have noticed from the original records
submitted by the Authority itself. Following facts emerged from the original
records:
25/10/2007-Additional Chief Executive Officer of the Greater Noida wrote to
the State Government that amendments have been incorporated in Draft
Master Plan 2021 in Board Meeting 21/8/2007 which after approval be
forwarded to N.C.R.P Board for approval.
14/1/2008- Board requested the Greater Noida Authority for finalisation of
Master Plan for Phase-II.
14/2/2009-N.C.R.P. Board wrote to Greater Noida to send Master Plan for
Phase II and updated proposed Land use plan 2021 be sent to Board.
13/5/2009-Board wrote to the Greater Noida that inspite of several
reminders, no response has been received from Greater Noida with regard to
Draft Master Plan-2021. (Phase II).
27/5/2009-State Government forwarded the letter of the Board dated
13/5/2009, to the Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida for compliance.
16/6/2009-The State Government wrote to the Board forwarding letter
dated 21/5/2009 of the Greater Noida Authority for examining the
amendments passed in 76
th
meeting and to include in the Master Plan 2021.
25/6/2009-Board again wrote to the Greater Noida to submit all details with
regard to change of land use as taken in the 76
th
Board meeting along with all
details necessity of change of land use to the Board.
237
29/12/2009-Meeting of the Planning Committee was held in which the draft
master plan for Greater Noida 2021 and following conclusion was recorded by
the Board. “After detailed deliberation, it was decided that the Commissioner,
NCR Cell, U.P. will interact with the Greater Noida Authority and ensure that
the observations of the Planning Committee are incorporated in the draft
master plan for Greater Noida Phase-I and Phase-II before submitting the
master Plan to the NCR Planning Board for consideration”.
06/8/2010-The Divisional Commissioner NCR Planning Board and
Monitoring Cell as well as the Chief Executive Officer of the Greater Noida
Industrial Development were requested to submit status preparation of draft
master plan for Greater Noida-2021 and incorporation of the observations of
the Planning Committee may be intimated to the NCR Planning board.
26/5/2011-The State Government wrote to Chief Co-ordinate Planner NCR
Planning Board, Ghaziabad forwarding the letter dated 08/4/2011, to
incorporate the proposed amendment in the Master Plan 2021 which may be
included in the Master Plan of the Greater Noida-2021.
09/6/2011-The Board wrote to the State Government referring to its earlier
letter dated 11/8/2010, to take further steps towards incorporation of
observations of Board dated 04/9/2006.
17/6/2011-The State Government wrote to Greater Noida to take
appropriate action as per letter dated 09/6/2011 of N.C.R.P. Board.
From the aforesaid facts, as is revealed from the original records
submitted by the Authority it is clear that the draft Master Plan 2021 of the
Greater Noida has not yet received clearance from the board.
We, however, are constraint to observe that in spite of our order to the
Authority passed on 14/9/2011, to file affidavit giving details pertaining to
NCRPB Act, 1985, in the Supplementary Affidavit dated 20/9/2011, all above
mentioned facts were concealed from the Court which the original records
238
have revealed. The issue pertaining to compliance of NCRPB Act, 1985 being
germane and relevant, the Noida Authority was obliged to place all relevant
facts before the Court. Concealment of facts by the Authority is with the
intent and object to cover its lapses and to conceal the fact that its Master
Plan 2021 has not yet been cleared by N.C.R.P. Board. In the counter affidavit
the Authority has come up with the case that according to Master Plan 2021,
it has carried out developments. Petitioners have also stated in their affidavit
and pleadings that the authority has made allotment to various builders after
effecting land use changes. The magnitude to which the land use which was
earlier proposed in the Master Plan 2021 and has been changed by the
Authority subsequent to the approval of the said Master Plan by the Authority
is clearly depicted in the letter dated 30/3/2010 of the State Government by
which the State Government has accorded approval to the change of land use
as prayed for by the Authority.
Letter dated 30/3/2010, has not been brought on record by the
Authority but has been brought on record in the intervention application filed
on behalf of the Developers Association. A perusal of the said letter indicates
that 900 Hectares of land which was earlier marked as industrial was
changed and out of 900 Hectares of land 608.94 Hectares of land has been
converted for residential purposes, the various land uses which were for
recreation/green area were also changed. The issue is not that the Authority
cannot recommend any change in its proposed Master Plan or its land use ,
but the question is as to whether the said change in land use is in accordance
with the regional Plan and Functional plan of the Board which issue is to be
examined by the Board and unless the Board gives clearance and approves
such changes, the Authority cannot proceed with the development of land or
allotment of land to various private persons and companies.
In the present case, although the draft Master Plan-2021 prepared by
Greater Noida Authority is yet to be cleared by the Board, but the Authority is
proceeding to carry on development including allotments and creating 3
rd
Party rights which is nothing but a brazen act of the Authority in complete
violation of the provisions of the NCRPB Act, 1985.
239
The sequence of events suggests that the Authority is not acting
bonafide and has been acting to achieve certain ulterior motives and objects
which are not far to seek.
We have already noticed that the Division Bench of this Court in
Ravindra Singh's case (supra) has already directed the State Government to
appoint an Officer of the rank of Secretary to the Government to inquire and
ensure conforming uses of the National Capital Region and they are given
their due sanctity.
There does not appear to have any serious deliberation at the State
Level to find out whether the changes in the land uses as proposed by the
Authority are in conformity with the NCRPB Act, 1985.
The State as well as the Authority and interveners have made much
emphasis on the submission that the change of land use was subsequent to
acquisition, the allotment to various private parties/companies were much
after acquisition which shall have no effect on the acquisition of land and the
relevant time is the date of issue of notification under Section Section 4 read
with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) and Section 6 of the Act, 1894. We are of the
view that since the allegations of the petitioners are that the Authority is
proceeding with the land acquisition malafide without their being any genuine
urgency or need for land and there is colourable exercise of power, the said
facts even though are subsequent to the land acquisition notifications under
Sections 4 and 6 are relevant. Thus the submission of the respondents that
subsequent events have no bearing has to be rejected.
The Apex Court in a recent judgment in Devender Kumar Tyagi &
Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, 2011 (8) ADJ 173, had an occasion to
consider the provisions of the NCRPB Act, 1985 in context of Land Acquisition.
In the aforesaid case, notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the
Act, were challenged by the land owners and one of the ground taken was
that the land which was acquired for planned development of the Leather
City Project did not have approval of the Board under Section 19, hence the
240
acquisition was liable to be struck down on the said ground also.
In the said case the the Board has issued draft Sub-Regional Plan
whereas the leather city project was not mentioned. The Authority in that
case made several request to the Board to include the leather city project, but
no reply was given approving the request. In the said context the acquisition
was held to be vitiated. Paragraphs 20 and 23 are relevant which are quoted
below:
“20. Admittedly, the Respondents had not obtained the
approval of the NCRPB for construction of the Leather City
Project as Sub-regional plan in terms of Section 19(2) of the
NCRPB Act. The purpose or aim of the NCRPB Act is to
provide for co-ordinated, harmonized and common plan
development of the National Capital Region at the central
level in order to avoid haphazard development of
infrastructure and land uses in the said region, which
includes the district of Ghaziabad in the Uttar Pradesh. Under
this Act, the NCRPB has been constituted with the Union
Minister for Urban Development as the Chairperson and the
Chief Ministers of Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh and
Lt. Governor of Delhi as its members in order to undertake
the task of development of the National Capital Region. The
object of the NCRPB is to prepare, modify, revise and review
a regional and functional plan for the development of said
region and, further, to co-ordinate and monitor its
implementation. Section 19(1) mandates the State
government or Union Territory to submit their sub-regional
plan to the NCRPB for examination in order to ensure that it
is in conformity with the regional plan. Once the NCRPB
affirms the conformity of the said plan with regional plan,
only then the State government can finalize it. Thereafter,
the State Government is entitled to implement the Sub-
regional plan by virtue of Section 20 of the NCRPB Act. In
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India : (2004) 6 SCC 588, this Court
has discussed the purpose and overriding effect of the
NRCPB Act thus:
27. The National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985 (for
short "the NCR Act") was enacted to provide for the
constitution of a Planning Board for the preparation of a plan
for the development of the National Capital Region and for
coordinating and monitoring the implementation of such plan
and for evolving harmonised policies for the control of land
uses and development of infrastructure in the National Capital
Region so as to avoid any haphazard development of that
region and for matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto. The areas within the National Capital Region are
241
specified in the Schedule to the NCR Act. The National Capital
Region comprises the area of entire Delhi, certain districts of
Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan as provided in the
Schedule. "Regional plan" as provided in Section 2(j) means
the plan prepared under the NCR Act for development of the
National Capital Region and for the control of land uses and
the development of infrastructure in the National Capital
Region. What the regional plan shall contain is provided in
Section 10. Section 10(2) provides that the regional plan shall
indicate the manner in which the land in the National Capital
Region shall be used, whether by carrying out development
thereon or by conservation or otherwise, and such other
matters as are likely to have any important influence on the
development of the National Capital Region....
28. Section 27 provides that the provisions of the NCR Act
shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent
therewith contained in any other law for the time being in
force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law
other than the NCR Act; or in any decree or order of any court,
tribunal or other authority.
23. In the facts and circumstances of the present
case, the Respondents, vide its resolution dated 19.04.2005,
had authorized the NCRPB to prepare Sub-regional plan of
construction of the Leather City Project at Hapur in the
district of Ghaziabad for the HPDA. Subsequently, the NCRPB
issued a draft Sub-regional plan, wherein the Leather City
Project was not mentioned. The Respondents had made
several requests to NCRPB to include Leather City Project but
No. reply granting approval has come in terms of Section
19(2) of the NCRPB Act. Section 19 of the NCRPB Act
contemplates the grant of approval by the NRCPB, and
finalization by the State Government, of the Sub-Regional
Plan if it is in consonance and consistent with the Regional
Plan for the National Capital Region. Furthermore, Section 29
of the NCRPB Act contemplates that the State Government
shall not undertake any development activity, which is
inconsistent with the Regional Plan for the National Capital
Regional. Also, Section 27 of the NCRPB Act has overriding
effect on any other inconsistent law or instrument. The
overall scheme of the NCRPB Act contemplates common plan,
coordination and harmony in the formulation of policy of land
uses and development of infrastructure in the National
Capital Region. Therefore, in our opinion, the acquisition of
land in the absence of express approval in terms of Section
19 and operation of Section 27 of the LA Act renders the
entire acquisition proceedings illegal and hence vitiated.”
Shri Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Authority
sought to distinguish the above judgment stating that the Authority in the
242
said case had passed a resolution authorising the NCRP Board to prepare the
Sub-Regional Plan for construction of Leather Project at Hapur, hence the said
case is distinguishable since in the present case Greater Noida Authority has
not passed any such resolution. The above submission is misconceived. The
preparation of “Sub-Regional Plan and approval by the NCRP Board is not at
the option of the Authority, rather it is the obligation under the Statute. More
so, from the facts as noticed above, it is clear that the Authority vide its
resolution approving the various amendment in the draft Master Plan-2021
and the State Government through its letters as noted above had requested
the NCRP Board to grant approval to draft Master Plan-2021 as amended and
the State Government after approving proposed amendments had forwarded
the draft Master Plan 2021 sent by Greater Noida Authority to the N.C.R.P.
Board for its inclusion in the Master Plan 2021, which is clearly a request for
approval of Master Plan 2021. Thus, the distinction as drawn by Shri
Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the Authority is non-existent.
Furthermore, when the Authority and the State Government are forwarding
Draft Master Plan 2021 to the N.C.R.P. Board for approval and subsequently
again forwarded the Master Plan 2021 after incorporating amendments
pertaining to land use to the N.C.R.P. Board for approval as noted above, it is
not open for the Authority to contend before us that the Master Plan 2021
framed by it needs no approval from N.C.R.P. Board.
Now, the provisions of Section 40 of the NCRPB Act,1985 needs to be
considered.
Section 40 of the NCRPB Act, 1985 provides that Acquisition of land
shall be made by the Government of the concerned participating State where
necessary to give effect to any Regional Plan, Functional Plan, Sub-Regional
Plan or Project Plan.
Section 40 of the NCRPB Act, 1985 has to be interpreted in a manner
so as to promote the object of the Act. When the land use in the NCR Region
is controlled by various plans as contemplated by the NCRPB Act, 1985 the
acquisition of land has also to be in line and conformity with the aforesaid Act,
1985. This can be illustrated by giving a small example i.e. supposing an area
243
in the NCR is reserved for agricultural use and actual agricultural is taking
place in the said area, any exercise by the Authority to acquire land for
residential purpose shall be simply prohibited. The Authority in the present
cases have indiscriminately proceeded to acquire the land in the name of
Planned Industrial Development. In event where agriculture is the reserved
purpose acquiring the land of the agriculturist shall be with no object since
the Authority itself shall not carry on agriculture and there shall be no purpose
to create hindrance in the right of the agriculturists to carry on their
agriculture in the said area.
At this juncture, it is also to be noted that in the Regional Plan-2021,
the NCRP Board has expressed concern and alarm on conversion of
agricultural land to other uses indiscriminately. The Board in paragraph
17.3.1. has noticed large scale conversion of agricultural land to non-
agricultural land. It is useful to quote paragraph 17.3.1:
“17.3.1. Large-scale Conversion of Agricultural
Land to Non-Agricultural Use.
The land use analysis indicates that from 1986 to
1999, the land under agriculture shrank by 8.12% i.e., from
87.64% to 79.52%. This drop of 8.12% is considerable when
compared with the proposed drop of only 3.8% (87.64% to
83.84%) stated in Regional Plan-2001. This has resulted not
only into over-conversion of agriculture into non-agriculture
land but also non-conformity with the proposed settlement
pattern of the Regional Plan-2001.”
Section 40 of the NCRPB Act, 1985 as noticed above has to be given
some meaning and purpose. Section 40 of the Act, 1985 has to be read as a
precondition for participating State to acquire the land, condition being that
acquisition be made in NCR only to give effect to any regional, functional plan,
sub-regional plan or project plan framed under the 1985 Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that according to the
judgments of the Apex Court in Aflatoon & Ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi
& Ors., (1975) 4 SCC 285 and Bhagat Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors,
(1999) 2 SCC 384, even if there is no plan prepared or the land use as per
the existing plan is different there is no restraint on the Authority to acquire
244
the land.
It is useful to quote paragraph 23 of the judgment in the case
Aflatoon & Ors. (supra) :
“23. The planned development of Delhi had been decided
upon by the Govt. before 1959, viz., even before the Delhi
Development Act came into force. It is true that there could
be no planned development of Delhi except in accordance
with the provisions of Delhi Development Act after that Act
came into force but there was no inhibition in acquiring land
for planned development of Delhi under the Act before the
Master Plan was ready (see the decision in Patna
Improvement Trust v. Smt. Lakshmi Devi).
In other words, the fact that actual development is
permissible in an area other than a development area with
the approval or sanction of the local authority did not
preclude the Central Govt. from acquiring the land for
planned development under the Acts. Section 12 is
concerned only with the planned development. It has
nothing to do with acquisition of property-, acquisition
generally precedes development. For planned development
in an area other than a development area, it is only
necessary to obtain the sanction or approval of the local
authority as provided in sec. 12(3). The Central Govt. could
acquire any property under the Act and develop it after
Obtaining the approval of the local authority. As already held
the appellants and the writ petitioners cannot be allowed to
challenge the validity of notification under Section 4 on the
ground of laches and acquiescence. The plea that the Chief
Commissioner of Delhi had no authority to initiate the
proceedings for acquisition by issuing the notification under
Section 4 of the Act as Section 15 of the Delhi Development
Act gives that power only to the Central Govt. relates
primarily to the validity of the notification. Even assuming
that the Chief Commissioner was not so authorized, since the
appellants and the writ petitioners are precluded by their
laches and acquiescence from questioning the, notification,
the plea must be negatived and we do so.”
It is useful to quote paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Bhagat Singh's
case (supra):
“19. The next question relates to the contention of the
appellants that under the Master Plan for Agra City, the land
of the appellants which is proposed for acquisition is in an
area where the permitted use is for 'light industries' and
245
therefore it will not be permissible to use the acquired land
for purposes of a market Yard. It is pointed out that, in fact,
later on the permitted use was modified and the land is now
shown as 'green belt'. On the other hand, it is submitted for
the respondents that if the land is proved to have been
acquired for a valid public purpose, then the beneficiary of
the land acquisition can later on move the authority
concerned for change of land use.
20. An analogous issue arose in the case Aflatoon v. Lt.
Governor of Delhi. In that case a notification was issued
Under Section 4(1) of the Act for acquisition of a vast extent
of land for the planned development of Delhi. The said
acquisition was questioned. On of the contentions was that
for such a purpose, development, action had to be taken
only under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and that too by
the Chief Commissioner of Delhi under that Act and not by
the Central Government under the Land Acquisition Act. It
was there argued that inasmuch as there was no Master Plan
nor Zonal Plan in existence on the date of notification, the
acquisition was bad. This Court rejected objection raised by
the owners and observed, after referring to Sections 12 and
15 of the Delhi Development Act. 1957, as follows (para 23):
"23.The planned development of Delhi had been decided
upon by the Government before 1959, viz., even before the
Delhi Development Act came into force. It is true that there
could be no planned development of Delhi except in
accordance with the provisions of the Delhi Development Act
after that Act came into force but there is no inhibition in
acquiring land for planned development of Delhi under the
act before the Master Plan was ready. (See the decision in
Patna Improvement Trust v. Smt. Lakshmi Devi, [1963]
Suppl. 2 SCR 312). In Other Words, the fact that actual
development is permissible in an area other than a
development area with the approval of sanction of the local
authority did not preclude the Central Government from
acquiring the land for planned development under the Act.
Section 12 is concerned only with the planned development.
It has nothing to do with acquisition of property; acquisition
generally precedes development."
This Court observed :(para 23)
"For planned development in an area other than a
development area, it is only necessary to obtain the sanction
or approval of the local authority as provided in Section
12(3). The Central Government could acquire any property
under the Act and develop it after obtaining the approval of
the local authority. "
246
There cannot be any dispute to the proposition as laid down by the
Apex Curt in the aforesaid cases. It is however, relevant to note that when
the case of Aflatoon was delivered the NCRPB Act, 1985 was not enacted
and in the case Bhagat Singh's case (supra) also the Court had no occasion
to consider Section 40 of the NCRPB Act, 1985. Even if it is accepted that
there is no prohibition on the right of the State to acquire the land for planned
industrial development, in N.C.R. the proceeding of acquisition has to take
place keeping in view the purpose and object of Section 40 of the Act, 1985.
The Division Bench judgment in Natthi’s case (supra) (in which one of
us Ashok Bhushan,J was also a party) although observed that the provisions
of the 1985 Act does not require any prior approval by the Board but the
earlier Division Bench judgment in Ravindra Kumar’s case (supra), which
had categorically held that without clearance from Board the Authority cannot
proceed with the matter, was not brought into the notice of the Division
Bench nor had been referred to. The view taken by Division Bench judgment
in Natthi’s case that no approval is required of N.C.R.P. Board cannot be
approved, in view of our observations and discussion as made above. Another
Division Bench of this Court had considered the issue as to whether the
Master Plan 2021 of the Greater NOIDA had approval of the Board under the
1985 Act in the case of Sri Ram Chaudhary etc. vs. M/s Technology
Park and others reported in 2010(7) ADJ 172. In the said case acquisition
was also challenged pertaining of a village of Greater NOIDA, which was
initiated by Section 4 notification dated 10
th
April, 2006 and Section 6
notification dated 30
th
November, 2008. One of the issues raised was that
Master Plan 2021 of Greater NOIDA (which is being relief by the respondents
in the present bunch of writ petitions) had not been approved by the Board.
The Division Bench noted following in paragraph 136 of the said judgment,
which is quoted below:-
“136. By citing all these sections Mr. Shashi Nandan
has contended before this Court that let the records be
produced by the authority to show that the Master Plan-
2021 has been approved by the National Capital Region
Planning Board but the respondents authority in spite of
bringing the record failed to establish before the Court that
the Master Plan-2021 is approved by the National Capital
247
Region Planning Board.”
In view of the foregoing discussion we are of the view that no
clearance has yet been obtained by the Authority to its draft Master Plan for
Greater Noida-2021 and steps taken by the Authority towards the acquisition
of land as well as carrying on development activities including the creation of
third party rights were not in conformity with the NCRPB Act, 1985.
We are also of the considered view that the Authority has acted in a
manner which is nothing but a deliberate violation of the NCRPB Act, 1985
and in spite of the directions given by this Court in the the case of Ravindra
Singh (supra) on 01/10/1996 that an Officer at the level of Secretary of the
Government should enquire conforming uses of land according to the NCRPB
Act, 1985 no serious efforts have been taken by the State. We are of the view
that a thorough inquiry is necessary in the whole exercise undertaken by the
Greater Noida by the Officers of the highest level at the State Government.
We direct the Chief Secretary of the State to appoint officers not below
the level of Principal Secretary (except the officers of Industrial Development
Department who has dealt with the relevant files) to conduct a thorough
inquiry regarding the acts of Greater Noida in proceeding to implement Plan
2021 without approval of N.C.R.P. Board and decisions taken to change the
land use and builders’ allotments made as well as indiscriminate proposals for
acquisition of land and take an appropriate action in the matter.
We are further of the view that Greater Noida Authority cannot proceed
to implement Master Plan 2021 till it is permitted by N.C.R.P. Board. Greater
Noida Authority shall ensure that no development by it or by its allottees be
undertaken as per draft Master Plan 2021 till the same receives clearance by
N.C.R.P. Board. We make it clear that it shall be open to carry on
developments by Authority and its allottees as per earlier plan approved by
N.C.R.P. Board.
5. Invocation of Urgency Clause under Section 17(1) and 17(4):
One of the main ground of attack to the notifications issued under
248
Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) in almost all the writ petitions is
that the State Government in routine manner without there being any urgency
invoked Section 17(4) of the Act dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A
of the Act. It is further submitted that the acquisition of land which was
alleged to be planned industrial development in district Gautam Budh Nagar
was not such a matter which required invocation of Section 17(4). The
submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the provisions of
Section 5A is mandatory and embodies a just and wholesome principle that a
person whose property is being or is intended to be acquired should have an
occasion to pursue the authority concerned that his property be not touched
for acquisition. In the main writ petition (Gajraj and others vs. State of U.P.
and others) specific pleadings have been made taking the aforesaid ground. It
is useful to refer to paragraphs 9, 11, 12, 14, 20 and 26 of the main writ
petition, which are as under:-
“9. That, the said notification under Section 4 of the Act
issued by the respondent no.1 without application of mind
and there was no urgency in the acquisition of land for the
planned industrial development on the ground of which
the respondent invoked Section 17(1) and 4 of the Act by
dispensing with an enquiry under Section 5A of the Act.
The respondents in order to fulfil their political
obligations/promise to the private builders have dispensed
with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act as well as
overlooked the Master Plan concerned.
11.That, there is no acute scarcity of land and there is
not a very heavy pressure/demand of land for public
purpose in question. The engineers and other subordinate
staff for carrying out the scheme have neither been
appointed nor any advertisement for the such appointment
has been made till the date. Neither any inquiry on the
spot has been conducted nor any survey of the plots
sought to be acquired has been got done and thus it
transpires that there was no material before the State
Government to make an opinion to direct that the
provisions of Section 5-A shall not apply in the facts and
circumstances of the present impugned notification under
Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) as well as under sub-
section (4) of Section 17 of Land Acquisition Act.
Notification No.664/77-3-08-86Arjan/08 Lucknow dated
12.03.2008 and there was no application of mind by State
Government.
249
12. That, it is relevant to mention here that excluding the
enquiry under Section 5-A can only be an exception where
the urgency cannot brook any delay. The enquiry provides
an opportunity to the owner of land to convince the
authorities concerned that the land in question is not
suitable for purpose for which it is sought to be acquired
or the same sought to be acquired for the collateral
purposes. It is pertinent to mention here that the
respondents No.1 without the application of mind
dispensed with the enquiry on the ground of urgency
invoking the power conferred by Section 17(1) or (2) of
the Act. Further, the respondent no.1 without application
of mind did not consider the survey report of the village
aforesaid.
14. That, the respondents acquired the land for the
public purpose, namely for the “Planned Industrial
Development in District Gautam Budh Nagar through
Greater Noida” and on another hand they transferred the
some acquired area to the private builders for construction
and sale and in the May, 2011 the employee of the
Respondents and Private Builders trying to dispossess the
petitioner from his Abadi Land. A photo copy of the
agreement to lease is being filed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE NO.4 to this writ petition.
20. That, it is further submitted that it is settled law
that the proceedings before the Land Acquisition, Collector
for filing and hearing of objections under Section 5-A is a
blend of public and individual enquiry. The person
interested or known to be interested in the land is to be
served personally of the notification, giving him the
opportunity of objecting to the acquisition and awakening
him to such right. The provision of section 5-A is
mandatory and embodies a just and wholesome principle
that a person whose property is being or is intended to be
acquired should have the occasion to persuade the
authorities the authorities concerned that his property be
not touched for acquisition. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Nandeshwar Prasad vs. U.P. Government has
recognised the said right reported in AIR 1964 SC
1217 and held that right to file objections and the right to
hearing under Section 5-A of the Act has been recognised
as valuable right.
26.That, the impugned notification seeking to acquire
the land under the Land Acquisition Act, is a colorable
exercise of power and the entire exercise is based upon
250
political considerations, which are of no legal
consequences, arbitrary, illegal and infringes the
fundamental rights of the petitioners as enshrined in
Article 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.”
Almost similar pleadings have been made by the petitioners in all the
writ petitions challenging the notifications for acquisition of their land. The
submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that alleged planned
industrial development is not such a matter in which there was such extreme
urgency that right of objection of the land holders required to be dispensed
with. It is submitted that there has to be application of mind on the issue as
to whether right of objection under Section 5A be dispensed with and without
there being application of mind to the above aspect, the invocation of Section
17(4) in a routine manner is illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted that the State
Government did not apply his mind to the relevant materials and has directed
for invocation of Section 17(4) which is unsustainable. It is further submitted
that there was no sufficient material before the State Government on the
basis of which any reasonable opinion can be formed that the matter was of
such urgency that right of objection should be dispensed with. The submission
has also been made that there has been pre-notification as well as post-
notification delay which clearly proved that there was no such urgency as to
invoke Section 17(4) of the Act. In the main writ petition, learned counsel for
the petitioners submitted that the fact that land was allotted to various private
builders for construction of multi-storey building and group housing flats in
the year 2010 clearly proved that there was no such urgency which required
invocation of Section 17(4). The petitioners have filed copy of one of the
leases dated 31
st
March, 2010 granted to one Supertech Limited by which
Group Housing Plot No.GH-08 area 2,04,000 square meters was allotted for
residential/large housing plots.
The submission made by counsel for the petitioners has been refuted
by learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the GNOIDA. It
is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the State that there was sufficient
materials before the State Government to form an opinion that it was a fit
case where direction under Section 17(4) was required to be issued. It is
submitted that opinion formed by the State Government under Section 17(4)
251
of the Act is subjective opinion which can be challenged only on the ground of
malafide and there being no allegation of malafide against the State, the
subjective opinion formed by the State under Section 17(4) cannot be
challenged. It is submitted that insofar as the allotment made to the builders
in 2010 is concerned, the said fact is wholly irrelevant for the purposes of
formation of opinion of the State Government at the relevant time since the
above event is a subsequent event which could not have been taken into
consideration at the relevant time. On any subsequent event subjective
satisfaction of the State arrived at the relevant time can neither be faulted
with nor can be challenged. It is submitted that pre-notification delay and
post-notification delay cannot be a basis for invalidating the notification. It is
submitted that delay caused by lethargic officials has been held to be not
relevant for determining as to whether there was urgency or not at the
relevant time. The delay in taking steps itself accelerate the urgency. Learned
counsel for the respondents submits that notifications issued under Section 4
read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act cannot be faulted and the
challenge made by the petitioners to the said notifications deserves to be
rejected. Learned counsel for interveners repeated the same submissions.
Learned counsel for the parties have referred to and relied on various
decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court which shall be referred to
hereinafter while considering the submission in detail.
For appreciating the above issue, it is sufficient to refer to the
notifications in the main writ petition and the original records perused by us of
village concerned. All the notifications which are under challenge, are similarly
worded except the area and the village. Section 4 notification dated 12
th
March, 2004, which is under challenge in the main writ petition, is to the
following effect:-
“No.664/LXXVII-3-08-86 Arjan.-08
Dated Lucknow, March 12, 2008
Under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act no.1 of 1894), the Governor is
pleased to notify for general information that the land
252
mentioned in the Schedule below, is needed for a public
purpose namely for the planned industrial development in
district Gautambudh Nagar through Greater Noida
Industrial Development Authority.
2. The Governor, being of the opinion that the
provisions of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said Act,
are applicable to said land inasmuch as the said land is
urgently required, for the planned industrial development
in district Gautambudh Nagar through Greater Noida
Industrial Development Authority and it is as well
necessary to eliminate the delay likely to be caused by an
inquiry under section 5-A of the said Act, the Governor is
further pleased to direct under sub-section (4) of Section
17 of the said Act that the provision of section 5-A of the
said Act shall not apply.”
Before we proceed to consider pleadings in the main writ petition and
the materials brought before the Court including the original records, it is
necessary to refer to relevant principles which have been laid down by the
Apex Court on interpretation of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act, which
principles can thereafter be applied in the facts of the present case.
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 initially did not provide for any
opportunity to land holders to file objection against the acquisition of their
land. Eminent domain is a right recognised and accepted in every sovereign to
take appropriate property belonging to citizens for public use. The sovereign is
entitled to reassert its dominion over any portion of the soil of the State
including private property without owner’s consent provided that such
assertion is on account of public exigency and for public good. Section 5A of
the Act providing for filing objection by any person interested in any land was
inserted in the Act by Act No.XXXVII of 1923. The scheme of the Act provides
that after issue of a preliminary notification under Section 4 any person
interested in the land, within 30 days from the date of publication of the
notification, object to the notification. By U.P. Act No.XXII of 1954 the period
of 30 days has been substituted by 21 days. Every objection under Section 5A
made to the Collector is considered by giving an opportunity to the objector of
being heard and thereafter a report is submitted to the appropriate
Government containing recommendation. The competent authority after
253
considering the report, if any, if satisfied that any particular land is needed for
public purpose, may issue declaration under Section 6 of the Act after which
declaration land is required to be marked and measured and thereafter a
notice is issued by the Collector inviting claims to compensation from all
interested persons. After hearing the objection inquiry is made by the
Collector and award is given under Section 11 and thereafter under Section 16
of the Act, after the Collector has made the award, he may take possession of
the land which thereupon vest in the Government free from all encumbrances.
The exception to the aforesaid general scheme is provided in Section 17 of
the Act. Section 17 of the Act contains special power in cases of urgency.
Section 17(1) provides that in cases of urgency whenever the appropriate
Government directs the Collector, though no award has been made, to take
possession of any land on expiration of 15 days from publication of the notice.
Section 17(2) of the Act enumerates emergent situation which requires taking
of possession of any land like owing to any sudden change in the channel of
any navigable river or other unforeseen emergency. Under the said section
the Collector is empowered to take possession immediately after publication of
notice with the previous sanction of the appropriate Government provided the
occupier is given at least 48 hours notice. Section 17(4) of the Act provides
that in case any land to which, in the opinion of the appropriate Government,
the provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) are applicable, the
Government may direct that provisions of Section 5A shall not apply. Section
17(1), 17(2) and 17(4) of the Act, which are relevant, are quoted below:-
“17. Special powers in case of urgency. – (1) In
cases of urgency whenever the appropriate Government,
so directs, the Collector, though no such award has been
made, may, on the expiration of fifteen days from the
publication of the notice mentioned in section 9, sub-
section (1), take possession of any land needed for a
public purpose. Such land shall thereupon vest absolutely
in the Government, free from all encumbrances.
(2) Whenever, owing to any sudden change in the
channel of any navigable river or other unforeseen
emergency, it becomes necessary for any Railway
Administration to acquire the immediate possession of any
land for the maintenance of their traffic or for the purpose
of making thereon a river-side or ghat station, or of
254
providing convenient connection with or access to any
such station, or the appropriate Government considers it
necessary to acquire the immediate possession of any land
for the purpose of maintaining any structure or system
pertaining to irrigation, water supply, drainage, road
communication or electricity, the Collector may
immediately after the publication of the notice mentioned
in sub-section (1) and with the previous sanction of the
appropriate Government, enter upon and take possession
of such land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the
Government free from all encumbrances :
Provided that the Collector shall not take possession of any
building or part of a building under this sub-section
without giving to the occupier thereof at least forty-eight
hours notice of his intention so to do, or such longer notice
as may be reasonably sufficient to enable such occupier to
remove his movable property from such building without
unnecessary inconvenience.
(3).......
(4) In the case of any land to which, in the opinion of the
appropriate Government, the provisions of sub-section (1)
or sub-section (2) are applicable, the appropriate
Government may direct that the provisions of section 5A
shall not apply, and, if it does so direct, a declaration may
be made under section 6 in respect of the land at any time
after the date of the publication of the notification under
section 4, sub-section (1).”
It is relevant to note at this stage that prior to amendments made in
Section 17 of the Act by Act No.LXVIII of 1984 the power under Section 17(1)
could have been exercised only for waste and arable land. By U.P. Act No.XXII
of 1954 after Section 17(1), Section (1-A) has been added, which is to the
following effect:-
“17(1-A). The power to take possession under
sub-section (1) may also be exercised in the case of land
other than waste or arable land, where the land is
acquired for or in connection with sanitary improvements
of any kind or planned development.”
By U.P. Act No.I of 1966 in sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act
255
sub-section (1-A) was also substituted.
The submission, which has been much pressed by the learned counsel
for the petitioners is regarding invocation of Section 17(4) dispensing with the
inquiry under Section 5-A. The question to be considered is as to whether in
facts of the present case dispensation of inquiry under Section 5A was valid or
not. The opinion of the State Government to be formed under Section 17(4) is
based on subjective satisfaction. Whether such subjective satisfaction is
subject to judicial review is the scope of inquiry in these cases. There has
been several judgments of the Apex Court in which ambit and scope of
Section 17(4) came for consideration, which shall hereinafter be considered.
The first judgment of the Apex Court which need to be noted is in the
case of Raja Anand Brahma Shah vs State Of Uttar Pradesh reported in
AIR 1967 SC 1081 = 1967(1) SCR 373. In the aforesaid case notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued for acquisition of 409.6 acres of land
for limestone quarry. The notification provided that the case being one of
urgency, the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act applied and
it was therefore directed that provisions of Section 5A would not apply to the
land. The declaration under Section 6 was issued on 12
th
September, 1950.
The possession of the land was taken by the Collector on 19
th
November,
1950 and the award was made by the Land Acquisition Officer on 7
th
January,
1952. On 2
nd
May, 1955 writ petition was filed in the High Court challenging
the notifications taking ground that the land was not for public purpose and
the acquisition proceedings were consequently without jurisdiction. It was
pleaded that the State Government had no jurisdiction to apply the provisions
of Section 17(1) of the Act to the land in dispute. The Apex Court in facts of
the above case had occasion to consider the opinion of the State Government
formed under Section 17(4) which was said to be subjective opinion.
Following was laid down by the Apex Court in paragraph 8 of the said
judgment:-
“8. It is true that the opinion of the State Government which is a
condition for the exercise of the power under s. 17(4) of the Act,
is subjective and a Court cannot normally enquire whether there
256
were sufficient grounds or justification for the opinion formed by
the State Government under S. 17(4). The legal position has
been explained by the Judicial Committee in King Emperor v.
Shibnath Banerjee and by this Court in a recent case-Jaichand Lal
Sethia v. State of West Bengal & Ors. But even though the power
of the State Government has been formulated under s. 17(4) of
the Act in subjective terms the expression of opinion of the State
Government can be challenged as ultra vires in a Court of Law if
it could be shown that the State Government never applied its
mind to the matter or that the action of the State Government is
malafide. If therefore in a case the land under acquisition is not
actually waste or arable land but the State Government has
formed the opinion that the provisions of sub-s. (1) of s. 17 are
applicable, the ,Court may legitimately draw an inference that the
State Government ,did not honestly form that opinion or that in
forming that opinion the State Government did not apply its mind
to the relevant facts bearing on the question at issue. It follows
therefore that the notification of the State Government under S.
17(4) of the Act directing that the provisions of s. 5A shall not
apply to the land is ultra vires. The view that we have expressed
is borne out by the decision of the Judicial Committee in Estate
and Trust Agencies Ltd. v. Singapore Improvement Trust in
which a declaration made by the Improvement Trust of
Singapore under S. 57 of the Singapore Improvement Ordinance
1927 that the appellants' property was in an insanitary condition
and therefore liable to be demolished was challenged. Section 57
of the Ordinance stated as follows:
"57. Whenever it appears to the Board that within its
administrative area any building which is used or is
intended or is likely to be used as a dwelling place is of
such a construction or is in such a condition as to be unfit
for human habitation, the Board may by resolution declare
such building to be insanitary".
The Judicial Committee set aside the declaration of the
Improvement Trust on two grounds; (1) that though it was made
in exercise of an administrative function and in good faith, the
power was limited by the terms of the said Ordinance and
therefore the declaration was liable to a challenge if the authority
stepped beyond those terms and (2) that the ground on which it
was made was other than the one set out in the Ordinance....”
The Apex Court in the said case laid down that opinion of the State
Government formed under Section 17(4) can be challenged in court of law if it
could be shown – (i) that the State Government never applied its mind to the
matter and (ii) that the action of the State Government is malafide. Further it
was observed that Court may legitimately draw an inference that the State
257
Government did not honestly form that opinion or that in forming that opinion
the State Government did not apply its mind to the relevant facts bearing on
the question in issue. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case relied upon the
judgment of High Court of Australia in the cases of R. v. Australian
Stevedoring Industry Board reported in (1952)88 C.L.R. 100 and Ross
Clunis v. Papadopovllos reported in (1958)1 W.L.R. 546. In the said case
the relevant regulations empowered the Commissioner to levy fine when the
Commissioner “has reasons to believe”. It was contended on behalf of the
appellant in the aforesaid case that only duty cast upon the Commissioner
was to satisfy himself of the facts set out in the Regulation that the test was a
subjective one and that the statement as to the satisfaction in his affidavit
was a complete answer to the contention of the respondents. The aforesaid
contentions were rejected by the Judicial Committee and the observations of
the Judicial Committee has been quoted with approval by the Apex Court,
which are to the following effect:-
“Their Lordships feel the force of this argument, but
they think that if it could be shown that there were no
grounds upon which the Commissioner could be so
satisfied, a court might infer either that he did not
honestly form that view or that in forming it he could not
have applied his mind to the relevant facts.”
The ratio which is culled out from the aforesaid case is that the opinion
of the State Government under Section 17(4) can be challenged in a court of
law if it could be shown– (a) that the State Government never applied its
mind to the matter, (b) or that the action of the State Government was
malafide, (c) or that there were no ground upon which the State Government
could form such an opinion, (d) or that in forming such opinion it did not
apply its mind to the relevant facts. In the aforesaid case the Apex Court held
that forming of opinion under Section 17(4) was erroneous. The Apex Court
laid down following in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the said judgment:-
“22. For the reasons already expressed we hold that the
State, Government has no jurisdiction to apply the
provisions of s. 17 (1) and (4) of the Act to the land in
dispute and to order that the provisions of s. 5A of the Act
will not apply to the land. We are further of the opinion
258
that the State Government had no jurisdiction to order the
Collector of Mirzapur to take over possession of the land
under s. 17(1) of the Act. The notification dated October
4, 1950 is therefore illegal. For the same reasons the
notification of the State Government under s. 6 of the Act,
dated October 12, 1950 is ultra vires.
23.We accordingly hold that a writ in the nature of
certiorari should be granted quashing the notification of
the State Government dated October 4, 1950 by which the
Governor has applied s. 17(1) and (4) to the land in
dispute and directed that the provisions of s. 5A of the Act
should not apply to the land. We further order that the
notification of the State Government dated October 12,
1950 under s. 6 of the Act and also further proceedings
taken in the land acquisition case after the issue of the
notification should be quashed including the award dated
January 7, 1952 and the reference made to civil Court
under s. 18 of the Act.”
The Apex Court in the case of Nadeshwar Prasad vs. U.P.
Government and others (three Judge Bench) reported in A.I.R. 1964 SC
1217 had laid down that it is not necessary that even where the Government
makes a direction under Section 17(1) that it should also make a direction
under Section 17(4). Following was observed in paragraph 11:-
“11. ..... It will be seen that it is not necessary even where
the Government makes a direction under S. 17(1) that it
should also make a direction under S. 17(4)......”
The Apex Court in the aforesaid case further laid down that right to file
objection under Section 5A of the Act is a substantial right. Following was laid
down in paragraph 13:-
“13..... The right to file objection under S. 5-A is
a substantial right when a person’s property is being
threatened with acquisition and we cannot accept that
that right can be taken away as if by a side-wind ......”
A three Judge Bench in the case of Narayan Govind Gavate vs.
State of Maharashtra reported in 1977 S.C. 183 has elaborately considered
the ambit and scope of Section 17 of the Act. The Apex Court also considered
259
the scope of judicial review of the opinion formed by the State Government
under Section 17(4). Following was laid down in paragraph 10 of the said
judgment:-
“10. It is true that, in such cases, the formation of an
opinion is a subjective matter, as held by this Court
repeatedly with regard to situations in which
administrative authorities have to form certain opinions
before taking actions they are empowered to take. They
are expected to know better the difference between a
right or wrong opinion than Courts could ordinarily on
such matters. Nevertheless, that opinion has to be based
upon some relevant materials in order to pass the test
which Courts do impose. That test basically is: was the
authority concerned acting within the scope of its powers
or in the sphere where its opinion and discretion must be
permitted to have full play? Once the Court comes to the
conclusion that the authority concerned was acting within
the scope of its powers and had some material, however
meagre, on which it could reasonably base its opinion, the
Courts should not and will not interfere. There might,
however, be cases in which the power is exercised in such
an obviously arbitrary or perverse fashion, without regard
to the actual and undeniable facts, or, in other words, so
unreasonably as to leave no doubt whatsoever in the mind
of a Court that there has been an excess of power. There
may also be cases where the mind of the authority
concerned has not been applied at all, due to
misunderstanding of the law or some other reason, what
was legally imperative for it to consider.”
The Apex Court in the aforesaid case further laid down that the mind of
the Officer or authority concerned has to be applied to the question whether
there is an urgency of such nature that even the summary proceedings under
Section 5A of the Act should be eliminated. Followings were laid down by the
Apex Court in paragraphs 38, 40, 41 and 42 of the said judgment:-
“38. ..... The mind of the officer or authority concerned
has to be applied to the question whether there is an
urgency of such a nature that even the summary
proceedings under s. 5A of the Act should be eliminated. It
is not just the existence of an urgency but the need to
dispense with an inquiry under s. 5A which has to be
considered.
260
40.In the case before us, the public purpose indicated
is the development of an area for industrial and residential
purposes. This in itself, on the face of it, does not call for
any such action, barring exceptional circumstances, as to
make immediate possession, without holding even a
summary enquiry under section 5A of the Act, imperative.
On the other hand, such schemes generally take sufficient
period of time to enable at least summary inquiries under
section 5A of the Act to be completed without any
impediment whatsoever to the execution of the scheme.
Therefore, the very statement of the public purpose for
which the land was to be acquired indicated the absence
of such urgency, on the apparent facts of the case, as to
require the elimination of an enquiry under section 5A of
the Act.
41.Again, the uniform and set recital of a formula, like
a ritual or mantara, apparently applied mechanically to
every case, itself indicated that the mind of the
Commissioner concerned was only applied to the question
whether the land was waste or arable and whether its
acquisition is urgently needed. Nothing beyond that seems
to have been considered. The recital itself shows that the
mind of the Commissioner was not applied at all to the
question whether the urgency is of such a nature as to
require elimination of the enquiry under section 5A of the
Act. If it was, at least the notifications gave no inkling of it
at all. On the other hand, its literal meaning was that
nothing beyond matters stated there were considered.
42.All schemes relating to development of industrial
and residential areas must be urgent in the context of the
country's need for increased production and more
residential accommodation. Yet, the very nature of such
schemes of development does not appear to demand such
emergent action as to eliminate summary enquires under
section 5A of the Act. There is no indication whatsoever in
the affidavit filed on behalf of the State that the mind of
the Commissioner was applied at all to the question
whether it was a case necessitating the elimination of the
enquiry under section 5A of the Act. The recitals in the
notifications, on the other hand, indicate that elimination
of the enquiry under section 5A of the Act was treated as
an automatic consequence of the opinion formed on other
matters. The recital does not say at all that any opinion
was formed on the need to dispense with the enquiry
under section 5A of the Act.....”
The Apex Court in the aforesaid case has clearly laid down that public
261
purpose, namely, development of an area for industrial and residential
purpose does not call for any such action, barring exceptional circumstances,
for dispensation of summary inquiry under Section 5A.
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in the case of State of Punjab and another
vs. Gurdial Singh and others reported in (1980)2 S.C.C. 471 had laid down
that authority should not invoke the provisions of Section 17(4) unless there is
real urgency. Following was laid down in paragraph 16:-
“16. The fourth point about the use of emergency power
is well taken. Without referring to supportive case-law it is
fundamental that compulsory taking of a man's property is
a serious matter and the smaller the man the more serious
the matter. Hearing him before depriving him is both
reasonable and pre-emptive of arbitrariness, and denial of
this administrative fairness is constitutional anathema
except for good reasons. Save in real urgency where
public interest does not brook even the minimum time
needed to give a hearing land acquisition authorities
should not, having regard to Arts. 14 (and 19), burke an
enquiry under Sec. 17 of the Act. Here a slumbering
process, pending for years and suddenly exciting itself into
immediate forcible taking, makes a travesty of emergency
power.”
Justice Krishna Ayer further observed , “... At times, natural justice is
the natural enemy of intolerant authority...”
A two Judge Bench of the Apex Court had occasion to consider
invocation of Section 17(4) of the Act in context of Meerut Development
Authority in the case of State of U.P. vs. Pista Devi reported in (1986)4
S.C.C. 251. In the aforesaid case the Apex Court observed that provision of
housing accommodation in these days has become a matter of national
urgency and judicial note of that can be taken. The three Judge bench
judgment in Narayan Govind Gavate’s case (supra) was referred to but
was distinguished on the premise that the said matter related to the year
1963 and due to increase of population it is no longer possible for the Court to
take a view that scheme for development of residential areas do not appear to
demand such emergent action as to eliminate summary inquiries under
262
Section 5-A of the Act. Following was observed in paragraph 5 of the said
judgment:-
“5......The provision of housing accommodation in
these days has become a matter of national urgency. We
may take judicial notice of this fact. Now it is difficult to
hold that in the case of proceedings relating to acquisition
of land for providing house sites it is unnecessary to
invoke section 17(1) of the Act and to dispense with the
compliance with section 5-A of the Act. Perhaps, at the
time to which the decision in Narayan Govind Gavate etc.
v. State of Maharashtra, [1977] (1) S.C.R. 768 related the
situation might have been that the schemes relating to
development of residential areas in the urban centres were
not so urgent and it was not necessary to eliminate the
inquiry under section 5-A of the Act. The acquisition
proceedings which had been challenged in that case
related to the year 1963. During this period of nearly 23
years since then the population of India has gone up by
hundreds of million and it is no longer possible for the
Court to take the view that the schemes of development of
residential areas do not ‘appear to demand such emergent
action as to eliminate summary inquiries under Section 5-A
of the Act’.....”
Another judgment of the Apex Court which needs to be noted is in the
case of Rajasthan Housing Board and others vs. Shri Kishan and
others reported in (1993)2 S.C.C. 84. In the said case also the Government
had issued direction for dispensation of inquiry under Section 17(4). The Apex
Court examined materials which were before the Government on the basis of
which it formed its opinion for directing dispensation of inquiry. The Apex
Court approved the action of the Government after referring to relevant
materials which were found sufficient for invoking Section 17(4) of the Act. It
is useful to quote following observations of the Apex Court which are in
paragraph 14 of the judgment:-
“14. ..... Secondly, we are satisfied that there was
material before the government in this case upon which it
could have and did form the requisite opinion that it was a
case calling for exercise of power under Section 17(4).
The learned Single Judge has referred to the material
upon which the government had formed the said opinion.
The material placed before the Court disclosed that the
government found, on due verification, that there was an
263
acute scarcity of land and there was heavy pressure for
construction of houses for weaker sections and middle
income group people; that the Housing Board had
obtained a loan of Rs. 16 crores under a time-bound
programme to construct and utilise the said amount by
31.3.1983; that in the circumstances the Government was
satisfied that unless possession was taken immediately,
and the Housing Board permitted to proceed with the
construction, the Board will not be able to adhere to the
time-bound programme. In addition to the said fact, the
Division Bench referred to certain other material also upon
which the government had formed the said satisfaction
viz., that in view of the time bound programme stipulated
by the lender, HUDCO, the Board had already appointed a
large number of engineers and other subordinate staff for
carrying out the said work and that holding an inquiry
under Section 5-A would have resulted in uncalled for
delay endangering the entire scheme and time-schedule of
the Housing Board. It must be remembered that the
satisfaction under Section 17(4) is a subjective one and
that so long as there is material upon which the
government could have formed the said satisfaction fairly,
the court would not interfere nor would it examine the
material as an appellate authority. This is the principle
affirmed by decisions of this court not only under Section
17(4) but also generally with respect to subjective
satisfaction.”
A three Judge Bench in the case of Chameli Singh and others vs.
State of U.P. and others reported in (1996)2 S.C.C. 549, again considered
the question as to whether providing housing to the members of schedule
caste (Dalit) under the scheme funded by the State, Section 17(4) of the Act
can be invoked. In paragraph 14 of the judgment, relying upon the judgment
in the case of State of U.P. vs. Pista Devi (supra) it was observed that
housing accommodation to the Dalits and Tribes is in acute shortage hence
invocation of Section 17(4) for providing shelter cannot be said to be arbitrary.
In paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment following was laid down by the Apex
Court:-
“14. What was said by Chinnappa Reddy, J. in the context
of provisions of housing accommodation to Harijans is
equally applied to the problem of providing housing
accommodation to all persons in the country in State of
U.P. v. Pista Devi [1986 (4) SCC 251] holding that today
having regard to the enormous growth of population,
urgency clause for planned development in urban areas
264
was upheld by a two-Judge Bench. The ratio of Kasireddy
Papaiah case 1975 AIR(AP) 269 : 1975 (1) APLJ 70] was
quoted with approval by a three-Judge Bench in Deepak
Pahwa v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [1984 (4) SCC 308 : 1985
(1) SCR 588]. The delay by the officials was held to be not
a ground to set at naught the power to exercise urgency
clause in both the above decisions. It would thus be clear
that housing accommodation to the Dalits and Tribes is in
acute shortage and the State has undertaken as its
economic policy under planned expenditure to provide
shelter to them on a war footing, in compliance with the
constitutional obligation undertaken as a member of the
UNO to the resolutions referred to hereinbefore.
“15. The question, therefore, is whether invocation of
urgency cause under Section 17(4) dispensing with inquiry
under Section 5-A is arbitrary or is unwarranted for
providing housing construction for the poor. In Aflatoon v.
Lt. Governor of Delhi [ 1975 (4) SCC 285 ] (SCC at p. 290),
a Constitution Bench of this Court had upheld the exercise
of the power by the State under Section 17(4) dispensing
with the inquiry under Section 5-A for the planned
development of Delhi. In Pista Devi case [ 1986 (4) SCC
251 ] this Court while considering the legality of the
exercise of the power under Section 17(4) exercised by the
State Government dispensing with the inquiry under
Section 5-A for acquiring housing accommodation for
planned development of Meerut, had held that providing
housing accommodation is national urgency of which court
should take judicial notice. The pre-notification and post-
notification delay caused by the officer concerned does not
create a cause to hold that there is no urgency. Housing
conditions of Dalits all over the country continue to be
miserable even till date and is a fact of which courts are
bound to take judicial notice. The ratio of Deepak Pahwa
case [1984 (4) SCC 308 : 1985 (1) SCR 588] was followed.
In the at case a three- Judge Bench of this Court had
upheld the notification issued under Section 17(4), even
though lapse of time of 8 years had occurred due to inter-
departmental discussions before receiving the notification.
That itself was considered to be a ground to invoke
urgency clause. It was further held that delay on the part
of the lethargic officials to take further action in the matter
of acquisition was not sufficient to nullify the urgency
which existed at the time of the issuance of the notification
and to hold that there was never any urgency. In Jage
Ram v. State of Haryana [1971 (1) SCC 671] this Court
upheld the exercise of the power of urgency under Section
17(4) and had held that the lethargy on the part of the
officers at an early stage was not relevant to decide
whether on the day of the notification there was urgency
265
or not. Conclusion of the Government that there was
urgency, though not conclusive, is entitled to create
weight. In Deepak Pahwa case [1984 (4) SCC 308 : 1985
(1) SCR 588] this Court held that very often person
interested in the land proposed to be acquired may make
representations to the authorities concerned against the
proposed writ petition that is bound to result in multiplicity
of enquiries, communications and discussions leading
invariably to delay in the execution of even urgent
projects. Very often delay makes the problem more and
more acute and increases urgency of the necessity for
acquisition. In Rajasthan Housing Board v. Shri Kishan
[ 1993 (2) SCC 84 ] (SCC at p. 91), this Court had held
that it must be remembered that the satisfaction under
Section 17(4) is a subjective one and that so long as there
is material upon which Government could have formed the
said satisfaction fairly, the Court would not interfere nor
would it examine the material as an appellate authority. In
State of U.P. v. Keshav Prasad Singh [ 1995 (5) SCC 587 ]
(SCC at p. 590), this Court had held that the Government
was entitled to exercise the power under section 17(4)
invoking urgency clause and to dispense with inquiry under
Section 5-A when the urgency was noticed on the facts
available on record. In Narayan Govind Gavate case a
three-Judge Bench of this Court had held that Section
17(4) cannot be read in isolation from Section 4(1) and
Section 5-A of the Act. Although 30 days from the
notification under Section 4(1) are given for filing
objections under Section 5-A, inquiry thereunder unduly
gets prolonged. It is difficult to see why the summary
inquiry could not be completed quite expeditiously.
Nonetheless, this Court held the existence of prima facie
public purpose such as the one present in those cases
before the Court could not be successfully challenged at all
by the objectors. It further held that it was open to the
authority to take summary inquiry under Section 5-A and
to complete inquiry very expeditiously. It was emphasised
that : (SCC p. 148, para 38)
"... The mind of the officer or authority concerned has
to be applied to the question whether there is an urgency
of such a nature that even the summary proceedings
under Section 5-A of the Act should be eliminated. It is not
just the existence of an urgency but the need to dispense
with an inquiry under Section 5-A which has to be
considered."
Another three Judge Bench judgment in the case of Meerut
Development Authority and others vs. Satbir Singh and others
266
reported in (1996)11 S.C.C. 462 considered the question of invocation of
urgency clause in land acquisition for housing development. In paragraph 19
of the said judgment, relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in the case
of Aflatoon vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi reported in (1975)4 S.C.C. 285 and
two Judge Bench judgment in State of U.P. vs. Pista Devi (supra), it was
observed that housing development is an urgent purpose and invocation of
Section 17(1) dispensing with the inquiry is not invalid. It is relevant to note
that earlier three Judge judgment in Narain Govind Gavate’s case (supra)
was not noticed and reliance was placed on Constitution Bench judgment in
Aflatoon’s case (supra) whereas in the Constitution Bench judgment in
Aflatoon’s case (supra) Section 5A of the Act was not dispensed with and
objections were invited and about 6000 objections were filed.
In the case of Om Prakash and another vs. State of U.P. and
others reported in (1998)6 SCC 1 the Apex Court had occasion to consider
invocation of urgency clause under Section 17(4) in context of acquisition of
land of village Chhalera Banger situate in district Ghaziabad in State of Uttar
Pradesh in which notification the public purpose was for the planned industrial
development of district Ghaziabad through New Okhla Industrial Development
Authority as in the present case. The notifications were challenged in the High
Court and the High Court came to the conclusion that the land acquisition
proceedings were not vitiated and the writ petitions were dismissed. The Apex
Court looked into the all relevant materials which were before the Government
including the proposal submitted by the GNOIDA for acquisition. The Apex
Court also noticed one year delay from the submission of proposal
recommending invocation of urgency clause and further delay of 9 months in
issuing declaration under Section 6. The Apex Court observed that above
conduct of the respondents falsify their claim of urgency for acquisition. After
considering the materials, which were before the State Government, the Apex
Court came to the conclusion that there was no relevant material before the
State Government when it invoked the power under sub-section (4) of Section
17 dispensing with the inquiry. The three Judge judgment in Narayan
Govind Gavate’s case (supra) as well as two Judge judgment in State of
U.P. vs. Pista Devi (supra) were referred to. The Apex Court also made
observation that the later Bench of two learned Judges of the Apex Court in
267
State of U.P. vs. Pista Devi’s case (supra) could not have laid down any
legal proposition contrary to the earlier decision of three Judge Bench.
Following was laid down in paragraphs 20, 23 and 25 of the said judgment:-
“20.It is no doubt true that the aforesaid decision of
three Judge Bench of this Court was explained by latter to
Judge Bench decision of this Court in State of U.P. v. Smt.
Pista Devi (supra) as being confined to the fact situation in
those days when it was rendered However, it is trite to
note that the latter Bench of two learned judges of this
court could not have laid down any legal proposition by
way of a ratio which was contrary to the earlier decision of
three Judge Bench in Narayan govind Gavate (supra). In
fact, both these decisions referred to the fact situations in
the light of which they were rendered.
23. It is now time for us to refer to certain latter decisions
of this Court to which strong reliance was placed by Shri
Mohta, learned senior counsel for NOIDA. In the case of
A.P. Sareen and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others
[ (1997) 9 SCC 359], a two Judge Bench of this Court
consisting of Ramaswamy J. and G. T. Nanavati J, had to
consider the question whether the need for urgent
possession underlying acquisition proceedings could cease
to exist only because of bureaucratic inadvertence. It was
held on the facts of that case that urgency continued so
long as the scheme was not initiated, action taken and
process completed. It is, of course, true that while
deciding this question, it is observed that it is well settled
legal position that urgency can be said to exist when land
proposed to be acquired is needed for planned
development of the city or town, etc. The said observation
clearly shows that in appropriate cases when acquisition is
needed for planned development of city or town urgency
provisions can be invoked. This aspect is legislatively
recognised by enactment of Section 17(1A) by U.P.
legislature. But the said observations cannot be read to
mean that in every case of planned development of city or
town necessarily and almost automatically urgency clause
has to be invoked and inquiry under Section 5-A is to be
dispensed with. It will all depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. The aforesaid observations
cannot be held to be laying down nay absolute proposition
that whenever any acquisition is to take place for planned
development of city or town, section 5-A should be treated
to be almost otios or inoperative. Such is not the ratio of
the aforesaid decision and nothing to that effect can even
impliedly be read in the aforesaid observation which is of
general nature. It only suggests that in appropriate cases,
268
urgency clause can be invoked when the land is proposed
to be acquired for planned development of city or town.
25. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, therefore, the
conclusion becomes inevitable that the action of
dispensing with inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act in the
present cases was not based on any real and genuine
subjective satisfaction depending upon any relevant data
available to the State authorities at the time when they
issued the impugned notification under section 4(1) of the
Act and dispensed with Section 5-A inquiry by resorting to
Section 17 sub-section (4) thereof. The first point is,
therefore, answered in the negative, in favour of the
appellants and against the contesting respondents.”
A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court had occasion to consider
invocation of urgency clause under Section 17(4) in the case of Union of
India vs. Mukesh Hans reported in 2004(8) SCC 14. The three Judge Bench
laid down in the said case that invocation of Section 17(4) of the Act is not
automatic on invocation of Section 17(1) of the Act. It has been held that
there has to be separate and independent application of mind as to whether
there is such an urgency for dispensation of inquiry. Following was laid down
by the Apex Court in paragraphs 32, 33 and 34 of the said judgment:-
32.A careful perusal of this provision which is an
exception to the normal mode of acquisition contemplated
under the Act shows mere existence of urgency or
unforeseen emergency though is a condition precedent for
invoking Section 17(4) that by itself is not sufficient to
direct the dispensation of 5A inquiry. It requires an opinion
to be formed by the concerned government that along
with the existence of such urgency or unforeseen
emergency there is also a need for dispensing with 5A
inquiry which indicates that the Legislature intended that
the appropriate government to apply its mind before
dispensing with 5A inquiry. It also indicates the mere
existence of an urgency under Section 17 (1) or
unforeseen emergency under Section 17 (2) would not by
themselves be sufficient for dispensing with 5A inquiry. If
that was not the intention of the Legislature then the
latter part of sub-section (4) of Section 17 would not have
been necessary and the Legislature in Section 17 (1) and
(2) itself could have incorporated that in such situation of
existence of urgency or unforeseen emergency
automatically 5A inquiry will be dispensed with. But then
that is not language of the Section which in our opinion
269
requires the appropriate Government to further consider
the need for dispensing with 5A inquiry in spite of the
existence of unforeseen emergency. This understanding of
ours as to the requirement of an application of mind by
the appropriate Government while dispensing with 5A
inquiry does not mean that in and every case when there
is an urgency contemplated under Section 17 (1) and
unforeseen emergency contemplated under Section 17 (2)
exists that by itself would not contain the need for
dispensing with 5A inquiry. It is possible in a given case
the urgency noticed by the appropriate Government under
Section 17(1) or the unforeseen emergency under Section
17(2) itself may be of such degree that it could require the
appropriate Government on that very basis to dispense
with the inquiry under Section 5A but then there is a need
for application of mind by the appropriate Government
that such an urgency for dispensation of the 5A inquiry is
inherent in the two types of urgencies contemplated under
Section 17 (1) and (2) of the Act.
33.An argument was sought to be advanced on behalf
of the appellants that once the appropriate Government
comes to the conclusion that there is an urgency or
unforeseen emergency under Section 17(1) and (2), the
dispensation of enquiry under Section 5A becomes
automatic and the same can be done by a composite order
meaning thereby that there no need for the appropriate
Government to separately apply its mind for any further
emergency for dispensation with an inquiry under Section
5A. We are unable to agree with the above argument
because sub- section (4) of Section 17 itself indicates that
the "government may direct that provisions of Section 5A
shall not apply" which makes it clear that not in every case
where the appropriate Government has come to the
conclusion that there is urgency and under sub- section
(1) or unforeseen emergency under sub-section (2) of
Section 17 the Government will ipso facto have to direct
the dispensation of inquiry.
34.A careful reading of the above judgment shows that
this Court in the said case of Nandeshwar Prasad's case
(supra) has also held that there should an application of
mind to the facts of the case with special reference to this
concession of 5A inquiry under the Act.”
To the same effect there is a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Union of India and others vs. Krishan Lal Arneja reported in 2004(8)
SCC 453 in which same proposition was laid down. The Apex Court laid down
270
following in paragraph 16 of the judgment which is as under:-
“16. Section 17 confers extraordinary powers on
the authorities under which it can dispense with the
normal procedure laid down under Section 5A of the Act in
exceptional case of urgency. Such powers cannot be
lightly resorted to except in case of real urgency enabling
the Government to take immediate possession of the land
proposed to be acquired for public purpose. A public
purpose, however, laudable it may be, by itself is not
sufficient to take aid of Section 17 to use this
extraordinary power as use of such power deprives a land
owner of his right in relation to immoveable property to
file objections for the proposed acquisition and it also
dispenses with the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act.
The Authority must have subjective satisfaction of the
need for invoking urgency clause under Section 17
keeping in mind the nature of the public purpose, real
urgency that the situation demands and the time factor
i.e. whether taking possession of the property can wait for
a minimum period within which the objections could be
received from the land owners and the inquiry under
Section 5A of the Act could be completed. In other words,
if power under Section 17 is not exercised, the very
purpose for which the land is being acquired urgently
would be frustrated or defeated. Normally urgency to
acquire a land for public purpose does not arise suddenly
or overnight but sometimes such urgency may arise
unexpectedly, exceptionally or extraordinarily depending
on situations such as due to earthquake, flood or some
specific time-bound project where the delay is likely to
render the purpose nugatory or infructuous. A citizen's
property can be acquired in accordance with law but in the
absence of real and genuine urgency, it may not be
appropriate to deprive an aggrieved party of a fair and just
opportunity of putting forth its objections for due
consideration of the acquiring authority. While applying
the urgency clause, the State should indeed act with due
care and responsibility. Invoking urgency clause cannot be
a substitute or support for the laxity, lethargy or lack of
care on the part of the State Administration.”
In a later case reported in (2010)11 S.C.C. 242; Anand Singh vs.
State of U.P. and others all earlier cases have been referred to and the
principles of invoking Section 17(4) of the Act have been restated. It was
further laid down in the said judgment that, generally speaking, development
of an area for residential purpose or planned development takes many years
and in every case of planned development dispensation of inquiry under
271
Section 5A of the Act is not required. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case
further observed that ratio of two Judge Bench in State of U.P. vs. Pista
Devi case (supra) is contrary to the ratio laid down in earlier three Judge
Bench judgment in Narayan Govind Gavate’s case (supra). As noted above,
in Narayan Govind Gavate’s case (supra) the three Judge Bench has laid
down that scheme for housing development or industrial development, barring
exceptional cases, does not satisfy the invocation of Section 17(4) whereas in
State of U.P. vs. Pista Devi case (supra) it was held that housing scheme is
a national urgency. The principles, after referring all earlier cases, were laid
down in paragraphs 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 50 of the judgment which are
as under:-
“42. When the government proceeds for compulsory
acquisition of particular property for public purpose, the
only right that the owner or the person interested in the
property has, is to submit his objections within the
prescribed time under Section 5A of the Act and persuade
the State authorities to drop the acquisition of that
particular land by setting forth the reasons such as the
unsuitability of the land for the stated public purpose; the
grave hardship that may be caused to him by such
expropriation, availability of alternative land for achieving
public purpose etc. Moreover, the right conferred on the
owner or person interested to file objections to the
proposed acquisition is not only an important and valuable
right but also makes the provision for compulsory
acquisition just and in conformity with the fundamental
principles of natural justice.
43.The exceptional and extraordinary power of doing
away with an enquiry under Section 5A in a case where
possession of the land is required urgently or in
unforeseen emergency is provided in Section 17 of the
Act. Such power is not a routine power and save
circumstances warranting immediate possession it should
not be lightly invoked. The guideline is inbuilt in Section 17
itself for exercise of the exceptional power in dispensing
with enquiry under Section 5A. Exceptional the power, the
more circumspect the government must be in its exercise.
The government obviously, therefore, has to apply its
mind before it dispenses with enquiry under Section 5A on
the aspect whether the urgency is of such a nature that
justifies elimination of summary enquiry under Section 5A.
272
44. A repetition of statutory phrase in the notification
that the state government is satisfied that the land
specified in the notification is urgently needed and
provision contained in Section 5A shall not apply, though
may initially raise a presumption in favour of the
government that pre-requisite conditions for exercise of
such power have been satisfied, but such presumption
may be displaced by the circumstances themselves having
no reasonable nexus with the purpose for which power
has been exercised. Upon challenge being made to the
use of power under Section 17, the government must
produce appropriate material before the court that the
opinion for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A
has been formed by the government after due application
of mind on the material placed before it.
45.It is true that power conferred upon the
government under Section 17 is administrative and its
opinion is entitled to due weight, but in a case where the
opinion is formed regarding the urgency based on
considerations not germane to the purpose, the judicial
review of such administrative decision may become
necessary.
46.As to in what circumstances the power of
emergency can be invoked are specified in Section 17(2)
but circumstances necessitating invocation of urgency
under Section 17(1) are not stated in the provision itself.
Generally speaking, the development of an area (for
residential purposes) or a planned development of city,
takes many years if not decades and, therefore, there is
no reason why summary enquiry as contemplated under
Section 5A may not be held and objections of land
owners/persons interested may not be considered. In
many cases on general assumption, likely delay in
completion of enquiry under Section 5A is set up as a
reason for invocation of extraordinary power in dispensing
with the enquiry little realizing that an important and
valuable right of the person interested in the land is being
taken away and with some effort enquiry could always be
completed expeditiously.
47.The special provision has been made in Section 17
to eliminate enquiry under Section 5A in deserving and
cases of real urgency. The government has to apply its
mind on the aspect that urgency is of such nature that
necessitates dispensation of enquiry under Section 5A. We
have already noticed few decisions of this Court. There is
conflict of view in the two decisions of this Court viz.;
Narayan Govind Gavate and Pista Devi. In Om Prakash this
273
Court held that decision in Pista Devi must be confined to
the fact situation in those days when it was rendered and
the two-Judge Bench could not have laid down a
proposition contrary to the decision in Narayan Govind
Gavate.
50.Use of the power by the government under Section
17 for `planned development of the city' or `the
development of residential area' or for `housing' must not
be as a rule but by way of an exception. Such exceptional
situation may be for the public purpose viz., rehabilitation
of natural calamity affected persons; rehabilitation of
persons uprooted due to commissioning of dam or housing
for lower strata of the society urgently; rehabilitation of
persons affected by time bound projects, etc. The list is
only illustrative and not exhaustive. In any case, sans real
urgency and need for immediate possession of the land for
carrying out the stated purpose, heavy onus lies on the
government to justify exercise of such power.”
In the case of Dev Saran and others vs. State of U.P. and others
reported in 2011(4) SCC 769, invocation of urgency under Section 17(4) of the
Act, where the land was acquired for construction of District Jail, was held not
to be so urgent so as to invoke Section 17(4) of the Act. Following was laid
down in paragraphs 19, 20, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39, which are as under:-
“19. Therefore, the concept of public purpose on this broad
horizon must also be read into the provisions of emergency
power under Section 17 with the consequential dispensation of
right of hearing under Section 5A of the said Act. The Courts
must examine these questions very carefully when little Indians
lose their small property in the name of mindless acquisition at
the instance of the State. If public purpose can be satisfied by
not rendering common man homeless and by exploring other
avenues of acquisition, the Courts, before sanctioning an
acquisition, must in exercise of its power of judicial review, focus
its attention on the concept of social and economic justice.
20.While examining these questions of public importance, the
Courts, especially the Higher Courts, cannot afford to act as mere
umpires. In this context we reiterate the principle laid down by
this Court in Authorised Officer, Thanjavur and another vs. S.
Naganatha Ayyar and others reported in (1979) 3 SCC 466,
wherein this Court held:
“1. ......It is true that Judges are constitutional invigilators
274
and statutory interpreters; but they are also responsive
and responsible to Part IV of the Constitution being one of
the trinity of the nation's appointed instrumentalities in the
transformation of the socio- economic order. The judiciary,
in its sphere, shares the revolutionary purpose of the
constitutional order, and when called upon to decode
social legislation must be animated by a goal-oriented
approach. This is part of the dynamics of statutory
interpretation in the developing countries so that courts
are not converted into rescue shelters for those who seek
to defeat agrarian justice by cute transactions of many
manifestations now so familiar in the country and
illustrated by the several cases under appeal. This caveat
has become necessary because the judiciary is not a mere
umpire, as some assume, but an activist catalyst in the
constitutional scheme.”
35.From the various facts disclosed in the said affidavit it
appears that the matter was initiated by the Government's letter
dated 4th of June, 2008 for issuance of Section 4(1) and Section
17 notifications. A meeting for selection of the suitable site for
construction was held on 27th June, 2008, and the proposal for
such acquisition and construction was sent to the Director, Land
Acquisition on 2nd of July, 2008. This was in turn forwarded to
the State Government by the Director on 22nd of July, 2008.
After due consideration of the forwarded proposal and
documents, the State Government issued the Section 4
notification, along with Section 17 notification on 21st of August,
2008. These notifications were published in local newspapers on
24th of September, 2008.
36.Thereafter, over a period of 9 months, the State
Government deposited 10% of compensation payable to the
landowners, along with 10% of acquisition expenses and 70% of
cost of acquisition was deposited, and the proposal for issuance
of Section 6 declaration was sent to the Director, Land Acquisition
on 19th of June, 2009. The Director in turn forwarded all these to
the State Government on 17th July, 2009, and the State
Government finally issued the Section 6 declaration on 10th of
August, 2009. This declaration was published in the local dailies
on 17th of August, 2009.
37. Thus the time which elapsed between publication of Section
4(1) and Section 17 notifications, and Section 6 declaration, in
the local newspapers is of 11 months and 23 days, i.e. almost
one year. This slow pace at which the government machinery had
functioned in processing the acquisition, clearly evinces that there
was no urgency for acquiring the land so as to warrant invoking
Section 17 (4) of the Act.
275
38. In paragraph 15 of the writ petition, it has been clearly stated
that there was a time gap of more than 11 months between
Section 4 and Section 6 notifications, which demonstrates that
there was no urgency in the State action which could deny the
petitioners their right under Section 5A. In the counter which was
filed in this case by the State before the High Court, it was not
disputed that the time gap between Section 4 notification read
with Section 17, and Section 6 notification was about 11 months.
39. The construction of jail is certainly in public interest and for
such construction land may be acquired. But such acquisition can
be made only by strictly following the mandate of the said Act. In
the facts of this case, such acquisition cannot be made by
invoking emergency provisions of Section 17. If so advised,
Government can initiate acquisition proceeding by following the
provision of Section 5A of the Act and in accordance with law.”
The two recent judgments given by the Apex Court, both relating to
planned industrial development in district Gautam Budh Nagar through
Greater NOIDA, are very relevant and need to be referred in some detail.
The case of Radhy Shyam (dead) through Lrs. and others vs.
State of U.P. and others reported in (2011)5 SCC 553, was a case where
notification of village Makaura issued on the same date i.e. 12
th
March, 2008
under Section 4(1) read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act were under
challenge. The notification issued in the aforesaid case was in the same term
as is apparent from the notification quoted in paragraph 2 of the judgment in
Radhy Shyam’s case (supra). The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was
issued thereafter on 19
th
November, 2008. The writ petition was filed in the
High Court challenging the notifications. Specific ground was taken in the writ
petition that respondents without application of mind dispensed with the
inquiry on the ground of urgency. It was also pleaded in the writ petition that
acquisition was made with the motive to deprive the owners from their houses
in order to fulfil their political obligations and promises to private builders
taking shelter of Section 17. The Apex Court issued direction to the
respondents to file counter affidavit in the special leave petition. Along with
the affidavit of the relevant documents including the letter dated 15
th
February, 2008 sent by the Commissioner and Director, Directorate of Land
276
Acquisition, Revenue Board, U.P. to the State Government and the certificate
issued by the Collector were brought before the Court. The Apex Court noted
all the relevant facts, certificates and the ground for justification as was given
by the respondents and laid down that there was no valid ground for invoking
Section 17(4). The earlier three Judge Bench judgment in Narayan Govind
Gavate’s case (supra) was relied. Following was laid down by the Apex Court
in paragraph 22 of the said judgment:-
“22. In cases where the acquisition is made by
invoking Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and/or
17(4), the High Court should insist upon filing of reply
affidavit by the respondents and production of the
relevant records and carefully scrutinize the same before
pronouncing upon legality of the impugned
notification/action because a negative result without
examining the relevant records to find out whether the
competent authority had formed a bona fide opinion on
the issue of invoking the urgency provision and excluding
the application of Section 5-A is likely to make the land
owner a landless poor and force him to migrate to the
nearby city only to live in a slum. A departure from this
rule should be made only when land is required to meet
really emergent situations like those enumerated in
Section 17(2). If the acquisition is intended to benefit
private person(s) and the provisions contained in
Section 17(1) and/or 17(4) are invoked, then scrutiny of
the justification put forward by the State should be
more rigorous in cases involving the challenge to the
acquisition of land, the pleadings should be liberally
construed and relief should not be denied to the petitioner
by applying the technical rules of procedure embodied in
the Code of Civil Procedure and other procedural laws.”
At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the materials, which have been
referred to in the counter affidavit by the Sate as justification for invocation of
Section 17(4) of the Act in the present case as well as scrutiny of original
records as have been produced by the learned Chief Standing Counsel for
perusal of the Court. The State in its supplementary counter affidavit dated
11
th
September, 2011 filed in Writ Petition No.37443 of 2011 (main writ
petition) has brought on the record letter dated 21
st
July, 2006 which was
sent by the Special Officer on Duty, Greater NOIDA to the Additional District
Magistrate forwarding proposal for acquisition of 590.289 hectares land of
village Patwari. The Note of justification for issuing notification under Section
277
4/17 of the Act submitted by the Greater NOIDA and counter signed by the
Collector as well as Prapatra-10, which has been signed by the Collector have
also been enclosed along with the supplementary counter affidavit. Paragraph
3 of the supplementary counter affidavit notes the Justification given for
invoking Section 17(4). Paragraph 3 of the aforesaid supplementary counter
affidavit is extracted below:-
“3.That, as detailed in paragraph 12(b) of the counter
affidavit dated 09.09.2011, a proposal for acquisition of
600.600 hectares of land in village Patwari, Pargana and
Tehsil Dadari, district Gautam Budh Nagar was submitted
by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vide
letter No.266 dated 31.3.2006 to the office of A.D.M.
(L.A.)/OSD, Greater Noida, along with Note of justification
for invoking the provisions of Section 17(4) of the L.A. Act
as the land was needed urgently. The proposal was,
thereafter, revised and vide letter No.660 dated
21.07.2006, submitted by Greater Noida Industrial
Development Authority, it was proposed to acquire an area
of 590.289 hectares. The urgency for acquiring the land or
the purpose of planned industrial development was
reiterated. It was further stated that in absence of
acquisition there was possibility of illegal constructions/
encroachments over the land proposed for acquisition, and
accordingly it was necessary that the urgency provisions
under section 17 of the L.A. Act may be invoked along
with issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A.
Act. True copy of letter dated 21.07.2006 is being filed
herewith and marked as Annexure SCA-1 to this
supplementary counter affidavit.”
The learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by several Additional Chief
Standing Counsel, during course of hearing, placed the original records of the
State Government pertaining to land acquisition proceedings. We have
perused the original records of village Patwari and records of some other
village of the State Government. In the supplementary counter affidavit
reference was made to the letter dated 31
st
March, 2006 of GNOIDA by which
proposal was submitted to the Additional District Magistrate. In the record of
the State Government, there is proposal submitted by the Commissioner and
Director, Land Acquisition Directorate to the Special Secretary dated 25
th
February, 2008 along with which the Note of Justification as well as Prapatra
as have been filed along with the supplementary counter affidavit are also
278
there. A perusal of the original records of the State Government reveal
following:-
(i)The proposal submitted by Greater NOIDA for acquisition of land of 20
villages of Greater NOIDA including villages Patwari and Makaura was placed
before the District Level Committee for consideration of the proposal. The
Committee approved the proposal 2.2.2007. The Committee noticed in its
proposals that with regard to 5 villages 20% amount has been deposited, for
one village 70% amount has been deposited and for rest of the villages
proposal be sent after amount is deposited. The Committee made
recommendation for issuing notification under Sections 4/17 and 6/17 of the
Act and forwarded resolution.
(ii)The said resolution of the District Level Committee, it appears, was
forwarded to the Divisional Level Committee by letter dated 19
th
February,
2007. The Divisional Level Committee considered the proposal of 16 villages
of Greater NOIDA and 3 villages of NOIDA. The Divisional Level Committee
also granted its approval to the recommendation. On the same date, i.e.
20.2.2007, a letter was sent to the District Magistrate that the Divisional Level
Committee has granted its approval to the proposal which is being sent for
further action.
(iii)The District Magistrate vide letter dated 22
nd
February, 2008 forwarded
the proposal of village in question i.e. Patwari for issuing notification under
Section 4(1)/17 to the Commissioner and Director, Land Acquisition
Directorate, Board of Revenue, U.P., Camp Gautam Budh Nagar.
(iv)The Director and Commissioner vide its letter dated 25
th
February,
2008 forwarded the proposal received from Collector to the Special Secretary
of the State Government which was received on 26
th
February, 2008 itself.
(v)On 26
th
February, 2008 the Secretariat submitted a Note to the Deputy
Secretary making reference of certificates which were annexed along with the
proposal dated 25
th
February, 2008. In the Note submitted by the Secretariat
279
to the Deputy Secretary neither any recommendation has been made for
dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act nor any reason has
been referred to on the basis of which notification under Section 17 be issued.
In the Note only following was mentioned by the Secretariat in paragraph 3,
which is as under:-
“3. vr,o ;fn lger gksa rks xzsVj uks,Mk vkS|ksfxd fodkl
izkf/kdj.k tuin xkSrecq)uxj ds lqfu;ksftr vkS|ksfxd fodkl gsrq jktLo
xzke&irokjh] ijxuk&nknh] rglhy&nknjh] tuin xkSrecq) uxj dh 589-
188 gs0 Hkwfe esa /kkjk&4@17 dh foKfIr tkjh fd, tkus esa vkifRr izrhr
ugha gksrh gSA lgefr dh n’kk esa d`i;k i=koyh ij mfpr ek/;e ls
foHkkxh; ea=h th ds :i esa ek0 eq[; ea=h th dk vuqeksnu izkIr djuk
pkgsaA”
On the aforesaid Note, the Deputy Secretary on the same day, i.e. 26
th
February, 2008 put following endorsement:-
“d`i;k va’k ¼d½ ij vafdr izLrko ij foHkkxh; ea=h ds :i esa ek0
eq[; ea=h th dk vuqeksnu izkIr djuk pkgsaA”
Thereafter the file was marked to Principal Secretary. The said Note
was also countersigned by Special Secretary on 27
th
February, 2008 and on 3
rd
March, 2008 the Principal Secretary, Industrial Development marked the file
to the Chief Minister. On 10
th
March, 2008 the Secretary to the Chief Minister
has put endorsement that Hon’ble the Chief Minister as Departmental Minister
has approved.
From the Notings which were made at the level of the State
Government it is clear that there is no specific recommendation by the
Secretariat for dispensation of inquiry under Section 5A. The letter dated 25
th
February, 2008 of the Commissioner and Director, Land Acquisition
Directorate also does not have any recommendation that the case is of such
nature that inquiry under Section 5A of the Act be dispensed with. There is no
280
recommendation by the Commissioner and Director, Land Acquisition
Directorate except that Government may issue notification under Section
4(1)/17 and sent a copy to the Directorate and the Collector. Along with the
letter of the Collector dated 22
nd
February, 2008 which was forwarded to the
Commissioner and Director, Land Acquisition Director, certificates required to
be sent have been annexed. In the letter of the Collector the recommendation
made, is to the following effect:-
“mDr vkifRr;ksa dk fujkdj.k dj leLr layXudksa lfgr 589.188
gs0 dk la’kksf/kr izLrko rhu izfr;ksa esa layXu dj bl vuqjks/k ds lkFk Hkstk
tk jgk gS fd HkwvtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 dh /kjk&4¼1½@17 dh vf/klwpuk gsrq
viuh laLrqfr lfgr izLrko 'kklu dks izsf"kr djus dk d"V djsaA”
In the Note of Justification submitted by the GNOIDA which was
countersigned by the Collector, following reasons were given:-
“xzke dk uke%&irokjh ijxuk%& nknjh rglhy%& nknjh ftyk%& xkSrecq) uxj
/kkjk 4@17 ds vkSfpR; dh fVIi.kh
xzsVj uks,Mk fodkl izkf/kdj.k dk xBu mRrj izns’k vkS|ksfxd {ks= fodkl
vf/kfu;e] 1976 ds vUrxZr gqvk gS mDr vf/kfu;e dk mn~ns’; jkT; ds fufnZ"V {ks=ksa esa
vkS|ksfxd fodkl rFkk mlls lEc) ekeyks gsrq izkf/kdj.k dh lajpuk djuk gSA mDr
vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr xzsVj uks,Mk izkf/kdj.k dks vius vf/klwfpr {ks= esa Hkwfe vf/kxzghr
djus] ;kstuk cukus] vkS|ksfxd@okf.kfT;d@vkoklh; bdkbZ;ksa gsrq Hkwfe fpfUgr djus]
vk/kkjHkwr lqfo/kk,a fodflr djus] fodz; }kjk vFkok iV~Vs ij vFkok vU; izdkj ls vkS|
ksfxd@okf.kfT;d@vkoklh; Hkwmi;ksx gsrq Hkwfe dk fuLrkj.k (Disposal) djus] Hkouksa ,oa
vkS|ksfxd bdkbZ;ksa dh Lfkiuk dks fu;fer djus] Hkwmi;ksx fu/kkZfjr djus dk vf/kdkj
fn;k x;k gSA xzke irokjh ijxuk o rglhy&nknjh] ftyk xkSrecq)uxj xszVj uks,Mk
izkf/kdj.k ds vf/klwfpr {ks= esa fLFkr gSA lwfu;ksftr vkS|ksfxd fodkl gsrq izLrkfor Hkwfe
dh fodkl gsrq rRdky vko’;drk gSA vtZu esa foyEc dh n’kk esa izLrkfor Hkwfe ij
vfrdze.k c<+us dh izcy lEHkouk gS ftl dkj.k lwfu;ksftr fodkl dh ladYiuk
(concept) ij izfrdwy izHkko iM+sxkA bl xzke dh vkl ikl dh Hkwfe iwoZ esa vftZr gks
pqdh gS rFkk dqN ij vtZu dh dk;Zokgh py jgh gS ,slh n’kk esa vk/kkjHkwr dh fujUrjrk
(continuity of Infrastructure Services) ds n`f"Vxr iz’uxr Hkwfe ds 'kh?kz vtZu dh
281
vifjgk;Zrk gSA
xzsVj uks,Mk vkS|ksfxd fodkl izkf/kdj.k dks 'kklu }kjk vuqeksfnr ;kstukuqlkj
bl {ks= ds lexz fodkl ;Fkk lM+dksa] lhojst] fo|qr vkfn miyC/k djkrs gq, fufnZ"V
iz;kstu gsrq fu;kstu fodkl rFkk vkoaVu dk;Z gsrq Hkwfe dh vko’;drk gSA vtZu u gksus
ds dkj.k dk;Z :dk gqvk gSA ns’k dh izfrf"Br vkS|ksfxd laLFkk;sa tks mRrj izns’k esa iwWath
fuos’k djuk pkgrh gS mudks Hkwfe mudh ;kstukuqlkj vfoYkEc miyC/k djk;s tkuk
vR;Ur vko’;d gSA vxj bu bdkbZ;ksa dks ;g Hkwfe mudh vko’;drkuqlkj miyC/k ugha
djk;h tkrh gSa rks ;g bdkbZ;kWa vU; jkT;ksa esa viuh vkS|ksfxd bdkbZ;kWa LFkkfir dj ysaxh
ftlls vf/kdkf/kd iwWath fuos’k dh ljdkj dh uhfr rFkk jkstxkj ds voljksa ij foijhr
izHkko iMs+xkA vr,o] ;g iz;kl fd;k tk jgk gS fd Hkwfe dh vuqiyC/krk ds vk/kkj ij
dksbZ bdkbZ m0 iz0 jkT; ds bl {ks= ls nwljs jkT; esa u tkus ik;sa rHkh bl {ks= dk vkS|
ksfxd fodkl leqfpr :i ls lEHko gks ik;sxkA
xzke irokjh dh 589.188 gs0 Hkwfe dk lqfu;ksftr fodkl gsrq vtZu izLrkfor gS
ftlesa &&&& xkVk la[;k 727 [kkrs rFkk 3217@015 yxHkx 1617 d`"kd fufgr gSaA
fyf[kr@ekSf[kd vkifRr lqus tkus rFkk fuLrkj.k eas fuf’pr :i ls o"kksZa yxsaxs rFkk
vizR;kf’kr foyEc gksxk ftlesa lqfu;ksftr fodkl Bi gks tk;sxkA fof/k }kjk
/kkjk&4¼1½@17 dh vf/klwpuk rFkk /kkjk 6@17 dh vf/klwpuk ds e/; ,d o"kZ dk le;
fu/kkZfjr gSA
vr% tuin xkSrecq)uxj xzsVj uks,Mk vk|ksfxd fodkl izkf/kdj.k ds lqfu;ksftr
fodkl gsrq Hkwfe dk vtZu fd;k tkuk vifjgk;Z gSA vr% jktLo xzke irokjh]
ijxuk&nknjh] rglhy&nknjh] tuin xkSrecq) uxj dh 589 +188 gsDVsvj Hkwfe rRdky
vf/kxzfgr fd;k tkuk gSA vf/kxzg.k gsrq vuqekfur izfrdj dh 10% /kujkf’k vtZu fudk;
ls izkIr djds vij ftykf/kdkjh] Hkw0v0 xzsVj uks,Mk }kjk fu/kkZfjr ys[kk 'kh"kZd esa tek
dh tk pqdh gSA izLrkfor Hkwfe esa dksbZ /kkfeZd LFky@Lekjd vkfn ugha crk;k x;k gSA
bl xzke eas vtZu ls dqy 732 ifjokj izHkkfor gksaxsA vtZu ds QyLo:i 524 d`"kd
Hkwfeghu crk;s x;s gSaA izLrkfor Hkwfe esa vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr ds [kkrsnkjksa dh la[;k
34 gSA NksVs [kkrsnkjksa dh la[;k 1227 gSA izkf/kdj.k ij dksbZ izfrdj@fMdzhVy dh
/kujkf’k cdk;k u gksus dk izek.k&i= vij ftykf/kdkjh] Hkw0v0 xzsVj uks,Mk }kjk fn;k
x;k gSA mDr dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, p;fur Hkwfe ds vf/kxzg.k gsrq Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e]
1894 ds vUrxZr /kkjk&4¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk&17 dh vf/klwpuk fuxZr djk;s tkus dk
iw.kZ vkSfpR; gS rn~uqlkj laaLrqfr dh tkrh gSA
282
g0 vLi"V g0 vLi"V g0 vLi"V g0 vLi"V
losZ vehu@ys[kiky uk;c rglhynkj rglhynkj mi eq[; dk;Zokgd vf/kdkjh
xzsVj uks,Mk xzsVj uks,Mk xzsVj uks,Mk xzsVj uks,Mk vkS|ksfxd fodkl izkf/kdj.k”
In his certificate, the Collector has only observed that for
completion of the project possession of the land is urgently required to
be taken. The Collector has further observed that by invoking Section
17, the provisions of Section 5A shall come to an end and he is satisfied
that for completing the project possession of land is required to be
urgently taken. Along with the proposal of the Collector dated 22
nd
February, 2008 there is Prapatra No.1, which is a proposal submitted by
GNOIDA to the Collector for issuing of notification under Section 4/17 of
the Act. Column No.9 and comments on it in Prapatra No.1 is as under:-
“9&D;k dCtk rqjUr vko’;d gS rks dkj.k crk;sa & gkWa] egk;kstuk ds
vuqlkj {ks= dk rRdky lqfu;ksftr vkS|ksfxd fodkl fd;k tkuk gSA”
From the original records as noted above, it is clear that proposal from
Commissioner and Director, Land Acquisition dated 25
th
February, 2008 was
received by the State Government on 26
th
February, 2008. On 26
th
February,
2008 itself note was submitted by the Secretariat as well as the Deputy
Secretary which was forwarded to the Principal Secretary and the Principal
Secretary forwarded the same to the Chief Minister. The Secretariat and its
Deputy Secretary examined the proposals submitted by the Commissioner and
Director on the same day and gave their comments and note on the same
day. The aforesaid facts clearly point out that application of mind of the
officials of the Government was in mechanical manner and in the Note there
was no recommendation for dispensation of inquiry under Section 5A. On the
aforesaid Note approvals were obtained from all concerned and thereafter
notification under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) was issued.
As noticed above, the Divisional Level Committee which has been
constituted by the Government order to examine the proposal for land
283
acquisition received the recommendation from the Collector vide letter dated
19
th
February, 2008 and on 20
th
February, 2008 the Committee approved the
proposal of 16 villages including village Patwari which indicates mechanical
and cursory manner in which the whole issue was dealt with. The acquisition
of huge agricultural land of 16 villages running in several thousands hectares
was involved and the proposal was pushed through by completing only
formality without application of mind.
Now we revert to the judgment of the Apex Court in Radhy Shyam’s
case (supra) which relate to village Makaura (one of the villages of Greater
NOIDA) for which proposal was submitted by District Level Committee along
with the village Patwari. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case had examined
the question regarding invocation of Section 17(4) and in paragraph 78 of the
judgment the reason given for justification for invocation of urgency clause in
the aforesaid case has been noted in detail. In paragraphs 79 and 80 of the
judgment the Apex Court has held that factors which were mentioned in the
certificates submitted to the State Government do not furnish legally
acceptable justification for exercise of power by the State Government under
Section 17(1) of the Act. Paragraphs 78, 79 and 80 of the said judgment are
quoted below:-
“78. The stage is now set for consideration of the issue
whether the State Government was justified in invoking
the urgency provision contained in Section 17(1) and
excluding the application of Section 5-A for the acquisition
of land for planned industrial development of
District Gautam Budh Nagar. A recapitulation of the
facts shows that upon receipt of proposal from the
Development Authority, the State Government issued
directions to the concerned authorities to take action for the
acquisition of land in different villages including village
Makora. The comments/certificate signed by three officers,
which was submitted in the context of Government Order
dated 21.12.2006 was accompanied by several documents
including proposal for the acquisition of land, preliminary
inquiry report submitted by the Amin, Land Acquisition,
copies of khasra khatauni and lay out plan, 10 per cent of
the estimated compensation and a host of other
documents. In the note dated nil jointly signed by
Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida, Collector,
Gautam Budh Nagar and four other officers/officials, the
284
following factors were cited in justification of invoking the
urgency provisions:
(a) The area was notified under Uttar Pradesh Industrial
Areas Development Act, 1976 for planned industrial
development.
(b) If there is any delay in the acquisition of land then the
same is likely to be encroached and that will
adversely affect the concept of planned industrial
development of the district.
(c) Large tracts of land of the nearby villages have
already been acquired and in respect of some villages, the
acquisition proceedings are under progress.
(d) The Development Authority urgently requires land for
overall development, i.e. construction of roads, laying of
sewerages, providing electricity, etc. in the area.
(e) The development scheme has been duly approved by
the State Government but the work has been stalled due to
non- acquisition of land of village Makora.
(f) Numerous reputed and leading industrial units of the
country want to invest in the State of Uttar Pradesh and,
therefore, it is extremely urgent and necessary that land
is acquired immediately.
(g) If land is not made available to the incoming leading
and reputed industrial concerns of the country, then they
will definitely establish their units in other States and if this
happens, then it will adversely affect employment
opportunities in the State and will also go against the
investment policy of the Government.
(h) If written/oral objections are invited from the farmers
and are scrutinized, then it will take unprecedented long
time and disposal thereof will hamper planned development
of the area.
(i) As per the provisions of the Act, there shall be at least
one year's time gap between publication of the notifications
under sections 4 and 17 and Section 6.
285
79. In our view, the above noted factors do not furnish
legally acceptable justification for the exercise of power
by the State Government under Section 17(1) because
the acquisition is primarily meant to cater private interest
in the name of industrial development of the district. It is
neither the pleaded case of the respondents nor any
evidence has been produced before the Court to show that
the State Government and/or agencies/instrumentalities of
the State are intending to establish industrial units on the
acquired land either by itself or through its
agencies/instrumentalities. The respondents have justified
the invoking of urgency provisions by making assertions,
which are usually made in such cases by the executive
authorities i.e. the inflow of funds in the State in the form
of investment by private entrepreneurs and availability of
larger employment opportunities to the people of the area.
However, we do not find any plausible reason to
accept this tailor-made justification for approving the
impugned action which has resulted in depriving the
appellants' of their constitutional right to property.
80. Even if planned industrial development of the district
is treated as public purpose within the meaning of Section
4, there was no urgency which could justify the exercise of
power by the State Government under Section 17(1)
and 17(4). The objective of industrial development of an
area cannot be achieved by pressing some buttons on
computer screen. It needs lot of deliberations and planning
keeping in view various scientific and technical parameters
and environmental concerns. The private entrepreneurs,
who are desirous of making investment in the State, take
their own time in setting up the industrial units. Usually, the
State Government and its agencies/ instrumentalities would
give them two to three years' to put up their factories,
establishments etc. Therefore, time required for ensuring
compliance of the provisions contained in Section 5-A
cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be portrayed as
delay which will frustrate the purpose of acquisition.”
As quoted above, the reasons given for invoking urgency clause were
the same which were given in Radhy Shyam’s case (supra). The Apex Court
considered the aforesaid reasons and has categorically held that the said
ground do not furnish justification for invoking urgency clause under Section
17(4) of the Act. The present case is also thus fully covered by the judgment
of the Apex Court in Radhy Shyam’s case (supra) and in view of clear
pronouncement made in the aforesaid case, the conclusion is inescapable that
286
in the present case no ground was made out for invoking Section 17(4)
dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act.
One of the justifications given in the Note of Justification for invoking
Section 17 was that if there is delay in acquisition of land, the land is likely to
be encroached which would adversely affect the concept of planned
development. The said reason was also given in Radhy Shyam’s case
(supra) which was disapproved. In this context, learned counsel for the
respondents has submitted that in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of Nand Kishora Gupta and others vs. State of U.P. and others
reported in (2010)10 SCC 282, the said ground was held to be a relevant
ground for invoking urgency clause. In Nand Kishore Gupta’s case (supra)
the High Court noticed the materials which were submitted for invoking
urgency clause. The High Court had noticed one of the reasons as “in case of
delay there is strong possibility of encroachment of the land which will affect
the project”. The Apex Court in Nand Kishora Gupta’s case (supra) made
following observations in paragraph 93, which are as under:-
“93. We have deliberately quoted the above part of the
High Court judgment only to show the meticulous care
taken by the High Court in examining as to whether there
was material before the State Government to dispense
with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. We are
completely convinced that there was necessity in this
Project considering the various reasons like enormousness
of the Project, likelihood of the encroachments, number of
appellants who would have required to be heard and the
time taken for that purpose, and the fact that the Project
had lingered already from 2001 till 2008. We do not see
any reason why we should take a different view than what
is taken by the High Court.”
On the basis of the above observation made in paragraph 93 of the
aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
likelihood of encroachment is relevant material and the State cannot be said
to be at fault in relying on the said paragraph. In this context, it is relevant to
refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Om Prakash’s case (supra). In
the said case the Apex Court had specifically held that possibility of
unauthorised encroachment is wholly irrelevant factor for invoking urgency
287
under Section 17(4) of the Act. Following was laid down by the Apex Court in
paragraph 15 of the judgment in Om Prakash’s case (supra), which is as
under:-
“15. So far as the present proceedings are concerned,
the situation was tried to be salvaged further in the
counter- affidavit filed on behalf of NOIDA. Its working
secretary Ram Shankar has fileda counter-affidavit in the
present proceedings explaining the necessity to apply
emergency provisions. It has been averred in para 9 of the
counter to the effect that what necessitated application of
emergency provisions was imminent possibility of
unauthorised construction and/or encroachment upon the
suit land which would have hammered the speedy and
planned industrial development of the area which was the
purpose of acquisition proceedings. This stand is in line
with the earlier stand of NOIDA in its written requisition
dated 14th December, 1989. We have already seen that
the said stand reflects a ground which is patently irrelevant
for the purpose of arriving at the relevant subjective
satisfaction by the State authorities about dispensing with
Section 5-A inquiry. .....”
In Nand Kishore Gupta’s case (supra) the judgment in Om
Prakash’s case (supra) has not been noticed.
In this context, it is relevant to refer to a Division Bench judgment of
this Court in the case of Smt. Manju Lata Agarwal vs. State of U.P. and
others reported in 2007(9) ADJ 447 and judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Sibban Lal Saxena vs. State of U.P. and others reported in AIR
1954 SC 179 in which it has been held that even in event of the grounds on
the basis of which subjective satisfaction has arrived is held to be irrelevant,
the entire satisfaction is vitiated. Following was laid down by the Apex Court
in paragraph 8, which is as under:-
“8. ..... The Government itself, in its communication dated
the 13th of March, 1953, has plainly admitted that one of
the grounds upon which the original order of detention
Was passed is unsubstantial or nonexistent and cannot be
made a ground of detention. The question is, whether in
such circumstances the original order made under section
3 (1) (a) of the Act can be allowed to stand. The answer,
288
in our opinion, can only be in the negative. The detaining
authority gave here two grounds for detaining the
petitioner. We can neither decide whether these grounds
are good or bad, nor can we attempt to assess in what
manner and to what extent each of these grounds
operated on the mind of the appropriate authority and
contributed to the creation of the satisfaction on the basis
of which the detention order was made. To say that the
other ground, which still remains, is quite sufficient to
sustain the order, would be to substitute an objective
judicial test for the subject decision of the executive
authority which is against the legislative policy underlying
the statute. In such cases, we think, the position would be
the same as if one of these two grounds was irrelevant for
the purpose of the Act or was wholly illusory and this
would vitiate the detention order as a whole. Principle,
which was order as a whole. This principle, which was
recognised by the Federal Court in the case of Keshav
Talpade v. The Kingb Emperor (2), seems to us to be quite
sound and applicable to the facts of this case. (1) Vide
state of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya, [1951]
S.C.R.”
The next recent judgment of the Apex Court to be noticed is the
judgment in the case of Greater Noida Industrial Development
Authority vs. Devendra Kumar and others reported in 2011(6) (SC) ADJ
480. The aforesaid case also was a case pertaining to village Shahberi of
district Gautam Budh Nagar in which notifications were issued for the same
purpose. The writ petition was filed challenging the notifications which was
allowed by the High Court holding the invocation of urgency clause as illegal.
The Greater NOIDA filed the appeal which was dismissed. The judgment of
Radhy Shyam’s case (supra) was referred to and relied. In the aforesaid
case the ground of unauthorised colony and illegal construction was put
forward by the appellant which was not accepted. Following was observed in
paragraph 24 of the said judgment:-
“24.At the outset, we deem it proper to observe that
none of the Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
assailed the finding recorded by the High Court that the
decision of the State Government to invoke the urgency
provisions contained in Section 17(1) and to dispense with
the application of Section 5A was vitiated due to arbitrary
exercise of power and non application of mind. Of course,
Shri L.N. Rao and Shri Dushyant A. Dave, learned Senior
Counsel did suggest that Section 17(1) and (4) was
289
invoked to check mushroom growth of unauthorised
colonies in the area around Greater Noida Phase I, but in
our view, this did not provide a valid justification to invoke
Section 17(1) and to dispense with the application of
Section 5A and the High Court rightly nullified this exercise
by relying upon the judgments of this Court in Anand
Singh’s case and Radhy Shyam’s case. We may add that
unauthorised plotting of agricultural land or large scale
illegal constructions could not have been possible without
active or tacit connivance of the functionaries and officers
of the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities. If the
Authority wanted to prevent unauthorised colonization of
agricultural land or illegal constructions, then nothing
prevented it from taking action under Section 9 of the
1976 Act. No explanation has been given by the State
Government and the Authority as to why appropaite
measures were not taken to prevent unauthorised
colonization of land in Shahberi and elsewhere. The
inefficiency of the State apparatus to take action in
accordance with law cannot be used as a tool to justify
denial of opportunity of hearing to the landowners and
other interested persons in terms of Section 5A of the
1894 Act.”
Apart from the original record of village Patwari, we have perused the
original records of other villages. For example, land acquisition proceedings of
village Roja Yakubpur along with the proposal of land acquisition forwarded by
Director, Land Acquisition Directorate dated 14
th
February, 2006, certificate in
Prapatra-10 by the Collector in which same wordings were repeated that for
completion of project the possession of the land is to be immediately taken
and on invocation of Section 17 the provisions of Section 5A are dispensed
with and he is fully satisfied with the justification for dispensation of inquiry.
In the Note submitted by Greater NOIDA regarding justification for issuing
notification under Section 4/17 it was mentioned that several applicants want
allotment of plots which is not being possible due to acquisition of the land. It
was stated that specially the reputed industrial organisations of foreign
countries want allotment and to invest in the State and in case the land is not
allotted immediately, the units might go to other States. These were the
reasons which have been repeated in all such certificates. It is also to be
noticed that all the certificate, which have been submitted in all the case, does
not bear any date and appears to have been mechanically prepared using the
same words. It is also relevant to notice that petitioners in the writ petition
290
have pleaded that there was no such need of the GNOIDA which necessitated
such large scale acquisition of fertile agricultural land. It has further been
pleaded that the respondents in their counter affidavit had not given details of
any such industrial unit of foreign country which has applied for allotment.
Reference is made to Writ Petition No.45450 of 2011 (Phundan Singh and 48
others vs. State of U.P. and others), which has been filed challenging the
notifications for acquisition of land of village Dabra. Following pleadings were
made in paragraphs 6, 7 and 9 of the writ petition:-
“6.That the petitioners are holding the lands of the
aforesaid khasra and using the same for agricultural
purposes. The said land is the only source of their income,
they have no other source of their livelihood. The
petitioners are also using some of the area of their lands
for abadi purposes and purpose which are connected with
their agriculture. The respondents no.1 to 3 have illegally
failed to consider the said aspect and to exempt their
lands which are covered for abadi purposes and upon
which their constructions are situated, prior to issuance of
the impugned notifications.
7.That it is pertinent to mention here that when the
lands of the petitioners were acquired by the respondents,
there was no demand of any industrialist in establishing
the industry in the said area. The respondents have also
no approved scheme or project to establish and develop
the industrial area. The respondent no.3 at the time of the
said acquisition was in possession of vacant area which
was sufficient and can be utilized for planned industrial
development but, in spite of the same the respondent no.1
has issued the aforesaid notifications at the request of
respondent no.3.
8.That there is no evidence on record regarding the
requirement of the respondent no.3 to develop the
planned industrial area. The notification under Section 4 of
the Act was issued on 31.10.2005 while the notifcation
under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 1.9.2006. The
delay in issuance of the notification shows that there was
no urgency to acquire the land of the petitioners, but the
respondent no.1 illegally and arbitrarily by showing the
urgency has dispensed with the provisions of section 5 of
the Act by invoking the power under section 17 of the
Act.”
291
Paragraph 7 of the writ petition has been replied by the GNOIDA by
filing a counter affidavit in paragraph 39. Paragraph 39 of the counter affidavit
filed by GNOIDA is to the following effect:-
“39.That the contents of para 7 and 8 of the writ
petition are wrong and denied. That it is denied that there
was no demand for establishment of any industry. It is
also denied that no scheme was approved at the time of
acquisition. The purpose of the U.P. Industrial Area and
Development Act, 1976 is to ensure the planned
development of the notified industrial development area
and the village Dabara was notified as part of the
industrial development area. The Authority has been
constituted for the planned development and has
adequate staffs and officers which have either being
posted on the deputation by the State Government or
directly appointed by the Authority. It is wrong and denied
that prior to acquisition no enquiry or survey was
conducted.”
In above context, it is relevant to note that the reason that several
industrial Units belonging to foreign country have applied for allotment and
unless the land is not immediately allotted to them they will establish their
industries in another State, has been taken in every acquisition. A Division
Bench of this Court, while hearing challenge to the acquisition of village
Tusiyana (which is also subject matter of challenge in this bunch of writ
petitions) in the case of Sudhir Chandra Agarwala vs. State of U..P. and
others reported in 2008(4) ALJ 315, had occasion to consider the above
reason. Although the Division Bench had upheld invocation of Sections 17(1)
and 17(4) but on the aforesaid reason the Division Bench held that the
Greater NOIDA could not demonstrate or give the name of any foreign
industry which may have shown their interest for allotment of land in Greater
NOIDA. Following was noted in paragraph 25 of the said judgment:-
“25. On our request, a list of industries with their
proposals was provided by the GNIDA along with their first
supplementary counter affidavit. A perusal of the list of the
industries would show that the GNIDA relied upon names of
some of the industries, which have already set up their
industrial units in other parts of Greater Noida and that
there were no foreign companies or institutions, which had
proposed to set up an industrial unit in the area. In fact
292
GNIDA could not demonstrate or give the name of any
foreign industry, which may have shown their interest for
allotment of land in Greater Noida.”
Moreover, the fact that allotments were made to builders and
colonisers in the year 2010 of the acquired land and allegation is being made
by the respondents that after allotment the allottees have started construction
on the spot itself proves that there was no such urgency of acquisition as was
claimed by the GNOIDA or by the State that after taking possession on
5.9.2008, as alleged by the respondents, nothing was done for years although
learned counsel for the respondents submits that allotment was made in the
year 2010 to builders and colonisers have no bearing on the question of
urgency at the relevant time when State Government exercised its power
under Section 17(4) of the Act. It may be true that event which happened
subsequent to exercise of power by the State Government under Section
17(4) can have no effect on forming any opinion which was formed earlier but
the fact that land was allotted years after acquisition and taking possession
proves the case of the petitioners that there was no urgency in the matter as
to invoke Section 17(4) of the Act dispensing with inquiry. This Court even
subsequent to the decision of the State Government invoking Section 17(4) of
the Act can verify and test the strength of submissions made by the
petitioners that invocation of urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act
was in routine manner and without application of mind.
Shri. A.K. Mishra learned counsel appearing for an intervener laid
emphasis on Section 17(1A) which was added in the statute by U.P. Act 22 of
1954. It is submitted that urgency in case of Planned Development having
been statutorily recognised, it is not open to the petitioners to contend that
there was no urgency to invoke Section 17(1) and 17(4) for planned industrial
development. It is relevant to note that Section 17(1A) was added by U.P. Act
22 of 1954 since in Section 17 of the Act power to take possession was
available only for waste or arable land, and the U.P. Amendment was brought
to enable the Government to exercise power under Section 17(1) for planned
development which otherwise was not available under Section 17. It is further
to note that by Parliamentary Act 68 of 1984 the words ‘waste and arable’
293
land has been deleted and substituted by ‘any land needed for Public
Purpose”. This is not disputed by any one that Section 17(1) can be applied in
case land is needed for planned development. Moreover, Section 17(1A) and
now Section 17 as amended at best empowers the State to take possession
but that does not mean that in all cases of planned development the enquiry
under Section 5A shall also stand dispensed with. Thus Section 17(1A) as
added in Uttar Pradesh does not change the status of acquisition for a
planned development on any higher plan than all the acquisitions now covered
by Section 17 as amended by Parliamentary Act 68 of 1984.
In view of forgoing discussions, we are of the view that exercise of
power by the State Government invoking Section 17(4) of the Act dispensing
with inquiry under Section 5A of the Act is vitiated due to following reasons as
discussed above:-
(i)The original records of the State Government indicate that officers of
the State Government did not advert to the issue of dispensation of inquiry
under Section 5A of the Act nor gave any recommendation to that effect
which further indicate that direction issued by the State Government under
Section 17(4) of the Act was made without application of mind;
(ii)In the certificate given by the Collector (In Prapatra-10) only
observation made was that it is necessary to take possession immediately to
complete the project without delay. However, in his certificate the Collector
has not given any reason as to why inquiry under Section 5A of the Act be
dispensed with, rather observation in the certificate was that by invoking
Section 17 of the Act the right of objection under Section 5A are automatically
dispensed with and he is in agreement with dispensation of inquiry. The
Collector himself having not applied his mind, who was required to consider all
aspects and no reasons/recommendations having been there in the notings of
the officers of the State Government as noticed above, there was no material
on record to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act;
(iii)Even assuming without admitting that reasons given by the GNOIDA in
its Note of Justification for issuing notification under Section 4/17 were
294
considered and relied by the State Government for arriving on its subjective
satisfaction to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5A, the subjective
satisfaction is vitiated since the ground that unless the land is not immediately
provided, the land shall be encroached has been held by the Apex Court to be
a irrelevant ground in Om Prakash’s & Radhy Shyam’s cases (supra). The
subjective satisfaction based on an irrelevant ground is vitiated in law.
As observed above, the notifications issued under Section 4 read with
Section 17(1) and 17(4) were identical with all acquisitions and the materials
on record before the State Government including the certificates issued by the
Collector in Prapatra-10 as well as the Note of Justification submitted by the
authorities were in identical term, hence the invocation of Section 17(4) has to
be held to be vitiated in all the above cases.
Considering the dictum of the Apex Court, as noticed above and the
facts as noticed above, we hold that invocation of Section 17(4) by the State
Government dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act while
issuing notification under Section 4 is vitiated. The dispensation of inquiry
being invalid, all the petitioners were entitled for an opportunity to file
objection under Section 5A of the Act.
6.Pre-notification and Post-notification delay:
The petitioners in the writ petition have submitted that there was no
urgency for invoking Sections 17(1) and 17(4), while issuing notification under
section 4 which is also fully proved by the fact of delay which has occasioned
even before issuance of notification under section 4 and subsequent to
section 4 notifications. The petitioners have submitted that in main writ
petition of Gajraj, the Greater Noida Authority sent recommendation on
31.3.2006 for invoking Sections 17(1) and 17(4) but the Collector forwarded
the recommendation only on 22.2.2008 and thereafter notification under
section 4 dated 12.3.2008 was issued which clearly proved that there was no
such urgency in the matter so as to dispense the inquiry under section 5A. It
is further submitted that the notification under section 6 was issued after
more than three and half months from section 4 notifications which itself
295
belies the case of the State that the case was such urgent that no opportunity
could have been given under section 5A. Learned Counsel for the petitioners
submits that there are several other cases in which gap of about one year in
the notifications under section 4 as well as in the notification under section 6.
For village Pali Notification under section 4 was issued on 7.9.2006 whereas
notification under section 6 was issued on 23.7.2007 i.e. after more than ten
months. In village Biraundi Chakrasenpur Section 4 notification was issued on
31.7.2007 whereas notification under section 6 was issued on 15.1.2008. In
Tusiyana section 4 notification was issued on 10.4.2006, whereas section 6
declaration was issued on 30.11.2006. In Village Dabara Section 4
notification was issued on 31.10.2005, whereas section 6 notification was
issued on 1.9.2006. In this context one case is to be specifically noted i.e. writ
petition No. 44093 of 2011 Beli Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others of village
Kondali Banger. In the writ petition, notification dated 8.9.2008 issued under
section 4 read with Section 17(1) and section 17(4) and notification dated
16.9.2009 read with Section 6 have been challenged. A counter affidavit has
been filed by the State in which it has been pleaded that notification under
section 4 was published in the Hindi newspaper Rashtriya Sahara and
Amarujala on 15.8.2009 and the Munadi in the village was carried out on
21.8.2009 and thereafter notification under section 6 was issued on 16.9.2009
which was published in the daily newspaper Jansatta and Dainik Jagaran on
24.10.2009. From the above, it is clear that even publication of section 4
notification was made in the newspaper on 15.8.2009 and Munadi was done
on 21.8.2009 i.e. notification under section 4 was published after 11 months
and notification under section 6 was issued after more than one year of the
gazette publication of section 4.
The submission which has been pressed by the learned counsel for the
petitioners are that section 6 has been not immediately issued after section 4
clearly indicates that there was no urgency in the acqusition and the
invocation of urgency under section 17(1) and 17(4) was done in the routine
manner without there being any real need or urgency in the matter. The
question of delay caused prior to issuance of notification under section 4 as
well as subsequent to section 4 had come for consideration before the apex
Court in several cases. In AIR 1971 SC 1033 Jage Ram and others Vs.
296
State of Haryana in which apex Court observed the fact that State
Government or Authority concerned was lethargic at an earlier stage is not
very relevant for deciding the question whether on the date when notification
was issued there was urgency or not. Following was laid down in paragraph
10:
“The fact that the St-ate Government or the party
concerned was lethargic at an earlier stage is not very
relevant for deciding the question whether on the date on
which the notification was issued, there was urgency or not
the conclusion of the Government in a given case that there
was urgency entitled to weight, if not conclusive.”
In Deepak Pahwa etc. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and others AIR
1984 SC 1721, the apex Court held that mere pre-notification delay would not
render the invocation of urgency provision void. However, the Court did not
say anything about post notification in delay. Following was laid down in
paragraph 8:
“The other ground of attack is that if regard is had to the
considerable length of time spent on interdepartmental
discussion before the notification under S. 4 (1) was
published, it would be apparent that there was no
justification for invoking the urgency clause under s. 17 (4)
and dispensing with the enquiry under s. 5-A. We are
afraid, we cannot agree with this contention. Very often
persons interested in the land proposed to be acquired
make various representations to the concerned authorities
against the proposed acquisition. This is bound to result in
a multiplicity of enquiries, communications and discussions
leading invariably to delay in the execution of even urgent
projects. Very often the delay makes the problem more and
more acute and increases the urgency of the necessity for
acquisition. It is, therefore, not possible to agree with the
submission that more pre-notification delay would render
the invocation of the urgency provisions void. We however
wish to say nothing about post-notification delay. In Jaga
Ram v. State of Haryana, this court pointed out "the fact
that the State Government or the party concerned was
lethargic at an earlier stage is not very relevant for deciding
the question whether on the date on which the notification
was issued, there was urgency or not." In Kash Reddy
Papiah v Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, it was held, "Delay on
the part of the tardy officials to take further action in the
matter of acquisition is not sufficient to nullify the urgency
which existed at the time of the issue of the notification and
297
to hold that there was never any urgency." In the result
both the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioners are rejected and the special leave petitions are
dismissed.”
The next case relied by learned counsel for the respondents is
Chameli Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. and another (1996) 2
Supreme Court Cases 549, the apex Court had occasion to consider the
question of pre-notification and post notification delay. The apex Court laid
down following in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17:
“15. .........The pre-notification and post-notification
delay caused by the concerned officer does not create a
cause to hold that there is no urgency.. Housing conditions
of Dalits all over the country continue to be miserable even
till day is a fact of which courts are bound to take judicial
notice. The ratio of Deepak Pahwa's case (supra) was
followed. In that case a three-Judge Bench of this Court
had upheld the notification issued under Section 17(4),
even though lapse of time of 8 years had occurred due to
inter-Departmental discussions before receiving the
notification. That itself was considered to be a ground to
invoke urgency clause. It was further held that delay on
the part of the lethargic officials to take further action in
the matter of acquisition was not sufficient to nullify the
urgency which existed at the time of the issuance of the
notification and to hold that there was never any urgency.
In Jaga Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.
MANU/SC/0571/1971 : [1971]3SCR871 this Court upheld
the exercise of the power of urgency under Section 17(4)
and had held that the lethargy on the part of the officers
at an early stage was not relevant to decide whether on
the day of the notification there was urgency or not.
Conclusion of the Government that there was urgency,
though not conclusive, is entitled to create weight. In
Deepak Pahwa's case this Court had held that very often
persons interested in the land proposed to be acquired
may make representations to the concerned authorities
against the proposed writ petition that is bound to result in
multiplicity of enquiries, communications and discussions
leading invariably to delay in the execution of even
urgency projects. Very often delay makes the problem
more and more acute and increases urgency of the
necessity for acquisition.......
16. It would thus be seen that this Court emphasised the
holding of an inquiry on the facts peculiar to that case. Very
often the officials, due to apathy in implementation of the
298
policy and programmes of the Government, themselves
adopt dilatory tactics to create cause for the owner of the
land to challenge the validity or legality of the exercise of
the power to defeat the urgency existing on the date of
taking decision under Section 17(4) to dispense with
Section 5-A inquiry.
17. It is true that there was pre- notification and post-
notification delay on the part of the officers to finalise and
publish the notification. But those facts were present before
the Government when it invoked urgency clause and
dispensed with inquiry under Section 5-A. As held by this
Court, the delay by itself accelerates the urgency: Larger
the delay, greater be the urgency. So long as the
unhygienic conditions and deplorable housing needs of
Dalits, Tribes and the poor are not solved or fulfilled, the
urgency continues to subsist When the Government on the
basis of the material, constitutional and international
obligation, formed its opinion of urgency, the Court, not
being an appellate forum, would not disturb the finding
unless the court conclusively finds the exercise of the power
male fide. Providing house sites to the Dalits, Tribes and
the poor itself is a national problem, and a constitutional
obligation. So long as the problem is not solved and the
need is not fulfilled, the urgency continues to subsist. The
State is expending money to relieve the deplorable housing
condition in which they live by providing decent housing
accommodation with better sanitary conditions. The
lethargy on the part of the officers for pre and post-
notification delay would not render the exercise of the
power to invoke urgency clause invalid on that account.”
Again in (2002) 4 Supreme Court Cases 160 First Land Acquisition
collector Vs. Nirodhi Prakash Gangoli and another , the Court
considered the post notification delay. Following was observed in paragraph
5:
“Any post Notification delay subsequent to the decision of
the State Government dispensing with an enquiry under
Section 5(A) by invoking powers under Section 17(1) of the
Act would not invalidate the decision itself specially when
no malafides on the part of the government or its officers
are alleged. Opinion of the State Government can be
challenged in a Court of law if it would be shown that the
State Government never applied its mind to the matter or
that action of the State Government is malafide.”
In Anand Singh Vs. State of U.P.(2010)11 Supreme Court Cases
242, the issue of pre-notification and post notification delay in issuing
299
notification under section 6 was considered and the apex Court after
considering the judgment of Jage Ram, Deepak Pahwa and Chameli Singh
(supra) laid down following proposition in paragraph 48:
“ As regards the issue whether pre-notification and post-
notification delay would render the invocation of urgency
power void, again the case law is not consistent. The view
of this Court has differed on this aspect due to different
fact-situation prevailing in those cases. In our opinion such
delay will have material bearing on the question of
invocation of urgency power, particularly in a situation
where no material has been placed by the appropriate
government before the court justifying that urgency was of
such nature that necessitated elimination of enquiry under
Section 5A.”
The recent judgment in Dev Sharan and Others Vs. State of U.P.
& others (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 769, the Court considered the
post notification delay and following was observed in paragraphs 37 and 38:
“37. Thus the time which elapsed between publication of
Section 4(1) and Section 17 notifications, and Section 6
declaration in the local newspapers is of 11 months and 23
days, i.e. almost one year. This slow pace at which the
government machinery had functioned in processing the
acquisition, clearly evinces that there was no urgency for
acquiring the land so as to warrant invoking Section 17 (4)
of the Act.
38. In paragraph 15 of the writ petition, it has been clearly
stated that there was a time gap of more than 11 months
between Section 4 and Section 6 notifications, which
demonstrates that there was no urgency in the State action
which could deny the petitioners their right under Section
5A. In the counter which was filed in this case by the State
before the High Court, it was not disputed that the time
gap between Section 4 notification read with Section 17,
and Section 6 notification was about 11 months.”
The submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that delay
prior to issuance of notification and subsequent to the issuance of notification
under section 4 accelerates the urgency as has been held by the apex Court
in several cases. This argument has been specifically considered in recent
judgment of the apex Court in Devendra Singh and others Vs. State of
300
U.P. and others (Civil Appeal No. 6293 of 2011 decided on 3.8.2011). The
apex Court held that delay in proceeding itself shall not create urgency but
urgency may be accelerated only in cases where there exist urgency. Thus,
existence of urgency is a material factor. It is relevant to quote paragraph 13
which is to the following effect:
“ 13. Learned senior counsel for the respondents also relied
on the decision of this Court in Deepak Pahwa case (supra).
In that case, the land was acquired by invoking urgency
provisions under section 17 for the purpose of construction
of a New Transmitting Station for the Delhi Airport after the
correspondence of nearly eight years among the various
Departments of the Government before the Notification and
the declaration was published in the Gazette. This Court has
held that mere pre-notification delay would not render the
invocation of the urgency provisions void as very often, the
delay increased the urgency of the necessity for acquisition.
We are afraid that the decision will not come to the rescue
of the respondents because this Court has observed that
delay only accelerates or increases the urgency of need of
acquisition, which contemplates that delay does not create a
ground or cause for urgency but increases the already
existing urgency for acquisition of land for any public
purpose. Therefore, the delay, by itself, does not create
urgency for acquisition but accelerates urgency only in case
if already exists in the nature of the public purpose.”
From the pronouncements of the apex Court as noticed above, it is
clear that in the event there are sufficient material to explain the delay prior
to issuing notification under section 4 or subsequent to notification under
section 6, the delay itself does not vitiate the acquisition. It has been further
stated that the delay may be by objection by interested persons or by
lethargy of the officer which itself should not be ground but as has been laid
down by the apex Court in Anand Singh's case (supra), noticed above, that
the delay will have a material bearing on the question of matter of urgency
particularly in a situation where no material has been placed by the
appropriate Government before the Court justifying that urgency was of such
nature that necessitated elimination of inquiry under section 5A. It is further
relevant to note that delay both pre & post notification itself does not
accelerate urgency where there was none and it may accelerate urgency only
when there was urgency for the acquisition. Thus the crux of the matter is,
whether urgency was such that summary enquiry under Section 5A was
301
necessary to be dispensed with since acquisition could not have waited for
few days & few weeks. In this bunch of cases, the reason for invocation of
urgency has been mechanically given in same words which has already been
considered and found not valid. Further there is no proper explanation with
regard to inordinate delay caused in issuing notification under section 6 when
section 4 notification was already issued by the State Government invoking
urgency. Thus, the submission of the petitioners have substance that in large
number of cases pre-notification and post-notification delay caused clearly
indicates that the cases were not such so as to invoke sections 17(1) and
Section 17(4).
7.Colourable Exercise of Power
Petitioners’ case in the writ petition is that the acquisition of agricultural
land of the petitioners was in colourable exercise of power and was nothing
but fraud on power. In the main writ petition (Gajraj and others vs. State of
U.P.), the petitioners’ case is that urgency clause was invoked in order to fulfil
the obligations to the private builders. It has been pleaded that the
notifications seeking to acquire the land were in colourable exercise of power.
In the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioners have pleaded in paragraph 14, as
quoted above, that although the land was acquired for planned industrial
development in district Gautam Budh Nagar but the same has been
transferred to private builders for construction and sale. Copy of Lease deed
dated 31
st
March, 2010 by which one Supertech Limited was transferred plot
measuring 2,04,000.00 square meters for construction of residential colonies,
has been brought on the record.
In Writ Petition No.47502 of 2011 (Jugendra and othes vs. State of
U.P. and others) of village Tusiyana following has been pleaded in paragraphs
11 and 31:-
“11.It is now well established that the State
Government, Greater Noida Authorities, Bulders and the
Colonizers have hatched a conspiracy to deprive the
farmers of their lands by malafide and colourable exercise
of powers of so called ‘eminent domain’ and thereby
snatching away the lands of the farmers that being allotted
to the builders and colonizers and in the process to earn
huge money therefrom.
302
31.That, it has now come on record that it is for
the benefit of certain individual that the large population of
farmers and entrepreneurs are put to sword and are mad
to suffer on account of malice of the respondents. In this
context it may not be lost sight that various farmers and
entrepreneurs have lost their land and although they have
been paid some compensation but the said compensation
could not be equated with an alternative arrangement for
a recurring source of income. It is a matter of common
knowledge that on account of such acquisition and
depriving the local youth in meaningful activity of engaging
themselves in some business including business in
industrial sector, the local youth is finding its future
rudderless and are now frequently engaging themselves in
criminal activities and that it is for this reason that murders
and kidnapping etc. galore in that part of the world.
Planned development ‘of the society’ should be matter of
concern for the State and not benefit of ‘certain
individuals’. The acquisition proceedings result in pocketing
of huge profits in the limited few by depriving the bulk of
population either of their residential abode or their source
of livelihood. Averments relating to advancements,
development and such other ‘colourful phrases’ is in effect
of camouflage and is a false perspective of development.
It may be noticed that the acquisition of petitioners land
would not only deprive them of their property and
business but also result in depriving the person who have
been working with the petitioners of their right of
livelihood.”
In Writ Petition No.37119 of 2011 (Dal Chand and others vs. State of
U.P. and others) of village Roja Yakubpur, following was stated in paragraphs
7, 11 and 12:-
“7.That the purpose for which the land of petitioners is
sought to be acquired as per the notification is Plan
Industrial Development through the Authority which, on
the fact of it, is incorrect and is, in fact, a camouflage. It
may be stated here that State Government wrongly and
illegally mentioned in the notification that the land is being
acquired for Plan Industrial Development through the
Authority while, in fact, the land is sought to be acquired
for the purposes of transferring the same to private
builders (in the present case respondents No.3 to 8) for
construction residential colonies/flats. Thus the entire
exercise which has been done is colourable exercise of
powers and on this ground alone the impugned
notifications and acquisition proceeding pursuant thereof,
303
are liable to be quashed.
11.That, however, the land which was acquired Plan
Industrial Development by invoking urgency clause U/s.
17(4) of the Act and the inquiry as contemplated U/s. 5of
the Act was dispensed with in the acquisition proceeding.
The land acquired is not used for Plan Industrial
Development through Authority and it is not used for the
purpose for which it was acquired and is transferred to
Respondent No.3 to 8 for the purposes of constructing
residential flats.”
12.That vide lease deed dated 28.07.2010 an area of
106196.00 sq. meter of Plot No. GH-01, Techzone-IV
Greater Noida is transferred in favour of Respondent No.3
namely Amarpali Leisure Valley Developers Pvt. Ltd. for the
development and marketing of Group Housing
Pockets/flats/plots. A photocopy of the said lease deed
dated 28.07.2010 is being filed as ANNEXURE-4 TO this
writ petition.”
In paragraphs 13 to 17 of the said writ petition, details of allotments
and lease deed dated 25
th
February, 2011 in favour of M/s. Amrapali Dream
Valley Private Limited for an area of 354299 square meters, lease deed dated
17
th
February, 2011 in favour of Amrapali Centurian Park Private Limited for
an area of 272916 square meters, lease deed dated 11
th
October, 2011 in
favour of M/s Supertech Ltd. for an area of 85202.37 square meters, lease
deed dated 2
nd
April, 2011 in favour of Omar Nests Pvt. Limited for an area of
86037 square meters and lease deed dated 3
rd
November, 2010 in favour of
M/s Rajesh Projects (India) Limited for an area of 74731.24 square meters
have been referred to and pleaded.
Pleadings to the same effect have been made in almost all the writ
petitions and reference of transfer to private parties of substantial area of land
acquired has been made.
Learned counsel for the respondents although contended that there are
no pleading or material to even allege colourable exercise of power by the
GNOIDA or the State Government but the said contention cannot be accepted.
The interveners have already filed applications and affidavit giving details of
304
allotment which clearly substantiate the pleading that there has been mass
transfer of acquired land to private builders by the GNOIDA against the
purpose and object of the 1976 Act and the transfer to private parties is not in
conjunction with any industrial development, rather it is dehors the object of
the 1976 Act. Along with four supplementary counter affidavit the GNOIDA
has given details of allotments, land use, change of land use, area of
allotment and other details pertaining to each village of Greater NOIDA. From
the materials, which are in shape of folders and part of four supplementary
counter affidavit, it is revealed that in following villages the GNOIDA itself has
changed the land use converting the land use into residential whereas it was
different in the master plan. The details of villages in which land use was got
changed by GNOIDA to enable it to facilitate transfer to private parties, are as
follows:-
1. Patwari
2. Junpat
3. Ghori Bachhera
4. Chhapraula
5. Pali
6. Yusufpur Chak Shahberi
7. Kasna
8. Haibatpur
9. Chhipayana Khurd
10.Itehra
11.Roja Yakubpur
12.Bishrakhpur Jalalpur
We have already observed, while considering Issue No.1 and 2, that
GNOIDA has not correctly comprehended the object and purpose of the 1976
Act and its actions have not been in accord to promote the purpose and
object of the Act. Reckless proposals submitted by the GNOIDA for acquiring
huge fertile agricultural land of villages of GNOIDA and NOIDA which remain
unutilised for years and ultimately the industrial use of some villages was got
changed into residential facilitating transfer to private parties indicate that the
action of the GNOIDA is not to fulfil the object of the Act, rather it has been
305
exercising its statutory power for the object which is not contemplated by the
1976 Act. The GNOIDA has mechanically recommended invocation of urgency
clause so that land holders could not raise any finger regarding the acts and
motive of the GNOIDA and it may pursue its plan to carry on its activity as it
pleases. We have already noticed above that GNOIDA is labouring under
misconception that unless it acquires the land under the Land Acquisition Act
it cannot carry any development which mindset is not in accordance with the
purpose and object of the 1976 Act. It is true that under Section 6(2)(a) of
the 1976 Act the functions of the Authority includes acquisition of land in the
industrial development area by agreement or through proceedings under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purposes of the Act. The Authority has not
substantially resorted other mode prescribed for acquisition i.e. by agreement,
rather it has embarked upon acquisition of land in reckless manner. The fact
that the land use of the land, which was acquired for industrial development
in different villages, has been changed into residential clearly indicates that
the Authority has not been able to achieve the object of industrial
development.
Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that by changing
the land use there has been no change as the change of land use of a
particular village was compensated by swapping the land. Although under the
provisions of the Act and Regulations 1991 it may be permissible for the
Authority to change the land use, but we are not on the above issue. The
sequence of events specially the wholesale allotment for residential colonies
and the resolution of the GNOIDA dated 2
nd
February, 2010 by which it
decided to change the land use of the area adjoining 130 meters road for the
purposes of earning more profit clearly indicates that it did not pursue the
object of the Act and acted with the object of earning profit.
Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on a Division
Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sundar Garden Welfare
Association and another vs. State of U.P. and others reported in
2008(5) ALJ 29. In the said case land was acquired for planned industrial
development in district Ghaziabad through Uttar Pradesh State Industrial
Development Corporation, Kanpur. In the aforesaid case, following was laid
306
down in paragraph 13:-
“13. We are of the view that once the land was acquired
and taken over by the requiring body for the purposes of
industrial development, then it can be public or
commercial and residential accommodation connected
with the said industrial development but it cannot enter
into simple housing development scheme performing the
job of the development authorities and Nagar Nigams
etc., which are authorised under the U.P. Urban Planning
and Development Act, 1973 and colourable exercise other
similar Acts.”
There cannot be any dispute that according to the provisions of the
1976 Act and Regulations land acquired can be put to different uses as
mentioned in Regulation 2 of the 1991 Regulations including agricultural,
commercial, industrial, institutional and residential houses but as observed by
us while deciding Issue No.1 and 2 other uses have to be subservient to the
dominant object of the industrial development.
Learned counsel for the GNOIDA has placed reliance on a Division
Bench judgment of this Court in the case of N.P. Singh vs. State of U.P.
and another reported in 2010(10) ADJ 217 for the proposition that the
Authority can alienate the plots to private builders and the Authority cannot
be prohibited from making allotments of group housing plots. It was held by
the Division Bench that Section 7 of the Act does not bar the Authority from
selling or leasing the land to private parties including private builders.
Following was laid down by the Division Bench in paragraph 15 of the said
judgment, which is as under:-
“15. On consideration, therefore, of Sections 6 and 7, it is
clear that power is conferred on the Authority to sell, lease
or otherwise transfer, by the method set out in the
Section, any land belonging to the Authority in the
development area on such terms as it thinks fit. The
functions of the Authority have been set out under Section
6 of the Act, which includes the power to acquire land, to
prepare a plan, to demarcate and develop sites for
industrial, commercial and residential purposes and to
allocate them for sale or lease, amongst others, for
residential purposes. The power, therefore, to alienate the
land, which had been acquired for residential purpose has
307
been provided for by the Act itself. It will, therefore, not
be possible to accept the contention on behalf of the
petitioner that the land having been acquired under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be alienated. Section 7
of the Act does not bar the Authority from selling or
leasing the land to private parties including private
builders. There is also no other provision, implied or
express, prohibiting the transfer of land under the Act. The
object of the Act is not defeated if private builders are
allowed to develop the area, as the object is to develop
the area into an industrial and urban township. The
process of development, as noted by the Authority in
terms of plan notified, can be carried out either by the
Authority or through other bodies. The Authority in that
process transfers plots to individuals, societies as also for
Group Housing in respect of which development can be
done by the private parties, including builders whereby the
object of the Act is satisfied. The petitioner has not
brought to our attention any provision whereby the
Authority is prohibited, expressly or impliedly, from
carrying out objects of the plan through private builders.
The State and it organs in order to enable citizens to have
affordable housing and further for proper development of
a town, so that better infrastructure is provided, can do it
by itself or through its instrumentalities or third partner,
including private builders. That private builders may make
profit is no answer. The State with its limited financial
resources can allow others to achieve the object of the Act
which is its primary concern including affordable housing
and better infrastructure. The first contention must be
rejected.”
We are of the view that no exception can be taken to the power of the
Authority to transfer or lease out the property as empowered by Section 7.
We are, however, of the view that power under Section 7 has to be utilised
for the purpose and object of the Act and leaving the industrial development
as its dominant object, the Authority cannot act in a manner that it has
become a facilitator of carrying building activities in the area to private
builders without it having any connection with the object of industrial
development. The power given to the Authority under the Act has to be
exercised keeping in view the object of the Act.
The phrase “colourable exercise of power” came for consideration
before the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and another vs.
Gurdial Singh and others reported in (1980)2 SCC 471. In the said case
308
Justice Krishna Iyer explained as to what is mala fide in the jurisprudence of
power, sometimes called colourable. Following was laid down in paragraph 9:-
“9. The question, then, is what is mala fides in the
jurisprudence of power? Legal malice is gibberish unless
juristic clarity keeps it separate from the popular concept
of personal vice. Pithily put, bad faith which invalidates the
exercise of power - sometimes called colourable exercise
or fraud on power and oftentimes overlaps motives,
passions and satisfactions - is the attainment of ends
beyond the sanctioned purposes of power by simulation or
pretension of gaining a legitimate goal. If the use of the
power is for the fulfilment of a legitimate object the
actuation or catalysation by malice is not legicidal. The
action is bad where the true object is to reach an end
different from the one for which the power is entrusted,
goaded by extraneous considerations, good or bad, but
irrelevant to the entrustment. When the custodian of
power is influenced in its exercise by considerations
outside those for promotion of which the power is vested
the court calls it a colourable exercise and is undeceived
by illusion. In a broad, blurred sense, Benjamin Disraeli
was not off the mark even in Law when he stated: "I
repeat...that all power is a trust-that we are accountable
for its exercise-that, from the people, and for the people,
all springs, and all must exist". Fraud on power voids the
order if it is not exercised bona fide for the end designed.
Fraud in this context is not equal to moral turpitude and
embraces all cases in which the action impugned is to
effect some object which is beyond the purpose and intent
of the power, whether this be malice- laden or even
benign. If the purpose is corrupt the resultant act is bad.
If considerations, foreign to the scope of the power or
extraneous to the statute, enter the verdict or impel the
action, mala fides or fraud on power, vitiates the
acquisition or other official act.”
In the case of Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad and
another vs. Raja Ram Jaiswal reported in (1985)3 SCC 1, the Apex Court
had occasion to consider the question of colourable exercise of power in
context of land acquisition. Following was laid down by the Apex Court in
paragraphs 25 and 26:-
“25.It is well-settled that where power is conferred to
achieve a certain purpose, the power can be exercised
only for achieving that purpose. Sec. 4 (1) confers power
309
on the Government and the Collector to acquire land
needed for a public purpose. The power to acquire land is
to be exercised for carrying out a public purpose. If the
authorities of the Sammelan cannot tolerate the existence
of a cinema theatre in its vicinity, can it be said that such a
purpose would be a public purpose ? May be the authority
of the Sammelan may honestly believe that the existence
of a cinema theatre may have the pernicious tendency to
vitiate the equcational and cultural environment of the
institution and therefore, it would like to wish away a
cinema theatre in its vicinity. That hardly constitutes public
purpose. We have already said about its proclaimed need
of land for putting up Sangrahalya. It is an easy escape
route whenever Sammelan wants to take over some piece
of land. Therefore, it can be fairly concluded that the
Sammelan was actuated by extraneous and irrelevant
considerations in seeking acquisition of the land the
statutory authority having known this fact yet proceeded
to exercise statutory power and initiated the process of
acquisition. Does this constitute legal mala fides?
26.Where power is conferred to achieve a purpose it
has been repeatedly reiterated that the power must be
exercised reasonably and in good faith to effectuate the
purpose. And in this context 'in good faith' means 'for
legitimate reasons'. Where power is exercised for
extraneous or irrelevant considerations or reasons, it is
unquestionably a colourableq exercise of power or fraud
on power and the exercise of power is vitiated. If the
power to acquire land is to be exercised, it must be
exercised bona fide for the statutory purpose and for none
other. If it is exercised for an extraneous, irrelevant or
non-germane consideration, the acquiring authority can be
charged with legal mala fides In such a situation there is
no question of any personal ill- will or motive. In Municipal
Council of Sydney v. Compbell(1) it was observed that
irrelevant considerations on which power to acquire land is
exercised, would vitiate compulsory purchase orders or
scheme depending on them. In State of Punjab v. Gurdial
Singh & Ors (2) acquisition of land for constructing a grain
market was challenged on the ground of legal malafides
Upholding the challenge this Court speaking through
Krishna Iyer, J. explained the concept of legal malafides in
his hitherto inimitable language, diction and style and
observed as under:
...............
...............
After analysing the factual matrix, it was concluded that
the land was not needed for a Mandi which was the
310
ostensible purpose for which the land was sought to be
acquired but in truth and reality, the Mandi need was
hijacked to reach the private destination of depriving an
enemy of his land through back-seat driving of the
statutory engine. The notification was declared invalid on
the ground that it suffers from legal mala fides. The case
before us is much stronger, far more disturbing and
unparalelled in influencing official decision by sheer weight
of personal clout. The District Magistrate was chagrined to
swallow the bitter pill that he was forced to acquire land
even though he was personally convinced there was no
need but a pretence- Therefore, disagreeing with the High
Court, we are of the opinion that the power to acquire land
was exercised for an extraneous and irrelevent purpose
and it was colourable exercise of power, namely, to satisfy
the chagrin and anguish of the Sammelan at the coming
up of a cinema theatre in the vicinity of its campus, which
it vowed to destroy. Therefore, the impugned notification
has to be declared illegal and invalid for this additional
ground.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to terms and
conditions of allotment of land to private builders indicating that on mere
payment of 5% of allotment money allotments have been made since entire
efforts of the Authority were to only help the private builders and allot as
much land to them as possible. The object of the Authority to earn huge profit
is writ large in its action. The petitioners submit that the allotment to builders
on very soft terms was the real purpose and object of the Authority for
acquisition which has come true by subsequent conduct of the Authority. One
of the allotment letters dated 17.8.2010 in favour of M/s Supertech Ltd. has
been filed as Annexure CA-3 to the counter affidavit filed by M/s Supertech
Ltd. (respondent No.9) in Writ Petition No.43825 of 2011 (Nepal and others
vs. State of U.P.) which indicates that: (i) allotment has been made on 5%
reservation money and 5% allotment money; (ii) there shall be moratorium of
24 months from the date of allotment for payment of instalments; (iii)
allotment amount was to be paid within 10 years; and (iv) land allotted was
249410 square meters. The above indicates that Authority allotted huge land
on very soft terms and conditions which discloses its intention to transfer as
much land as possible to private builders putting aside its main object of
industrial development.
311
While considering the issue pertaining to National Capital Regional
Planning Board Act, 1985, we have referred to effect of Section 40 of the 1985
Act on the 1976 Act. Under the 1976 Act though Authority is empowered to
acquire land under Section 7(2)(a) but the power of requiring body i.e.
Authority shall now be conditioned by Section 40 of the Act i.e. now the power
of acquisition can be exercised only to give effect to any Regional Plan,
Functional Plan, Sub-Regional Plan or Project Plan. In the present cases the
Authority has stated that its Master Plan 2021 had been approved by the
Authority in November, 2001 and thereafter it proceeded to implement its
plan. The recommendations for acquisition of land has been thus made by
Authority in furtherance of its Master Plan 2021; The Master Plan 2021 of
Greater Noida Authority having not yet been cleared by NCRP Board, the
recommendations of Authority for huge acquisition of land becomes
questionable which is also an act of Greater Noida Authority in colourable
exercise of power.
From the aforesaid discussions, we are of the view that the Authority
has acted in colourable exercise of power in exercising its statutory function of
acquiring the land as per Section 6(2)(a) of the 1976 Act. The Authority on the
pretext of carrying planned industrial development as it was statutorily obliged
to carry, pursued different object and purpose, i.e. transferring the land to
private persons dehors to the industrial development.
Now comes the allegations made against the State Government
regarding colourable exercise of power. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has submitted that State without applying its mind and without making
appropriate inquiry and without adverting as to whether such huge chunk of
land is required for acquisition, proceeded to issue notification under Section 4
read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) and Section 6 of the Act to help and
facilitate the private parties, which is a colourable exercise of power. We,
however, observe that there are no appropriate pleading alleging malafide
against the State Government nor there is any material on the record on the
basis of which we can come to the conclusion that the State Government has
acquired the land at the instance of private parties. Thus we are of the view
that petitioners have not successfully pleaded and proved malafide against the
312
State Government although it has been proved that State has proceeded to
issue notifications under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) and
Section 6 without application of mind as observed above.
8.Taking of possession:
One of the submissions which has been pressed by petitioners' counsel
in all the writ petitions is that no possession of the plots in question have been
taken by the Collector on the spot. It is submitted that possession as
contemplated under Section 17, sub Section 1 has to be actual physical
possession. It is submitted that the District Revenue Authorities as well as
NOIDA authority/greater NOIDA authorities have never taken physical
possession of land in dispute and the possession memo has been prepared
without coming on the spot and there are neither signatures of land holders
nor there are signatures of any independent witnesses in the possession
memo.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on various judgments of
the Apex court; A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 1989 Narmada Bachao Andolen Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and judgment of the Apex Court in Prahlad
Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others 2011, 5 S.C.C. 386.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the counter
affidavit filed by the State as well as by authority, no material has been
brought on the record to indicate as to when possession was taken by the
State under Section 17 of the Act. It is submitted that the respondents have
filed alleged possession memo to indicate that possession was handed over to
the authority.
It is submitted that unless the State takes possession of the land in
dispute in accordance with law, there is no question of transferring the
possession by the State of the land to the authority. It is further submitted
that State having never taken actual physical possession on the spot. It can
not transfer the possession to the authority and the possession memo which
has been filed along with the counter affidavit evidencing alleged transferring
of possession to the authority by the State can not be given any credence.
Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the respondents on the
313
judgment of the Apex Court in 1976(1) S.C.C. 700 Balwant Narayan
Bhagde Vs. M.D. Bhagwat. Reliance has also been placed on judgment of
the Apex court in 1996 volume 4 SCC 212 Bal Mukund Khatri
Educationl and Industrial Trust Vs. State of Punjab and judgment of
the Apex Court in 2011 (5) S.C.C. 394 Banda Development authority,
Banda Vs. Moti Lal Agarwal and others. We have considered submission
of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Before we proceed to consider respective submission of the parties it is
useful to refer to the judgments relied by learned counsel for the parties in
which the issue has been considered. In Balwant Narayan Bhagde
following was observed in paragraph 25.
“25. When a public notice is published at a convenient
place or near the land to be taken stating that the
Government intends to take possession of the land, then
ordinarily and generally there should be no question of
resisting or impeding the taking of possession. Delivery or
giving of possession by the owner or the occupant of the
land is not required. The Collector can enforce the
surrender of the land to himself under section 47 of the Act
if impeded in. taking possession. On publication of the
notice under section 9(1) claims to compensation for all
interests in the land has to be made; be it the interest of
the owner or of a person entitled to the occupation of the
land. On the taking of possession of the land under section
16 or 17 (1) it vests absolutely in the Government free
from all incumbrances. It is, therefore, clear that taking of
possession within the meaning of section 16 or 17(1)
means taking of possession on the spot. It is neither a
possession on paper nor a "symbolical" possession as
generally understood in Civil Law. But the question is what
is the mode of taking possession? The Act is silent on the
point. Unless possession is taken by the written agreement
of the party concerned the mode of taking possession
obviously would be for the authority to go upon the land
and to do some act which would indicate that the authority
has taken possession of the land. It may be in the form of
a declaration by beat of drum or otherwise or by hanging a
written declaration on the spot that the authority 10 SC 75-
18 has taken possession of the land. The presence of the
owner or the occupant of the land to effectuate the taking,
of possession is not necessary. No further notice beyond
that under section 9(1) of the act: is required. When
possession has been taken, the owner or the occupant of
the land is dispossessed. Once possession has been taken
314
the land vests in the Government.”
In paragraph 28 it was further observed that how such possession may
be taken, would depend on the nature of the land and there can be no hard
and fast rule laying down what acts would be necessary to constitute taking a
possession of the land. In Balmokand Khatri, Educational and Industrial
Trust v. State of Punjab 1996(4) SCC 212, Apex Court observed that
normal mode of taking possession is drafting the Panchnama in the presence
of Panch as taking possession and giving to the beneficiaries following were
laid down in paragraph 4:
“4. It is seen that the entire gamut of the acquisition
proceedings stood completed by 17-4-1976 by which date
possession of the land had been taken. No doubt, Shri
Parekh has contended that the appellant still retained their
possession. It is now well-settled legal position that it is
difficult to take physical possession of the land under
compulsory acquisition. The normal mode of taking
possession is drafting the Panchanama in the presence of
Panchas and taking possession and giving delivery to the
beneficiaries is the accepted mode of taking possession of
the land. Subsequent thereto, the retention of possession
would tantamount only to illegal or unlawful possession.”
In Narmada Bachao Andolan’s case (supra) Apex Court had
occasion to consider the question of issue of taking possession. The manner
of taking possession of land in Narmada Bachao Andolan, Apex Court held
that in case the land is fallow and barren and does not have any structure or
crop symbolic position may meet the requirement of law. However, this will
not be a position in case crop is standing or a Kuccha or Pucca structure has
been raised on such land following was laid down in paragraph 124.
124. In view of the above, law on the issue can be
summarized to the effect that no strait-jacket formula
can be laid down for taking the possession of the land for
the purpose of Sections 16 and 17 of the Act 1894. It
would depend upon the facts of an individual case. In case
the land is fallow and barren and does not have any
structure or crop on it, symbolic possession may meet the
requirement of law. However, this would not be the
position in case crop is standing on the land or a kachha or
pacca structure has been raised on such land. In that case,
actual physical possession is required to be taken.
315
There may be a case where the acquiring authority is in
possession of the land, as the same has already been
requisitioned under any law or the property is in possession
of a tenant, in such a case symbolic possession qua the
tenure holder would be sufficient.
In Banda Development Authority’s case (supra) the Apex court
again considered manner of taking possession and after considering earlier
judgment following principle was laid down in paragraph 37 which is quoted
as below:
37. The principles which can be culled out from the above
noted judgments are:
i) No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what act
would constitute taking of possession of the acquired land.
ii) If the acquired land is vacant, the act of the State
authority concerned to go to the spot and prepare a
panchnama will ordinarily be treated as sufficient to
constitute taking of possession.
iii)If crop is standing on the acquired land or
building/structure exists, mere going on the spot by the
authority concerned will, by itself, be not sufficient for
taking possession. Ordinarily, in such cases, the authority
concerned will have to give notice to the occupier of the
building/structure or the person who has cultivated the
land and take possession in the presence of independent
witnesses and get their signatures on the panchnama. Of
course, refusal of the owner of the land or
building/structure may not lead to an inference that the
possession of the acquired land has not been taken.
iv)If the acquisition is of a large tract of land, it may
not be possible for the acquiring/designated authority to
take physical possession of each and every parcel of the
land and it will be sufficient that symbolic possession is
taken by preparing appropriate document in the presence
of independent witnesses and getting their signatures on
such document.
v) If beneficiary of the acquisition is an
agency/instrumentality of the State and 80% of the total
compensation is deposited in terms of Section 17(3-A) and
substantial portion of the acquired land has been utilised in
furtherance of the particular public purpose, then the Court
may reasonably presume that possession of the acquired
land has been taken.
316
The last judgment relied by petitioners is judgment of the apex court in
Prahlad Singh's case. In the said case apex court held that no evidence was
shown by the respondent to show that possession was taken in the presence
of independent witness and their signatures were obtained in the
Panchanama. Paras 20 and 22 which are relevant are quoted below:
“20 If the present case is examined in the light of the facts
which have been brought on record and the principles laid
down in the judgment in Banda Development Authoritys
case it is not possible to sustain the finding and conclusion
recorded by the High Court that the acquired land had
vested in the State Government because the actual and
physical possession of the acquired land always remained
with the Appellants and no evidence has been produced by
the Respondents to show that possession was taken by
preparing a panchnama in the presence of independent
witnesses and their signatures were obtained on the
panchnama.”
22. Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 have not placed any document
before this Court to show that actual possession of the
acquired land was taken on the particular date. Therefore,
the High Court was not right in recording a finding that the
acquired land will be deemed to have vested in the State
Government.”
In the main writ petition no.37443 of 2011 in the counter affidavit filed
by the State it has been stated that possession of land was transferred to
Greater NOIDA on 5.9.2008 and 12.1.2009 the relevant averment regarding
delivery of possession has been made in paragraph 12(e) which is quoted
below:
The Greater Noida Development Authority deposited
70% of the compensation amount (10% of the
compensation amount had already been deposited by the
Greater Noida Authority before submitting the proposal for
issuance of Section 4 Notification), as required under the
Land Acquisition Act, before sending the proposal for
issuance of declaration under Section 6. The proposal was
sent to the State Government vide letter no.144/10 dated
24.06.08 and the State Government after being satisfied
with the proposal issued declaration under Section
6(1)/17(1) on 30.06.2008. After the declaration under
Section 6(1)/17(1), notices under Section 9 were issued to
the land owners, and after expiration of fifteen days time
as stipulated in the notices, possession of land was
transferred to Greater Noida Development Authority on
317
05.09.2008, for an area of 572.592 hectares, and on
12.01.2009 for an area of 1.453 hectares. True
photocopies of the possession memo dated 05.09.2008
and 12.01.2009 are being filed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE NOS. CA-5 AND CA-6 respectively to this
counter affidavit.
The possession memos dated 5.9.2008 and 12.1.2009 has been filed as
Annexures 5 and 6 to the counter affidavit of the State. Both the possession
memos state “the possession of land as detailed below included in notification
as mentioned above of Village Patwari, Tehsil Dadari is being transferred to
acquiring department/greater NOIDA Industrial Development authority.”
(translated in English)
The said memo has been signed by 5 officials of greater NOIDA
authority and Special Land Acquisition officer Gautam Budh Nagar. The
possession memo does not contain signatures of any of the land holders or
any witnesses. It is useful to refer two specific pleadings in writ petitions
regarding possession. In writ petition no.47502 of 2011 Jugendra and others
Vs. State of U.P. following was stated in paragraph 6 of the writ petition:
“That, subsequent to the acquisition proceedings a
notice purporting to be a notice under Section 9 of the Act
aforesaid was also issued and it is said that the possession
of entire land in village Tusiyana, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri
district Gautam Budh Nagar and being 293.015 Hectare
was taken. Photostat copy of the procession memo as
prepared and shown to have been executed between the
authorities of the State Government and Greater Noida, is
being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure-5 to this
writ petition. As would appear from a perusal of possession
memo also, none of the petitioners have signed the
aforesaid possession memo and the possession memo is
only a departmental document not signed by any of the
petitioners. Thus at no point of time the possession of the
land in dispute has been validly taken from the petitioners.
Copy of the possession memo as claimed by the State dated 2
nd
February, 2007 was also filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. The
possession memo Annexure 5 to the writ petition also contains the statement
“details of the land possession of which is being transferred to acquiring
318
body/greater NOIDA Industrial Development authority”. The said memo has
again been signed by four officers of the greater NOIDA authority and
Additional District Magistrate Land Acquisition, Gautam Budh Nagar. The
aforesaid possession memo are not the possession memo or the document
showing taking of possession by the State. There is no occasion to transfer
the possession to the greater NOIDA authority by the State unless the
possession is obtained by the State. Further more, as held in the judgment of
the apex court as noticed above even if the land is vacant the State authority
has to go to the spot and prepare a Panchanama which ordinarily be treated
as sufficient to constitute taking of possession. The possession memo filed by
the State in the counter affidavit can not be termed to be a Panchanama since
signatures of any Panch (independent witness) are absent. Thus the taking of
possession by the respondent can not be said to be in accordance with the
law. Thus we find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that possession was not taken by the State authorities of land in
accordance with law and possession memo which has been filed by the State
authorities can not be treated to be valid possession memo evidencing taking
of possession.
9. Vesting:
One of the submissions raised by learned counsel for the respondents
is that in view of the land having been vested in the State after taking
possession under section 17(1) of the Act, no relief can be granted to the
petitioners putting them back in possession. It is further submitted that
acquisition cannot be challenged after land having vested in the State. Section
17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act provides as follows:
“17. Special powers in case of urgency. – (1) In cases of
urgency whenever the appropriate Government], so directs,
the Collector, though no such award has been made, may,
on the expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the
notice mentioned in section 9, sub-section 1). take
possession of any land needed for a public purpose. Such
land shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government,
free from all encumbrances.”
319
According to Section 17(1) where possession is taken by the Collector
after expiration of 15 days from the publication of the notice under section
9(1) such land shall there upon vest absolutely in the Government, free from
all encumbrances. As proposition of law and statutory consequences, there
cannot be any dispute to above. The issue which has been sought to be
raised is that the land having vested in the State, the petitioners cannot be
granted relief nor any challenge to the acqusitioin can be entertained after
such vesting. The first case which needs to be considered in this context is
Raja Anand Brahma Shah (supra). In the said case notification under
section 4 was issued on October 4, 1950 invoking Sections 17(1) and 17(4).
Section 6 declaration was issued and thereafter Collector took possession of
the land on in November, 1950. Award was also made on 7.1.1952. The writ
petition was filed by the land owners in the year 1955 challenging the
notificatioins including the award. The apex Court held that State Government
had no jurisidcitoin to apply section 17(1) and Section 17(4) and Government
had no jurisdiction to order the Collector to take possession under section
17(1). The High Court dismissed the writ petition which order was set aside
by the apex Court and the appeal was allowed. Following order was passed
by the Supreme Court:
“We further order that notification of the State Government
dated December 12,1950 under section 6 of the Act and
also further proceedings taken in the land acquisition case
after issue of the notifications should be quashed including
the award dated January 7, 1952 and reference made to
civil Court under section 18 of the Act.”
The restoration of possession was not directed in view of the
judgment of the apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 653-654 of 1964 decided
on the same date that intermediary interest of the appellant had validly
vested in the State of U.P. under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act.
Respondents have placed reliance on a judgment of the apex Court in
320
(1996)3 Supreme Court Cases 600 Senjeevnagar Medical and Health
Employees Cooperative Housing Society Vs. Mohammad Abdul
Wahab and others in which judgment, the apex court laid down following in
paragraph 12:
“A Bench of three Judges had held that once possession
was taken and the land vested in the Government, title to
the land so vested in the State is subject only to
determination of compensation and to pay the same to the
owner. Divesting the title to the land statutorily vested in
the Government and reverting the same to the owner is not
contemplated under the Act. Only Section 48(1) gives
power to withdraw from acquisition that too before
possession is taken. That question did not arise in this case.
The property under acquisition having been vested in the
appellants, in the absence of any power under the Act to
have the title of the appellants divested except by exercise
of the power under Section 48(1), valid title cannot be
defeated. The exercise of the power to quash the
notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under
Section 6 would lead to incongruity. Therefore, the High
Court under those circumstances would not have interfered
with the acquisition and quashed the notification and
declaration under Sections 4 and 6 respectively. Considered
from either perspective, we are of the view that the High
Court was wrong in allowing the writ appeal”
In (1996) 1 Supreme Court Cases 501, Municipal Corporation of
Greater Bombay Vs. Industrial Development Investment Corporation
Pvt. Ltd., it was laid down in paragraph 29 (which has been quoted above)
that when award was passed and possession was taken the Court would not
have exercised the power under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the
acquisition.
In State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs D.R. Laxmi & Ors (1996) 6
321
Supreme Court Cases 445 following was laid down in paragraph 9:
“Recently, another Bench of this Court in Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Industrial Development
& Investment C. (P) Ltd. [C.A. No. 282 of 1989] decided on
September 6, 1996 reexamined the entire case law and held
that once the land was vested in the State, the Court was
not justified in interfering with the notification published
under appropriate provisions of the Act. Delay in challenging
the notification was fatal and writ petition entails with
dismissal on grounds of latches. It is thus, well settled law
that when there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition
and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings
have become final, the Court should be loathe to quash the
notifications. The High Court has, no doubt, discretionary
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the
notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under
Section 6. But it should be exercised taking all relevant
factors into pragmatic consideration. When the award was
passed and possession was taken, the Court should not
have exercised its power to quash the award which is a
material factor to be taken into consideration before
exercising the power under Article 226.”
The above decision of the apex Court by three Judges Bench had
clearly laid down that the High Court has no doubt discretionary power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the notification under section
4 and notification under section 6 but it should be exercised taking all
relevant factors into pragmatic consideration.
As laid own by the apex Court in the Judgment Today 2009 (9) S.C.
537 National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mahesh Dutta and
others that in the event possession of land in respect whereof a notification
had been issued had been taken over, the State would be denuded of its
power to withdraw from the acquisition in terms of Section 48 of the Act. It is
true that under the Act after vesting of the possession in the State under
section 17(1), there is no provision under which the acquisition can be
withdrawn or vesting can be nullified but the exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 challenging the acquisition cannot be hedged with any such
limitation that court in appropriate case cannot quash the notifications and
the entire acquisition proceedings. To hold that after land is vested in the
State under section 17(1), the acquisition cannot be quashed would be
322
putting limitation in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 where no
such limitation has been contemplated. It is another case that High Court
while exercising its writ jurisdiction may take a decision to quash or not to
quash the notifications taking into consideration all relevant factors but that is
matter of exercise of power and submission that acqusition cannot be
quashed after vesting of land in favour of the State has to be rejected. In the
event, it is accetped that after land is vested in the State, acquisition cannot
be quashed. Only thing which may be required for the State to save all
acqusition is to somehow take possession under section 17(1) and thereafter
to tell the Court that now the acquisition cannot be quashed. The Apex Court
in Narmada Bachao Andolan (supra) has laid down the courts are not to
perpetuate an illegality rather it is the duty of the Court to rectify mistake.
Following was laid down in paragraph 63:
“63. The Courts are not to perpetuate an illegality, rather it
is the duty of the courts to rectify mistakes. While dealing
with a similar issue, this Court in Hotel Balaji & Ors.
etc. etc. v. State of A.P. & Ors. etc. etc., AIR 1993 SC
1048 observed as under: "...To perpetuate an error is
no heroism. To rectify it is the compulsion of judicial
conscience. In this, we derive comfort and strength from
the wise and inspiring words of Justice Bronson in Pierce v.
Delameter (A.M.Y. at page 18: `a Judge ought to be wise
enough to know that he is fallible and, therefore, ever
ready to learn: great and honest enough to discard all mere
pride of opinion and follow truth wherever it may lead: and
courageous enough to acknowledge his errors". (See
also Nirmal Jeet Kaur v. State of M.P. & Anr., (2004) 7
SCC 558; and Mayuram Subramanian Srinivasan v. CBI, AIR
2006 SC 2449).”
In the present case, the issue is already concluded by the judgment of
the apex Court. In writ petition No. 5670 of 2007 pertaining to village
Yakubpur was filed challenging the notification dated 26.9.2006 under section
4 read with Section 17(1) and Section 17(4) and notification under section 6
dated 19.1.2007. After the notification, the State had taken possession on
27.1.2007. The writ petition was filed in this Court on 31.1.2007 in which writ
petition on 9.2.2009, the Division Bench of this Court passed following order:
“ This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the land acquisition proceedings dispensing
323
with the provisions of Section 5A and urgency clause 17(4)
and notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act. There is no interim order in the writ petition. By efflux
of time, the writ petition has rendered infructuous as the
land has vested in the State free from all encumbrances.
The writ petition is dismissed.”
The petitioners of the writ petition filed a Special Leave Petition in the
Supreme Court against the aforesaid judgment. The leave was granted by
apex Court. The appeal was allowed by judgment and order dated 1.2.2010 in
Civil Appeal No. 1331 of 2010, Kesari Singh and others Vs. Government of
U.P. The apex Court gave following judgment on 1.2.2010. :
“Leave granted. Heard.
2.The appellants’ land was said to be acquired by
issuing the notification dated 26.09.2006 under Section 4(1) read
with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dispensing
with Inquiry under Section 5A followed by final notification dated
9.1.2007 issued under Section 6 of the said Act. The appellants
challenged the acquisition notifications by filing a writ petition in
the year 2007. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court
by a short order dated 9.2.2009 stating that the petitioner has
become infructuous because there was no interim order. The said
order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
3.We have issued notice to show cause why the
matter should not be remanded to re-consider the writ petition in
accordance with law. Even though the notice is served, the
respondents have not chosen to contest the proceedings.
4. When a writ petition is filed challenging the acquisition, merely
because the interim stay was not granted, the writ petition does
not become infructuous. If the writ petitioner is able to satisfy
the court that the writ petition has to be allowed on merits, he
may be entitled to appropriate consequential reliefs. Even if the
possession of the land has been taken and used for a public
purpose, it may be possible to grant other reliefs say, deeming a
subsequent date, instead of the date of Section 4(1) notification
as the date of acquisition for purposes of calculating the
compensation, or directing delivery of a plot etc. In some cases,
even restitution may be permissible. Be that as it may. What is
relevant to notice is that the petitioner will not become
infructuous merely because of non-grant of stay.
5.In view of the above, this appeal is allowed, the
order dated 09.02.2009 of the High Court is set aside and the
writ petition is restored to the file of the High Court. We request
the High Court to dispose of the matter on merits, expeditiously
324
particularly having regard to the fact that there is no interim
order.”
The Apex Court had set aside the Division Bench judgment of this
Court and has laid down that even if the possession of the land has been
taken it maybe possible to grant other reliefs. The Court also observed that
even restitution may be permissible. The above judgment of the apex court
clinches the issue and the issue has to be answered against the respondents
and submission made by learned counsel for the respondents that the
petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge the land acquisition proceedings
after vesting of the land has to be rejected.
10.Section 11 A Lapse of Acquisition:
Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that after
publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, in none of the cases
award has been made under Section 11 within two years from the date of
publication, hence, the entire proceedings for acquisition of the land has
lapsed. Section 11 A of the Act is as follows:
11A. Period within which an award shall be made. - (1) The
Collector shall make an award under section 11 within a period
of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration
and if no award is made within that period, the entire
proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse:
Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been
published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition
(Amendment) Act, 1984 the award shall be made within a
period of two years from such commencement.
Learned counsel for the respondents refuting the submission made by
counsel for the petitioners contends that in all the acquisitions under
challenge Section 17(1) was invoked and the possession was taken of the land
after issue of notice under Section 9 and land has vested in the State under
Section 17 sub Section (1) hence Section 11-A has no application.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Section 11 A
applies in the cases where Section 17 has not been invoked and in cases
325
where Section 17 has been invoked, there is no applicability of Section 11-A.
Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the
judgments of the Apex Court of 1993 Volume 4 S.C.C. Page 369
Satendra Prasad Jain Vs. State of U.P. and 2011 Volume 5 S.C.C. 394
Banda Development Authority Vs. Motilal Agarwal.
We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the
parties. In Satendra Prasad Jain's case the issue was considered and it was
held by the Apex Court that when Section 17 sub Section (1) is applied by
reason of urgency, the Government takes possession of the land prior to the
making of the award under Section 11 and thereupon the owner is divested of
the title to the land which is vested in the Government as laid down in
paragraph 15. The said view was reiterated by the Apex Court in Awadh
Bihari Yadav and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, 1995, 6 S.C.C.
Page 31. The recent judgment of Banda Development Authority (supra) has
also occasion to consider the said issue, relying on the decision of Satendra
Prasad Jain. The argument on the basis of Section 11-A was repelled. In the
present bunch of cases the State Government has invoked urgency clause
under Section 17(1) and possession has been taken in all the cases exercising
urgency power. The ratio laid down by Satendra Prasad Jain's case is fully
attracted and the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners
on the basis of Section 11-A can not be accepted.
11. Section 17 (3A) of the Act:
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were
not made payment of 80% of the compensation as required by Section 17(3-
A) and as alleged the possession has been taken without payment of 80%
compensation which violates Section 17(3A). It is contended that Section
17(3A) uses the word 'shall' which has to be interpreted as a mandatory
provision. It is submitted that when possession is to be taken under Section
17 sub Section 1, invoking urgency clause the award is not prepared and in
preparation of the award several years are taken due to which Section 17(3-
A) mandates that 80% of the compensation is to be paid. Non payment of
80% compensation is arbitrary, unjust and in view of the fact that without
326
payment of compensation possession is claimed to have been taken. The
entire acquisition deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. The above
submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners has been refuted
by learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It is contended that the
provision of Section 17(3-A) is directory. It is submitted that even if 80%
compensation is not tendered/paid to the land holder, acquisition shall not be
vitiated, reliance has again been placed on judgment of Sateyendra Prasad
Jain (supra) as well as the judgment of the Apex Court in Banda Development
Authority (supra) and Awadh Bihari Yadav (supra).
The provisions of Section 17(3A) of the Act were considered by three
Judge Bench in Satendra Prasad's Jain case, following was laid down by Apex
Court in paragraph 17:
“In the instant case, even that 80 per cent of the
estimated compensation was not paid to the appellants
although Section 17(3-A) required that it should have been
paid before possession of the said land was taken but that
does not mean that the possession was taken illegally or
that the said land did not thereupon vest in the first
respondent. It is, at any rate, not open to the third
respondent, who, as the letter of the Special Land
Acquisition Officer dated 27th June, 1990 shows, failed to
make the necessary monies available and who has been in
occupation of the said land ever since its possession was
taken, to urge that the possession was taken illegally and
that, therefore, the said land has not vested in the first
respondent and the first respondent is under no obligation
to make an award.”
Again in Awadh Bihari Yadav (supra) 's case the same proposition was
laid down in paragraph 8 which is quoted below:
“8. The sheet-anchor of the appellants plea is that the land
acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of Section 11-
A of the Act. In order to understand the scope of the plea
it will be useful to extract the relevant provisions of the
Acts. [Section 6, Section 11, Section 11- A, Section 17 and
Section 18(1)].
"6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose.-
(1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, when
327
the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering
the report , if any, made under Section 5-A, sub-section
(2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose,
or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that
effect under the signature of a Secretary to such
Government or of some officer duly authorized to
declarations may be made from time to time in respect of
different parcels of any land covered by the same
notification under section 4, sub-section (1), irrespective of
whether one report or different reports has or have been
made (wherever required) under Section 5-A, sub- section
(2):
Provided that no declaration in respect of any
particular land covered by a notification under Section 4,
sub- section (1),-
(i) published after the commencement of the Land
Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance 1967 (1
of 1967), but before the commencement of the Land
Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after
the expiry of three years from the date of the publication
of the notification;or
(ii) published after the commencement of the Land
Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after
the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of
the notification:
Provided further that no such declaration shall be made
unless the compensation to be awarded for such property
is to be paid by a Company, or wholly or partly out of
public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a
local authority."
"11. Enquiry and award by Collector.- (1) on the day so
fixed, or on any other day to which the enquiry has been
adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the
objections (if any) which any person interested has stated
pursuant to a notice given under Section 9 to the
measurements made under Section 8, and into the value
of the land at the date of the publication of the
notifications under Section 4, sub- section (1), and into the
respective interests of the compensation and shall make an
award under his hand of -
(i) the true area of the land;
(ii) the compensation which in his
opinion should be allowed for the land;and
328
(iii)the apportionment of the said compensation among all
the persons known or believed to be interested in the land,
of whom,or of whose claims, he has information, whether
or not they have respectively appeared before him:
Provided that no award shall be made by the Collector
under this sub- section without the previous approval of
the appropriate Government or of such officer as the
appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf:
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),
if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied
that all the persons interested in the land who appeared
before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be
included in the award of the Collector in the form
prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government,
he may without making further enquiry, make an award
according to the terms of such agreement.
(3) The determination of compensation for any land under
sub-section (2) shall not in any way affect the
determination of compensation in respect of other lands in
the same locality or elsewhere in accordance with the
other provisions of this Act.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration
Act,1908, (16 of 1908), no agreement made under sub-
section (2) shall be liable to registration under that Act."
"11-A. Period within which an award
shall be made.- The Collector shall make an award under
Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of
the publication of the declaration and if no award is made
within that period, the entire proceedings for the
acquisition of the land shall lapse:
Provided that in a case where the said declaration has
been published before the commencement of the Land
Acquisition (Amendment ) Act, 1984, the award shall be
made within a period of two years from such
commencement.
Explanation.- In computing the period of two years
referred to in this section, the period during which any
action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said
declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be
excluded."
"17. Special powers in cases of urgency.- (1) In cases of
urgency, whenever the appropriate Government so directs,
329
the Collector, though no such award has been made, may,
on the expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the
notice mentioned in Section 9, sub- section (1), take
possession of any land needed for public purpose. Such
land shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government,
free from all encumbrances.
XXX XXX XXX
(4) In the case of any land to which, in the opinion of the
appropriate Government, the provisions of sub-section (1)
or sub-section (2) are applicable, the appropriate
Government may direct that the provisions of Section 5-A
shall not be apply, and, if it does so direct, a declaration
may be made under Section 6 in respect of the land at any
time after the date of the publication of the notification
under section 4, sub-section (1)."
"48. Completion of acquisition not compulsory, but
compensation to be awarded when not completed.-
(1) Expect in the case provided for in Section 36, the
Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the
Acquisition of any land of which possession has not been
taken."
It was contended that in view of Section 11-A of the Act
the entire land acquisition proceedings lapsed as no award
under Section 11 had been made within 2 years from the
date of commencement of the Land Acquisition
Amendment Act, 1984. We are of the view that the above
plea has no force. In this case, the Government had taken
possession of the land in question under Section 17(1) of
the Act. It is not open to the Government to withdraw from
the acquisition (Section 48 of the Act). In such a case,
Section 11-A of the Act is not attracted and the acquisition
proceedings would not lapse, even if it is assumed that no
award was made within the period prescribed by Section
11-A of the Act. Delivering the Judgment of a Three
Member Bench of this Court, in Stander Prasad Jain and
others vs. State of U.P. and others, 1993 (4) sc 369, S.P.
Bharucha, J., at page 374, paragraph 15, stated the law
thus:
"Ordinarily, the Government can take possession of the
land proposed to be acquired only after an award of
compensation in respect thereof has been made under
section 11. Upon the taking of possession, the land vests
in the Government, that is to say, the owner of the land
loses to the Government the title to it. This is what section
16 states. The provisions of section 11-A are intended to
benefit the landowner and ensure that the award is made
330
within a period of two years from the date of the section 6
declaration. In the ordinary case, therefore, when
Government fails to make an award within two years of the
declaration under section 6, the land has still not wasted in
the Government and its title remains with the owner, the
acquisition proceedings are still pending, and by virtue of
the provisions of section 11-A, lapse. When section 17(1) is
applied by reason of urgency, Government takes
possession of the land prior to the making of the award
under Section 11 and thereupon the owner is divested of
the title to the land which is vested in the Government.
Section 17(1) states so in unmistakable terms. Clearly,
section 11- A can have no application to cases of
acquisition under Section 17, because the lands have
already vested in the Government and there is no provision
in the said Act by which land statutorily vested in the
Government can revert to the owner."
(Emphasis supplied)
We, therefore, hold that the land acquisition proceedings
in the instant case did not lapse.”
Recent judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Delhi Airtech Service
Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs. State of U.P. and others, J. T. 2011(9) S.C.
440 needs to be noted in this context. The provisions of Section 17(3A) as
well as 11 A of the Act came for consideration before the Apex Court.
Submission was made that payment of 80% compensation as contemplated
under Section 17(3A) is a condition precedent for taking possession under
Section 17(1). It was contended that unless the provision is interpreted as
mandatory the whole purpose and object shall be frustrated . The two judge
Bench which heard the matters in M/s Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. deferred
on the interpretation of Section 17(3-A). Hon. Justice Ashok Kumar Ganguli
held the provisions of Section 17(3A) mandatory. Following was laid down in
paragraphs 72 and 74:
“72. On the above premise, taking over a possession of
land without complying with the requirement of section
17(3A) is clearly illegal and in clear violation of the
statutory provision which automatically violates the
constitutional guarantee under Article 300A. A passing
observation to the contrary in S.P. Jain (supra)
must pass sub silentio being unnecessary in the facts of
the case as otherwise such a finding is per incuriam, being
in violation of the statute. A fortiorari the said finding
331
cannot be sustained as a binding precedent.
74. This court further holds that in all cases of
emergency acquisition under section 17, the
requirement of payment under section 17(3A) must be
complied with. As the provision of section 17(1)
and section 17(2) cannot be worked out without
complying with requirement of payment under section
17(3A) which is in the nature of condition precedent. If
section 17(3A) is not complied with, the vesting
under section 17(1) and section 17(2) cannot take
place. Therefore, emergency acquisition without
complying with section 17(3 A) is illegal. This is the
plain intention of the statute which must be
strictly construed. Any other construction, in my
opinion, would lead to diluting the Rule of Law.”
Hon. Justice Swatanter Kumar took a different opinion and relying on
various judgment of this Court following the line of Satyendra Prasad Jain it
was opined that Section 17(3-A) is not mandatory. Justice Swatanter Kumar
further held that Section 11-A has no application to the acquisition
proceedings under Section 17 of the Act. Following observation were made by
Hon. Justice Swatanter Kumar in paragraph 117:
“Consistent with the view expressed by this Court in the
cases referred (supra), I am of the considered view that
the provisions of Section 17(3A) of the Act are not
mandatory. Such a conclusion can safely be arrived at,
even for the reason that the Court would have to read
into the provisions of Section 17(3A) consequences and
a strict period of limitation within which amount should
be deposited, which has not been provided by the
Legislature itself in that section. The consequences and
contingencies arising from non-compliance of the said
provisions have not been stated in the Act. Once the
land has vested in the Government, non-compliance
with the obligation of payment of 80 per cent of
estimated compensation would not render the
possession taken under Section 17(1) as illegal. The
land cannot be re-vested or reverted back to the
claimants as no provisions under the Act so prescribe.
Furthermore, if the interpretation put forward by the
appellants is accepted, it would completely frustrate the
objects and purpose of the Act, rather than advancing
the same. The expression `shall' used in Section 17(3A)
has to be understood in its correct perspective and is not
to be construed as suggestive of the provisions being
332
absolutely mandatory in its application. Inter alia for
these reasons and as per the above discussions, I hold
that the provisions of Section 17(3A) are not mandatory.
They are directive provisions, though their compliance is
necessary in terms of the Act.”
There being difference of opinion the matter was directed to be placed
before Hon. Chief Justice for reference to larger bench to resolve the
divergent views expressed in both the judgments and to answer the questions
of law framed. From the above, it is clear that the issue is yet to be
considered by larger Bench of the Apex Court on Section 17(3A). However,
we are bound to follow the law as it exists today which is a binding precedent
under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The judgment in Sateyendra
Prasad Jain will hold the field hence the submission of the petitioner at
present that Section 17(3) A is mandatory, non compliance of which vitiate
the acquisition can not be accepted.
12. Waiver:
Shri S.P. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the intervenors
has submitted that the petitioners after having accepted the compensation
under the 1997 Rules, and having not objected to the dispensation of inquiry
under Section 5A of the Act, 1894 they have waived their right to challenge
the acquisition.
Learned Counsel appearing for the State has also contended that the
petitioners shall be treated to have waived their right challenging the writ
petition in view of the facts and circumstances of the present cases.
Shri S.P. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the intervenors,
elaborating his submission contended that even though the inquiry under
Section 5A of the Act, 1894 was dispensed with by invoking Sections 17(1)
and 17(4) of the Act, the land owners ought to have objected against the said
dispensation and no objections having been filed by the land owners it will be
presumed that the petitioners have waived their right to challenge the
notifications. It is further contended that the petitioners after having accepted
the compensation under the 1997 Rules, they shall be treated to have
333
relinquished all their rights against the acquisition. It is submitted by Shri S.P.
Gupta, that if there are any grievances of the land owners regarding non-
declaration of the amount of compensation taken by them they had the
remedy to agitate under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. The land which was
acquired by the Authority was developed and development was made in the
knowledge of everyone. No objections having been raised, it will be presumed
that that the petitioners have waived their right to challenge the notifications.
It is further submitted by Shri S.P. Gupta that certain land owners were also
allotted plots/flats under 6% allotment scheme of Abadi land which was
subsequently transferred by them to other persons.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on the
judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta
Vs. T.I. & M Sales Ltd., (1987) 3 SCC 132, Rajendra Singh Vs. State of
M.P. & Ors, (1996) 5 SCC 460, M.C. Mehta Vs. Unioin of India & Ors.,
(1999) 6 SCC 237.
The submission of Shri S.P. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate appearing
for the intervenors, that since the land owners have not objected against the
dispensation of inquiry by invoking Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4), of the Act,
1894 it will be presumed that that the petitioners have waived their right to
challenge the notifications does not command us. The right of objection to
land owners is provided under Section 5A of the Act, 1894 after a preliminary
notification is issued under Section 4 of the Act, proposing to acquire any
land. When the right of objection under Section 5A of the Act, 1894 has been
dispensed with by invoking Section 17(4) of the Act, 1894 petitioners have no
right to file objections. The question of waiver of right to file objection would
have arisen if the land owners had right of objection under Section 5A of the
Act, 1894 and they did not avail the same. There being no right of objection,
the question of waiver does not arise. Shri S.P. Gupta, then contended that it
was open for the land owners to raise their objections before the State
Government objecting the dispensation of inquiry. The said submission of Shri
S.P. Gupta does not have our approval since there is no forum provided
before the State Government asking the petitioners to go before the State
Government and raise objections failing which they shall be treated to have
334
waived their right to challenge the acquisition is misconceived.
The principle of waiver has been elaborately dealt with and considered
by the Apex Court in Sikkim Subba Associates Vs. State of Sikkim,
(2001) 5 SCC 629.
The Apex Court defined the principle of waiver in paragraph 16 in
following words.
“Waiver involves a conscious, voluntary and intentional
relinquishment or abandonment of a known, existing legal right,
advantage, benefit, claim or privilege, which except for such a
waiver, the party would have enjoyed”.
The submission of Shri S.P. Gupta that the petitioners accepting the
compensation under the 1997 Rules hence they shall be treated to have
waived their right to challenge the acquisition now needs to be considered.
From the materials brought on record, it does appear that the majority
of land owners have accepted the compensation under the 1997 Rules.
1997 Rules, have been framed by the State of U.P. under Section 11
sub-section 2. The circumstances under which the petitioners have accepted
the compensation under the 1997 Rules, have been explained in several writ
petitions. It is useful to refer to the pleadings in the writ petition in that
regard.
In Writ Petition No.45694/2011, Jai Singh & Ors Vs. State of
U.P.& Ors, the petitioners have challenged the notifications dated 30/3/2002
and 28/6/2003 issued under Sections 4 and 6 and the award dated
29/1/2010. The petitioners have pleaded in the writ petition that the
Additional District Magistrate, (Land Acquisition) Gautam Budh Nagar sent a
printed notice to the petitioners to appear before the Additional District
Magistrate, (Land Acquisition) Gautam Budh Nagar for payment of
compensation. When the petitioners appeared they were informed that they
would be paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 378.92 per Square Yard of the
335
acquired land. Petitioners did not agree to accept the said compensation and
then they were told that the land having already been vested in the State,
petitioners shall be deprived from receiving the compensation for long time
and they have no option but to accept the compensation. Petitioners have
further pleaded that the award under Section 11 is passed after 7 to 8 years
of the declaration during which the petitioners had been deprived of their land
and enjoyment of their property. It is useful to quote paragraph 16 and
relevant portion of paragraph 46 which are to be following effect:-
“16.That the Additional District Magistrate, (Land
Acquisition) Gautam Budh Nagar sent a printed notice to the
petitioners intimating that their land situated in Village
Sadarpur is needed for panned industrial Development.
Petitioners in pursuance of the aforesaid notice appeared
before the Additional District Magistrate, (Land Acquisition)
Gautam Budh Nagar, then they have been told by the
Authority officials that the Authority intended to pay
compensation @ Rs. 378.92 per sq yard of the acquired land.
Petitioners were not agreed to the aforesaid rate of the land,
but the officials of the Authority threatened them that since
the land is vested into the State Government and you
people will be deprived from receiving the compensation for
long time, you have no option except to accept the said
compensation, petitioners being afraid of, have accepted
90% compensation and entered into agreement.
46. That the statutory authority has taken 7 to 8
years in passing the impugned award which is unexplained
delay. The delay in making the said award deprived the land
owners/petitioners of the enjoyment of their property or to
deal with the land and delay in making the said award has
subjected the owners of the land to untold hardship.”
In the present case, the award under Section 11 was declared on
29/1/2010 which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition which
award was declared after more than 6 and a half years from issuance of
declaration under Section 6. The rate of compensation under the 1997 Rules,
as has been also noted in the award was Rs.378.92 per square yard for
“Pushtaini” and Rs. 329.50 per square yard for “Gair Pushtaini”, whereas in
the award under Section 11(1), the rate fixed for per square yard was Rs.156
which has been mentioned in the award. The pleadings of the petitioners as
noted in paragraph 16 and the apprehension which has been expressed in the
pleadings come true by the events as noted above.
336
Learned counsel for the petitioners have rightly contended that the
acceptance of compensation under the 1997 Rules, is not voluntarily, but is
due to force of circumstances and the compulsion. The land of poor farmers
have been acquired and possession having been claimed to be taken by
invoking Section 17 (1) of the Act, 1894 petitioners are deprived of their
property and they had no option, but to accept whatever the meagre amount
was offered by the respondents under the agreement to somehow survive.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that in case the
petitioners do not accept the amount under the agreement they will not be
paid anything for years together since the declaration of the award takes
several years. Accepting the amount under above circumstances cannot be
said to be acceptance of amount voluntarily nor such acceptance can be
treated to be waiver of rights of the petitioners to challenge the acquisition.
The submission of Shri S.P. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
intervenors that remedy was available to the land owners/petitioners to go
under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 after accepting the compensation under the
agreement also cannot be accepted. The remedy under Section 18 of the Act,
1894for enhancement of the compensation is not available to those persons
who have accepted the compensation under the 1997 Rules.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have also placed reliance on the
judgment of the Apex Court in Radhy Shyam (Dead) through LRs & Ors.
Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, (2011) 5 SCC 553.
In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court had occasion to consider similar
issues. In the said case notifications of land acquisition issued under Section 4
read with Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) as well as declaration under Section 6
was challenged of Village Makaura District Gautam Budh Nagar. Writ petition
was filed by the land owners which was dismissed by the High Court. Against
which the appeal was filed. One of the submission raised before the Apex
Court was that the land owners having accepted the compensation under the
1997 rules, they cannot be allowed to challenge the acquisition. Following
observation was made by the Apex Court in para 20 which is quoted below:-
337
“20. The resultant effect of these acquisitions is that
the land owners, who were doing agricultural operations
and other ancillary activities in rural areas, have been
deprived of the only source of their livelihood. Majority of
them do not have any idea about their constitutional and
legal rights, which can be enforced by availing the
constitutional remedies under Articles 32 and 226 of
the Constitution. They reconcile with deprivation of
land by accepting the amount of compensation offered by
the Government and by thinking that it is their
fate and destiny determined by God. Even those
who get semblance of education are neither
conversant with the functioning of the State
apparatus nor they can access the records prepared by
the concerned authorities as a prelude to the acquisition of
land by invoking Section 4 with or without the aid of
Sections 17(1) and/or 17(4).”
Again the Apex Court had occasion to consider another case of land
acquisition in which the acquisition of land of Village Sahberi of District
Gautam Budh Nagar was involved is Greater Noida Industrial
Development Authority Vs. Devendra Kumar & Ors. 2011 (6) ADJ
480.
In the said case the issue of accepting compensation by the land
owners under the 1997 Rules was also raised. The submission made before
the Apex Court in the said case was that the relief should not be granted to
those who have accepted compensation. The Apex Court observed that the
situation in which the people belonging to this class are placed does not leave
any choice to them to make compromises and try to salvage whatever they
can. Following observation was made in paragraph 39 which is quoted below:-
“39. We do not find any substance in the argument of
the learned counsel for the petitioners that quashing of the
acquisition proceedings should have been confined to those
who had not accepted the amount of compensation. Once
the High Court came to the conclusion that the acquisition of
land was vitiated due to want of good faith and the
provisions of the 1894 Act had been invoked for a private
purpose, there could not have been any justification for
partially sustaining the acquisition on the ground that some
of the land owners or their transferees had accepted
compensation by entering into an agreement with the
338
Authority. The situation in which the people belonging to this
class are placed in the matter of acquisition of their land
leave a little choice to them but to make compromises and
try to salvage whatever they can. Therefore, even though
some persons may not have resisted the acquisition and may
have accepted the compensation by entering into
agreements, it is not possible to find any fault in the
approach adopted by the High Court.”
Learned counsel for the intervenors has relied on the judgment of the
Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) in which case the
Apex Court observed that since the facts asserted in the affidavit of the
assessee were not disputed by the revenue, it appears that the revenue had
waived its right to dispute the facts. Following was observed by the Apex
Court in paragraph 10 which is quoted below:-
“10. The assessments relate to a period about a
quarter of century back and by its conduct, the revenue
appears to have waived its right to dispute the facts asserted
in the affidavit on one hand by not challenging its
admissibility and on the other, by not disputing the context
thereof.”
Another judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the intervenors
is Rajendra Singh's case (supra) in which case the Apex Court has laid
down that a mandatory provision conceived in the interest by a party can be
waived by that party, whereas a mandatory provision conceived in the
interest of the public cannot be waived by him. Following observation were
made in paragraph 6 which is quoted below:-
“6. While examining complaints of violation of
statutory rules and conditions, it must be remembered that
violation of each and every provision does not furnish a
ground or the Court to interfere. The provision may be a
directory one or a mandatory one. In the case of directory
provisions, substantial compliance would be enough. Unless
it is established that violation of a directory provision has
resulted in loss and/or prejudice to the party, no interference
is warranted. Even in the case of violation of a mandatory
provision, interference does not fellow as a matter of course.
A mandatory provision conceived in the interest of a party
can be waived by that party, whereas a mandatory provision
conceived in the interest of public cannot be waived by him.
In other wards, wherever a complaint of violation of a
339
mandatory provision is made, the Court should enquire- in
whose interest is the provision conceived. If it is not
conceived in the interest of public, question of waiver and/or
acquiescence may arise – subject, of course, to the
pleadings of the parties. This aspect has been dealt with
elaborately by this Court in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K.
Sharma and in Krishanlal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir on
the basis of a large number of decision on the subject.
Though the said decisions were rendered with reference to
the statutory Rules and statutory provisions (besides the
principles of natural justice) governing the disciplinary
enquiries involving government servants and employees of
statutory corporation, the principles adumbrated therein are
of general application. It is necessary to keep these
considerations in mind while deciding whether any
interference is called for by the Court whether under Article
226 or in a suit. The function of the Court is not a
mechanical one. It is always a considered course of action.”
There cannot be any dispute to the proposition as laid down above, but
in the present cases, petitioners have not waived any mandatory statutory
provision as observed above. The above case does not help the petitioners in
any manner.
The next judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the intervenors
is the judgment of the Apex Court in M. C. Mehta Vs. Union of India &
Ors, (1999) 6 SCC 237.
In the aforesaid said case, the Court was considering whether the
question of waiver of notice came up for consideration in context of principles
of natural justice. Following was observed in paragraph 22 which is quoted
below:-
“22.We may also state that there is yet another line
of cases as in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, Rajendra
Singh v. State of M.P. that even in relation to statutory
provisions requiring notice, a distinction is to be made
between cases where the provision is intended for individual
benefit and where a provision is intended to protect public
interest. In the former case, it can be waived while in the
case of latter, it cannot be waived.”
Insofar as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that
some of the land owners/petitioners who were allotted 6 % Abadi Plots/flats
340
have sold their plots to third party, we are of the view that the mere fact that
they have sold their Abadi plots/flats allotted to them does not mean that they
have waived all their rights to challenge the acquisition. As we have noticed
above, that most of the petitioners have taken the ground in the writ petition
that they were under bonafide belief that acquisition has been made for
Planned Industrial Development and when it came to their knowledge that the
purpose has been diverted and the land has been transferred to private
parties they invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.
In these circumstances, we are of the view that it cannot be presumed
that the petitioners/land owners have waived their rights and cannot be non-
suited on the ground that they have waived their rights to challenge the
acquisition.
13.Acquiescence:
Shri L. Nageshwar Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State
as well as Shri S.P. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
intervenors have also laid much stress on the acquiescence. It has been
contended that the acceptance of compensation under the 1997 Rules, clearly
proves that the petitioners/land owners have acquiesced to the acquisition of
their land and they cannot be now permitted to challenge the same.
Development of land, allotment to third parties without any objection by the
petitioners/land owners has also been cited as grounds to plead acquiescence.
Acceptance of allotment of Abadi sites to some of the land owners have also
been referred to as acquiescence on the part of the land owners.
Shri L. Nageshwar Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State
as well as Shri S.P. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
intervenors have relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in The Naya Garh
Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Narayan Rath & Anr.
(1977) 3 SCC 576, Krothapalli Satya Narayana Vs. Koganti Ramaiah
& Ors, (1984) 2 SCC 439, Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Arvind
Bhai Ram Bhai Patel & Ors, (2006) 8 SCC 726 and the judgment of the
Apex Court in Urmila Roy & Ors Vs. Bengal Peerless Housing
Development Company Limited & Ors,(2009) 5 SCC 242.
341
The judgment of the Apex Court in Naya Garh Co-operative Central
Bank Ltd. (supra) was a case where the Registrar Co-operative Societies
disapproved the appointment of the respondent no.1 as Secretary of the Bank
after 13 years. In the said circumstances, the Apex Court observed that the
Registrar shall be treated to have acquiesced to the appointment. Following
was laid down in paragraph 4 which is quoted below:-
“4. The writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 could
succeed, in our opinion, on the narrow ground that he had
been permitted to function for over thirteen years as
secretary of the Bank and that his appointment as secretary
was decided upon in a meeting over which the Registrar of
Co-operative Societies had himself presided, The writ
petition in substance is directed not against any order
passed by the Co-operative Bank but against the order
passed by the Registrar disapproving the appointment of
respondent No. 1 as secretary of the Bank. It was not open
to the Registrar, in our Opinion, to set aside respondent
No.l's appointment as a secretary after having acquiesced in
it and after having, for all practical purposes, accepted the
appointment as valid. It is undesirable that appointments
should be invalidated in this manner after a lapse of several
years.”
In the case of Krothapalli Satyanarayana (supra) in a suit which
was filed for declaration of a right to passage after 9 years, it was observed
that the plaintiff was held to have acquiesced to the construction of wall. The
said case was on its own fact and has no application in the present case.
Following observation was made in paragraph 8 which is quoted below:-
“8. In this case both the appellate Court and High
Court have concurrently held that the Plaintiff was guilty of
acquiescence in that even though the wall was constructed
to his knowledge in 1956, he approached the court in 1965
and even in that year he did not seek the prayer for removal
of wall which prayer was for the first time introduced in
1969. In this background, we are not inclined to entertain
the submission on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant that
defendants 2 and 3 should be directed to remove the wall W
W-1 and clear the passage of encroachment.”
In Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra) defining the
acquiescence following was laid down in paragraphs 103 and 104 which are
342
quoted below:-
“103.Acquiescence is a facet of delay. The principle of
acquiescence would apply where: (i) sitting by or allow
another to invade the rights and spending money on it; (ii) it
is a course of conduct inconsistent with the claim for
exclusive rights for trade mark, trade name, etc.
104.In Power Control Appliances v. Sumeet Machines
(P) Ltd. sthis Court stated:(SCCp.457,para 26)
"26.Acquiescence is sitting by, when another is
invading the rights and spending money on it. It is a
course of conduct inconsistent with the claim for
exclusive rights in a trade mark, trade name etc. It
implies positive acts; not merely silence or inaction
such as is involved in laches."
The last case relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents is
Urmila Roy (supra) in which land acquisition proceedings after issuance of
notification under Section 4, the attorney of land owners wrote a letter that
owners are willing to negotiate the price of the land. In the said
circumstances, the Court observed that the land owners had acquiesced to the
acquisition. Following was laid down in paragraph 60 which is quoted below:-
“60. It is significant that this letter written by the
Attorney Urmila Roy, on behalf of all the land owners spells
out that the owners had in fact been willing to negotiate the
price for the land at the time when the acquisition were still
incomplete as only the Notification under Section 4 of the
Act had, at that stage, been issued (4-12-2000). It is also
significant that the declaration under Section 6 had been
issued on 29-11-2001 and the award rendered on 27-12-
2003. It is, therefore, evident that the land owners had, in
fact, acquiesced to the acquisition and cannot now turn
around to say that the acquisition was bad in law.”
The said case was on its own fact and does not help the respondents in
the present case. Insofar as, the submission of the respondents relating to
acceptance of compensation under the 1997 Rules are concerned, we have
already dealt the said submission while discussing the plea of waiver. We
have already arrived at a conclusion that merely because the land owners
have accepted the compensation under the 1997 Rules, they cannot be said
to have waived their right for the same reasons as given above. We are of the
343
view that mere acceptance of compensation under the 1997 Rules, does not
amount to acquiescence by the land owners.
Two cases cited by Sri Navin Sinha, learned counsel for the intervener
also need to be noted, are; K.M. Abbu Chettiar vs. Hyderabad State
Bank (AIR 1954 Madras 1001) and Allahabad Bank Limited vs. Kul
Bhushan and others (AIR 1961 Punjab 571). In K.M. Abbu Chettiar’s
case (supra) a suit was filed for ordering the Hyderabad State Bank to release
and deliver over to the plaintiff the goods. In the said case in paragraph 12
the Madras High Court laid down that where one of two innocent parties must
suffer for the fraud of a third, that party should suffer whose negligence
facilitated the fraud. Following was laid down in paragraph 12 of the
judgment:-
“12. The foregoing discussion can be summarised
in the following five propositions: (1) It is for the customer
to establish affirmatively that the signature on the
disputed cheque is not that of the customer but a forgery.,
(ii) If the drawer’s cheque is forged or unauthorised,
however clever the forgery is, the banker cannot debit his
customer’s account in case he pays the sum unless he
establishes adoption or estoppel. (iii) What amounts to
adoption or estoppel is dependent upon the circumstances
of each case. (iv) In order to make the customer liable for
the loss the neglect on his part must be in or intimately
connected with the transaction itself and must have been
the proximate cause of the loss. (v) The Banker cannot set
up either estoppel or adoption if his own conduct or
negligence has occasioned or contributed to the loss, the
well settled principle being that where one of two innocent
parties must suffer for the fraud of a third, that party
should suffer whose negligence facilitated the fraud.”
The judgment of Punjab High Court in Allahabad Bank’s case (supra)
also laid down the same proposition following the above Division Bench
judgment of Madras High Court. The aforesaid two cases were on their own
facts arising out of cases of forgery between the Bank and its customer.
Those cases were on their own facts and do not help the intervener in the
present case.
14.Third Party Rights and Construction:
344
After publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act,1894 the
State/Authority has claimed to have taken possession under Section 17(1) of
the Act, 1894. In the main writ petition i.e. 37443/2011, Gajraj Singh &
Ars. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, date of taking possession was 05/9/2008
(572.592 hectares) and 12/1/2009 (1.453 hectares). The case of the
respondents authority as well as the intervenors as pleaded in the counter
affidavit filed by the Authority and the affidavit filed by the intervenors is that
after taking possession various allotments have been made for the purposes
as was allocated to the area in question. In the counter affidavit filed by the
Authority, in paragraphs 15, 16(a), 16(b) and 16(c) has given the details of
the allotments made to individual residential plots as well as of Group Housing
Plots. Paragraphs 15, 16(a), 16(b) and 16(c) are quoted below:-
“15. That after taking over of possession of the land
in terms of the declaration dated 30.6.2008, development
work was carried out and the area stands demarcated as
Sectors 2,3, Tech Zone IV, Eco Tech 13, Sector 10 and
Sector 11. The Authority has so far constructed roads, laid
down sewer lines, electric transmission lines, developed
green belts and carried out plotted, flatted ad Group Housing
development works in respect of the aforesaid sectors in so
far as they fall in the acquired land of Village Patwari. The
remaining area of these sectors fall in the acquired land of
the adjoining villages and acquisition of these adjoining
villages for the purpose of planned and integrated
development has taken place separately. In the development
works, carried out on the acquired land of Village Patwari, so
far the respondent Authority has spend about Rs. 13,464.08
lacs.
16(a). That in Sector 2, the individual residential plots
have been allotted in terms of Scheme No.RPS-01 of the
year 2009. In this Scheme, 2000 nos. of individual residential
plots were allotted through draw of lots. Also in Sector 2,
two Group Housing plots (One Partly falling under village
Patwari) were allotted on 21.3.2010 and on 01.03.2011
respectively under the scheme code BRS-01/2010 and BRS-
04/2010.
16(b) That in Sector 3, about 2250 individual
residential plots were allotted through draw of lots in the
month of January 2009 and 625 individual residential flats
through draw of lots in July 2009 under the Schemes XT-01
and BHS.
16(c) That in Sector Tech Zone IV, Group Housing
345
plots were carved out and allotted under Scheme BRS-01 to
BRS-05. The allotment letters were issued to the allottees
between the period March 2010 to March, 2011, Also in Tech
Zone IV, some Institutional and some Information
Technology plots have been allotted during the period 2008
to March 2009 under the Authority's open ended schemes.”
Learned counsel appearing for the authority has also given details of
allotments and developments made in different villages. Taking the case of
Village Patwari, which is the Village involved in the main writ petition being
Writ Petition No. 37443/2011,Gajraj Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.,
along with the supplementary affidavit-4 in folders giving details of allotments
and other developments has been filed. In the details given with regard to
Village Patwari, Group Housing Plots have been allotted in the year 2010
numbering 15 Plots in Sector 10 and 11 in which the Village Patwari, falls.
Group Housing Plots have been allotted in Tech Zone-4, Sector 1 and Sector 2
of an area running into several lacs Square metres. Allotment for plot under
Sports City, Farm House has also been made.
In Tech Zone-4 under the institutional category 24 plots have been
allotted from the year 2008-2011. Residential small Flats in Sector 2
numbering 1880 have been allotted.
In Sector 3, 689+300 flats have also been allotted. In the intervention
application filed on behalf of the Developers Association also the details of
allotments in different villages have been brought on record. Thus, the
petitioners' case in the writ petition is that after acquisition of land, allotments
have been made for Group Housing and for other purposes, thus the creation
of third party rights has not yet been disputed.
Various applications have been filed by intervenors who were allottees
of different Group Housing Plots and other allottees giving details of the
activities taken by them after the allotment of plots. Following allotments have
been claimed with regard to Village Patwari:
(I)M/s Patel Advance JV GH-03, Tech Zone IV. Date of
allotment 27/4/2010. Date of possession 13/10/2010. It is
346
claimed that project was sanctioned on 15/2/2011 and
04/3/2011. Number of dwelling units are 22700 and number of
allottees are 1237. It is claimed that an investment of 75.22
crores have been made by the allottees.
(II)Super City Developers Pvt. Ltd. Flat No.7V-Tech Zone-
IV. Date of allotment 08/12/2010. Possession is claimed to be
taken on 25/2/2011.
(III)M/s La Residentia Developers Pvt. Ltd, GH-06A Tech
Zone-4. Date of allotment 18/8/2010. Total investment is Rs.
75 crores.
(IV)Arihant Infra Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Flat No.GH-07-A, Sector-
1. Date of allotment 12/10/2010. Total investment is claimed to
be Rs.32.74 crores.
In the similar manner, details of various allotments and projects and
investments made by the different allotees have been given in their
intervention applications as well as in the affidavit filed on behalf of the
Developers Association. Along with the affidavits which have been filed by the
intervenors and the Developers Association, certain photographs showing the
semi-finished constructions of various dwelling units have been brought on
the record.
From the facts which have been brought on the record it is clear that
after creation of third party rights, the allottees also proceeded to carry on
building activities and substantial constructions have been made on some of
the places. The submission which has been pressed by the learned counsel for
the respondents and the intervenors is that in view of the creation of third
party rights and developmental activities carried on the spot, it is not in the
interest of justice that the petitioners be granted relief of quashing the
acquisition and an application by intervenors has also been filed as noted
above by Flat Owners Association claiming that large number of members of
public have got their flats booked and most of them have taken financial
347
assistance from Banks and other financial institutions and are shouldering
financial liability towards allotments of flats. The details regarding allotments
of flats have also been brought on record.
As noticed above, Shri L. Nageshwar Rao, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the State in his concluding submission contended that even if
the Court comes to the conclusion that dispensation of inquiry under Section
5A of the Act, 1894 was not justified, present is not a case where the
petitioners are entitled for relief of quashing the notifications acquiring the
land. It is submitted that the said relief is to be refused on the grounds
mentioned below:
(I)The petitioners have approached this Court with delay
and not immediately after declaration under Section 6 of the
Act.
(II)After taking of the possession, the Authority has carried
out development works and made allotments to various third
parties who have acquired rights and to undo all subsequent
acts shall neither be equitable nor just.
(III)Due to the development activities carried on the land
under acquisition, now the situation is irreversible and the
nature of land having been changed, relief of quashing the
notifications be refused.
Learned Counsel for the State, Authority as well as the counsel
appearing for the intervenors have referred to various judgements of the Apex
Court in support of their submissions.
The first judgment which has been relied on by the learned counsel for
the respondents in support of their submission is the judgment of the Apex
Court in Kishan Das & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, (1995) 6 SCC 240.
In the said case, the Apex Court observed that since the land under
348
acquisition constructions have been made and completed, there is no need to
go into the question of urgency and exercise of power under Section 17(4) of
the Act at such a belated stage.
Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on the
judgment of the Apex Court in Om Prakash & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors, (1998) 6 SCC, 1.
In the said case, the land of Village Chhalera Banger then situated in
District Ghaziabad was acquired for Planned Industrial Development of District
Ghaziabad through Noida. The acquisition was challenged in the High Court
on several grounds including the ground that inquiry under Section 5A of the
Act was wrongly dispensed with and the High Court dismissed the writ
petition. The matter was taken in appeal before the Apex Court. The Apex
Court found that the said was not a case where power under Section 17(4)
should have been invoked. The point was answered in favour of the land
owners. The Court thereafter proceeded to consider as to whether in view of
the finding that the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act was wrongly
dispensed with, whether the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act be
quashed or not. The Apex Court made following observations in paragraph 30
which is quoted below:-
“30. It is also to be kept in view that the impugned
notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued for the
purpose of planned development of District Ghaziabad
through NOIDA and by the said notification, 496 acres of
land spread over hundreds of plot numbers have ben
acquired. Out of 494.26 acres of land under acquisition, only
the present appellants owning about 50 acres, making a
grievance about acquisition of their lands have gone to the
court. Thus, almost 9/10th of the acquired lands have stood
validly acquired under the land acquisition proceedings and
only dispute centers round 1/10th of these acquired lands
owned by the present appellants. It is a comprehensive
project for the further planned development in the district.
We are informed by learned senior counsel Shri Mohta for
NOIDA, that a lot of construction work has ben done on the
undisputed land under acquisition and pipelines and other
infrastructure have been put up. That the disputed lands
belonging to the appellants may have stray complex of lands
sought to be acquired. That if notification under Section 4(1)
349
read with Section 17 (4) is set aside qua these pockets of
lands then the entire development activity in the complex will
come to a grinding halt and that would not be in the interest
of anyone.
…........ ….............
That we cannot permit upsetting the entire apple cart of
acquisition of 500 acres only at the behest of 1/10th of land
owners whose lands are sought to be acquired. We may also
keep in view the further alien fact that all the appellants
have filed reference for additional compensation under
Section 18 of the Act. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned senior
counsel, was right when he contended that the appellants
could not have taken the risk of getting their reference
applications time barred during the pendency of these
proceedings. Therefore, without prejudice to their
contentions in the present proceedings they have filed such
references. Be that as it may., that shows that an award is
also made and reference are pending. Under these
circumstances for enabling the appellants to have their say
regarding release of their lands on the ground that they are
having abadi and that the State Policy helps them in this
connection the appellants can be permitted to have their
grievances voiced before the State authorities under Section
48 rather than under Section 5-A of the Act at such a late
stage. Consequently, despite our finding in favour of the
appellants on Point No. 1, we do not think that this is a fit
case to set aside the acquisition proceedings on the plea of
the appellants about non-compliance with Section 5-A at this
late stage. it is also obvious that if on this point the
notifications are quashed for non-compliance of Section 5-A,
that would open a pandora's box and those occupants who
are uptill now sitting on the fence may also get a hint to file
further proceedings on the ground of discriminatory
treatment by the State authorities. All these complications
are required to be avoided and hence while considering the
question of exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India, we do not think that
this is a fit case for interference in the present proceedings
with the impugned notifications. Point No. 3, therefore, is
answered in the affirmative against the appellants and in
favour of the respondents.”
Again in Tika Ram & Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, (2009) 10 SCC
689, the Court was faced with a situation where invocation of Section 5A of
the Act, 1894 was held not to be justified. The Court thereafter proceeded to
consider as to whether the notification deserves to be quashed or not.
Following was laid down in paragraph 116 which is quoted below:-
“116.In a reported decision in Kishan Das &
350
Ors. v. State of UP & Ors. this Court has taken a view
that where the acquisition has been completed by
taking the possession of the land under acquisition
and the constructions have been made and
completed, the question of urgency and the exercise
of power under Section 17(4) would not arise. We
must notice that acquisitions in this case are of 1984-
1985 and two decades have passed thereafter. The
whole township has come up, the houses and the
lands have been allotted, sold and re-sold, awards
have been passed and overwhelming majority of land
owners have also accepted the compensation, this
includes even some of the appellants. In such
circumstances we do not think that the High Court
was in any way wrong in not interfering with the
exercise of power under Section 17 (4) of the Act. At
any rate, after the considered findings on the factual
questions recorded by the High Court, we would not
go into that question.”
The next case relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents is
Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. L. Chandrasekaran (Dead) By Lrs &
Ors , (2010) 2 SCC 786.
In the aforesaid case, the High Court quashed the declaration under
Section 6 of the Act leaving the preliminary notification in tact. Thereafter
Special Leave Petition was filed by A.S. Naidu in which the Apex Court took
notice of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition (Amendment Act, 16/1997) in terms
of which declaration under Section 6 was required to be made within three
years from the date of preliminary notification. The Apex Court noticing the
amendment took the view to quash the acquisition/notification with liberty to
the State Government to issue fresh notification. L. Chandrasekharan,
respondents in the case under consideration filed writ petition in the year
1997, for issuing direction to Board to certify that the acquired land was no
longer needed for which it was acquired. The writ petition was allowed by the
learned Single Judge. An appeal was filed before the Division Bench which
took the view that the order passed in A.S. Naidu's case was in respect of the
petitioner in that case only and held that the writ petitions are not entitled to
make representation for reconveyance of the acquired land. Shri L.
Chandashekhar submitted a representation and thereafter filed a writ petition
in the year 1999 which was dismissed. An appeal was filed before the Division
351
Bench which was allowed relying on its earlier order directing the
Board/Member to reconvey the land to the respondents subject to their
depositing the amount of compensation. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board filed
a Special Leave Petition which was allowed by the Apex Court. The Apex Court
in the said judgment made following observations in paragraph 16 which is
quoted below:-
“16. From the above reproduced prayer clause, it is
crystal clear that the only relief sought by Shri A.S. Naidu
was for quashing the notification 11 issued under Section 6
in so far it related to the land falling in Survey Nos.254, 257,
258, 260, 268 and 271 in Mogapperi Village, No.81, Block V,
Saidapet Taluk and in the absence of a specific prayer
having been made in that regard, neither the High Court nor
this Court could have quashed the entire acquisition. This
appears to be the reason why the Division Bench of the High
Court, while disposing of Writ Appeal Nos. 676 of 1997 and
8/9 of 1998 observed that quashing of acquisition by this
Court was only in relation to the land of the petitioner of that
case and, at this belated stage, we are not inclined to
declare that order dated 21.8.1990 passed by this Court had
the effect of nullifying the entire acquisition and that too by
ignoring that the appellant-Board has already utilized portion
of the acquired land for housing and other purposes. Any
such inferential conclusion will have disastrous consequences
inasmuch as it will result in uprooting those who may have
settled in the flats or houses constructed by the appellant-
Board or who may have built their houses on the allotted
plots or undertaken other activities.”
Heavy reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the
respondents on the judgment of the Apex Court in Anand Singh & Anr. Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors, (2010) 11 SCC 242.
In the aforesaid case, appeals were filed against the judgment of the
High Court by which judgment, writ petition filed by the land holders was
dismissed. The land was acquired for residential colony by the Gorakhpur
Development Authority. One of the submission made before the High Court
and the Apex Court was that the State Government wrongly exercised its
power under Section 17(4) in dispensing with the inquiry. The Apex Court
after considering all relevant cases has come to the conclusion that the
dispensation of inquiry under Section 5A was unsustainable. The Apex Court
352
after taking the view that notification in so far as the dispensation of inquiry
under Section 5A, was unsustainable, proceeded to consider as to whether at
that distance of time acquisition proceedings may be declared invalid and
illegal. The Apex Court noted the submission of the Gorakhpur Development
Authrority which had invested huge amount in the Development. The Court
did not grant relief to the petitioners for quashing the acquisition/notification.
Following was laid down in paragraphs 55 and 56 which are quoted below:-
“55.In the facts and circumstances of the present
case, therefore, the Government has completely failed to
justify the dispensation of an enquiry under Section 5A by
invoking Section 17(4). For this reason, the impugned
notifications to the extent they state that Section 5A shall not
apply suffer from legal infirmity. The question, then, arises
whether at this distance of time, the acquisition proceedings
must be declared invalid and illegal.
56. In the written submissions of the GDA, it is stated
that subsequent to the declaration made under Section 6 of
the Act in the month of December, 2004, award has been
made and out of the 400 land owners more than 370 have
already received compensation. It is also stated that out of
the total cost of Rs. 8,85,14,000/- for development of the
acquired land, an amount of Rs. 5,28,00,000/- has already
been spent by the GDA and more than 60% of work has
been completed. It, thus, seems that barring the appellants
and few others all other tenure holders/land owners have
accepted the `takings' of their land. It is too late in the day
to undo what has already been done. We are of the opinion,
therefore, that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, the appellants are not entitled to any relief although
dispensation of enquiry under Section 5A was not justified.”
Another recent judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the
respondents is Shankara Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. M.
Prabhakar & Ors, (2011) 5 SCC 607. The Apex Court in the said case laid
down principles for granting or refusing relief on the ground of delay and
laches. Following was laid down in paragraphs 54 and 68 which are quoted
below:
“54. The relevant considerations, in determining whether
delay or laches should be put against a person who
approaches the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution
is now well settled. They are:
353
(1)There is no inviolable rule of law that whenever there
is a delay, the court must necessarily refuse to entertain the
petition; it is a rule of practice based on sound and proper
exercise of discretion, and each case must be dealt with on its
own facts.
(2)The principle on which the court refuses relief on the
ground of laches or delay is that the rights accrued to others
by the delay in filing the petition should not be disturbed,
unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay,
because court should not harm innocent parties if their rights
had emerged by the delay on the part of the petitioners.
(3)The satisfactory way of explaining delay in making an
application under Article 226 is for the petitioner to show that
he had been seeking relief elsewhere in a manner provided by
law. If he runs after a remedy not provided in the Statute or
the statutory rules, it is not desirable for the High Court to
condone the delay. It is immaterial what the petitioner
chooses to believe in regard to the remedy.
(4)No hard and fast rule, can be laid down in this regard.
Every case shall have to be decided on its own facts.
(5)That representations would not be adequate
explanation to take care of the delay.
68. The other factor the High Court should have taken into
consideration that during the period of delay, interest has
accrued in favour of the third party and the condonatoin of
unexplained delay would affect the rights of third parties. We
are also of the view that reliance placed by Shri Ranjit Kumar
on certain observations made by this Court would not assist
him in the facts and circumstances of this case. While
concluding on this issue, it would be useful to refer the
observations made by the Court in the case of Municipal
Council, Ahmednagar Vs. Shah Hyder Beig, wherein it is
stated that:
`delay defeats equity and that the discretionary relief of
condonation can be had, provided one has not given by his
conduct, given a go by to his rights'.”
From the dictum of the Apex Court as noted above, it is clear that the
creation of third party rights and carrying on developmental works on the
allotted sites has bearing while considering the issue as to what relief the land
owners who have challenged the acquisition proceedings are entitled.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in some of the
354
cases there was an interim order passed by the High Court for maintaining
status quo and it was not open for the authority to make any allotment or
create any third party right.
In this bunch of writ petitions, in which there are more than 400 writ
petitions for consideration only in few writ petitions interim orders were
passed by this Court and in some of the cases said interim orders are of the
date subsequent to the date when the respondents claimed to have taken
possession.
Learned counsel appearing for the Authority as well as the learned
counsel appearing for the intervenors have submitted that no land which was
covered by any interim order of the High Court was neither allotted nor
transferred and in some of the cases possession memo while taking
possession mentions that possession was not taken since the land was
covered by any interim order of the Court. The fact that most of the
petitioners did not invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution immediately after declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 or
after taking of the possession has also relevance while considering the issue
as to what relief the petitioners are entitled in the facts of the present cases.
We, thus conclude that the effect and consequence of third party
rights, developments and the constructions made after taking of the
possession by the authorities is a relevant factor which shall hereinafter be
considered while considering the issue as to what relief the petitioners are
entitled.
15. Effect of upholding of some of the notifcations in some writ
petitions earlier decided.
16. Conflicts in view of Division Benches:
Both the above issues are taken together for consideration.
The Division Bench while hearing main writ petition as noticed above in
its referring order dated 26 July 2011 has noticed two contrary decisions of
Division Bench of this Court. First judgment is Division Bench Judgment dated
355
25 November 2008 in writ petition no.45777 of 2008, Harish Chand and
others Vs State of U.P. and others and second judgment is judgment of the
Division Bench dated 19 July 2011 in writ petition no.17068 of 2009 Har
Karan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others (2011 Volume VI, A.D.J. ,
755)”. In Harishchand's case the notifications dated 12.3.2008 and 30 June
2008 acquiring the land of village Patwari was under challenge. The Division
Bench dismissed the writ petition by following order:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Standing Counsel.
Learned Standing Counsel has produced the original
records pertaining the land acquisition proceedings under
challenge. The notification dated 20.3.2007 and 9.7.2008
under Section 4 and 6 respectively have been assailed on
the ground that there is no material before the State
Government to arrive at a conclusion and there was an
urgency for invoking Section 17 of the Land Acquisition
Act.
We have perused the original records and we find that the
District Magistrate had indicated various factors which led
him to arrive at a conclusion that the land was required
urgently and there was justification for acquiring the land.
The State Government having regard to the letters/reports
on record formed an opinion that it was a fit case to strike
the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land
Acquisition Act. We are therefore of the opinion that the
contention raised on behalf of the writ petitioner has no
force. Further, we are fortifying our opinion in view of the
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of
Lakhami Vs. State of U.P. 2008 (9) ADJ 657 and Jasraj
Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others others 2008 (8) ADJ
329.
Accordingly, we find no good grounds to interfere with the
writ petition.
The writ petition is dismissed."
The second judgment in Har Karan Singh's case dated 19 July 2011
was also a writ petition in which the notification dated 12 March 2008 under
Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) as well as notification dated 30
June 2008 under Section 6 of Village Patwari was under challenge. The
subsequent Division Bench noticed the earlier Division Bench judgment in
356
Harischand case but took the view that the petitioner's are not bound by the
judgement in Harischand's case and they have independent right to challenge
the acquisition. On the basis of law laid down by Supreme Court the Division
Bench in Har Karan Singh's case also observed that law of acquisition of land
by State applying the Section 17(1) and 17(4) has undergone a sea change
after the judgments of Supreme Court in Anand Singh's case, Radhey Shyam
case, Devendra Kumar's case (supra) following was laid down in paragraph 30
in Har Karan Singh's case:
“30. The petitioners of this bunch were not parties in writ
petition No. 38758 of 2008. They have right challenge the
acquisition of land on the basis of law laid down by the
Supreme Court. The principle of res judicate are not
attracted to estop from challenging acquisition. We are also
find that the ground that the land acquired for public
purpose has been used for private commercial purposes by
allotment of land to private builders for construction of multi-
storey housing complexes was neither taken nor pressed in
the aforesaid writ petition dismissed by the Court. The law of
acquisition of land by the State applying Section 17 (1) and
(4) has undergone a sea change after the judgments of the
Supreme Court in Anand Singh's case (Supra) decided on
28.7.2010, Radhey Shyam's case (Supra) decided on
18.4.2011 and Devendra Kumar's (Supra) case decided on
6.7.2011.”
Thus one of the issues which has arisen for consideration by this Full
Bench is as to which of the aforesaid two judgments be approved and
followed. The submission which has been placed by learned counsel for the
respondent is that subsequent Division Bench in Har Karan Singh's case
would not have taken divergent view to one which was taken in
Harishcand's case. It is submitted that at best the subsequent Division
Bench could have made a reference to be heard by a larger Bench. In view of
the fact that now this larger Bench had been constituted to consider as to
which of the view is correct, the issue that subsequent Division Bench ought
to have made a reference to the larger Bench instead of deciding the issue
itself has become only an academic issue. We thus proceed to consider the
views expressed by aforesaid two Division Benches on merits.
Learned counsel for the authority has further submitted that this court
357
has also upheld several notifications which are subject matter of challenge in
some of the writ petitions. Reference has been made to Division Bench
judgment of this court of following villages:
THE NOTIFICATION WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH
COURT ON DIFFERENT VILLAGES OF GREATER NOIDA
Village
Name
Writ petition
No.
Party Name Date of
Notification
Date of
Declaration
Date of
Judgement
Pali 8972 of 2009Jaggan and others
Vs. State of U.P. and
others
07.09.2006 20.07.2007 13.04.2009
Malakpur 46522 of
2003
Charan Singh 02.05.2003 22.07.2003 05.03.2004
Roja
Yakubpur
43054 of
2008
Lakhami vs. State of
U.P. and others
31.08.2007 27.02.2008 16.10.2008
Birondi
Chakrasenp
ur
23244 of
2003
Bhopal Singh and
others Vs. State of
U.P. and others
28.11.2002 29.01.2003 05.03.2004
Dabara 17366 of
2008
Subey Ram Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors
31.10.2005 01.09.2006 22.08.2008
Yusufpur
Chak
Shahberi
56522 of
2007
Haris Chandra &
Ors. Vs. State of
U.P. & Ors.
17.05.2006 10.09.2007 27.11.2007
Khanpur 38793 of
2008
Jasraj Singh 31.01.2008 30.06.2008 16.09.2008
Tusiyana 69534 of
2006
Sudhir Chandra
Agarwal
10.04.2006 30.06.2006 29.02.2008
It has further been submitted that against Division Bench judgment of
this court in Jasaraj Singh, Sudhir Chandra Agarwal and Munshi Singh, the
special leave to appeal were also filed in the Supreme Court which were
dismissed.
We have perused the judgment of Division Bench of this Court as
referred above in which cases various Division Bench of this court have
dismissed the writ petition challenging the notifications and the arguments
that State Government wrongly invoked Section 17(1) and 17(4) was repelled.
The view expressed by aforesaid Division Bench is to the same effect as has
been expressed by Division Bench in Harishchand's case.
Thus the issue to be considered is as to whether the view taken by
Division Bench in Harishchand's case and several cases as noticed above is
correct view to be approved by the Full Bench or the view taken by Division
358
Bench in Har Karan Singh's is to be approved.
The judgment of Harischand as extracted above gives following
reasons for holding that invocation of Section 17 was correct:
“We have perused the original records and we find
that the District Magistrate had not indicated various factors
which led him to arrive at a conclusion that the land was
required urgently and there was justification for acquiring the
land. The State Government having regard to the
letter/reports on record formed an opinion that it was a fit
case to strike the urgency clause under Section 17 of the
Land Acquisition Act. We are, therefore of the opinion that
the contention raised on behalf of the writ petitioner have no
force.”
From perusal of the above reasoning of the Division Bench it is clear
that the Division Bench took the aforesaid view on the basis of District
magistrate having indicated in his conclusion that the land was required
urgently and there was justification for acquiring the land.
We have noticed that three Judge Bench in Narayan Govind Gavate
Vs. State of Maharashtra held that the mere fact that there is urgency
under Section 17(1) is not sufficient for invocation of Section 17(4) but the
mind of the officer or the authority has to be applied to the question whether
the urgency is of such a nature that even the summary proceedings under
Section 5A should be eliminated. Following observations were made by the
Apex court in paragraph 38:
“Now, the purpose of Section 17(4) of the Act is,
obviously, not merely to confine action under it to
waste and arable land but also to situations in which
an inquiry under Section 5A will serve no useful
purpose, or, for some overriding reason, it should be
dispensed with. The mind of the Officer or authority
concerned has to be applied to the question whether
there is ,an urgency of such a nature that even the
summary proceedings under Section 5A of the Act
should be eliminated. It is not just the existence of an
urgency but the need to dispense with an inquiry
under Section 5A which has to be considered.”
In Union of India Vs. Mukesh Hansh (supra), the argument was
359
made before the apex court that when the appropriate Government comes to
the conclusion that there is an urgency or unforeseen emergency under
Section 17(1) and 17(2) the dispensation of the inquiry under Section 5-A
becomes automatic. This argument was repelled by the Apex court in
paragraph 33 which is quoted as below :
An argument was sought to be advanced on behalf of the
appellants that once the appropriate Government comes to
the conclusion that there is an urgency or unforeseen
emergency under Section 17(1) and (2), the dispensation of
enquiry under Section 5A becomes automatic and the same
can be done by a composite order meaning thereby that
there no need for the appropriate Government to separately
apply its mind for any further emergency for dispensation
with an inquiry under Section 5A. We are unable to agree
with the above argument because sub- section (4) of Section
17 itself indicates that the "government may direct that
provisions of Section 5A shall not apply" which makes it clear
that not in every case where the appropriate Government
has come to the conclusion that there is urgency and under
sub- section (1) or unforeseen emergency under sub-section
(2) of Section 17 the Government will ipso facto have to
direct the dispensation of inquiry. For this we do find support
from a judgment of this Court in the case of Nandeshwar
Prasad & Anr. vs. The State of U.P. & Ors. { 1964 ( 3) SCR
425) wherein considering the language of Section 17 of the
Act which was then referable to waste or arable land and the
U.P.Amendment to the said section held thus :
"It will be seen that s. 17(1) gives power to the Government
to direct the Collector, though no award has been made
under s. 11, to take possession of any waste or arable land
needed for public purpose and such land thereupon vests
absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. If
action is taken under s. 17(1), taking possession and vesting
which are provided in s. 16 after the award under s. 11 are
accelerated and can take place fifteen days after the
publication of the notice under s. 9. Then comes s.17(4)
which provides that in case of any land to which the
provisions of sub-s. (1) are applicable, the Government may
direct that the provisions of s. 5-A shall not apply and if it
does so direct, a declaration may be made under s. 6 in
respect of the land at any time after the publication of the
notification under s. 4(1). It will be seen that it is not
necessary even where the Government makes a direction
under s. 17(1) that it should also make a direction under s.
17(4). If the Government makes a direction only under s.
17(1) the procedure under s. 5-A would still have to be
followed before a notification under s. 6 is issued, though
360
after that procedure has been followed and a notification
under s. 6 is issued the Collector gets the power to take
possession of the land after the notice under s. 9 without
waiting for the award and on such taking possession the land
shall vest absolutely in Government free from all
encumbrances. It is only when the Government also makes a
declaration under s. 17(4) that it becomes unnecessary to
take action under s. 5-A and make a report thereunder. It
may be that generally where an order is made under s.
17(1), an order under s. 17(4) is also passed; but in law it is
not necessary that this should be so. It will also be seen that
under the Land Acquisition Act an order under s. 17(1) or s.
17(4) can only be passed with respect to waste or arable
land and it cannot be passed with respect to land which is
not waste or arable and on which buildings stand."
Thus the view taken in Harischand case as extracted above that the
District Magistrate having arrived at conclusion that land was required
urgently and there was justification for acquiring the land was not sufficient
recommendation for dispensation of inquiry under Section 5-A and there being
no application of mind to the aforesaid aspect which is specifically required to
be considered, the judgement of the Division Bench in Harishchand can not
the said to be in accordance with law as laid down by Apex court in Narayan
Govind Gavate Vs. State of Maharashtra and Union of India Vs. Mukesh
Hansh.
The division Bench judgment in Harakaran Singh's case have referred
to Anand Singh's case (supra) which had relied on Narayan Singh Gautey's
case. The Division Bench in Harakaran Singh has also relied on Radhey Shyam
case (supra) which was fully applicable on the issues which have arisen in the
present case. In view of the aforesaid discussion we are of the view that
Division Bench judgment in Harishchand can not be approved and the Division
Bench judgment in Harakaran Singh is to be followed.
In so far as other Division Bench judgments which had been relied by
learned counsel for the respondents as referred above upholding the
notification we are of the view that said judgments had binding effect
between the parties in the aforesaid cases. The present petitioners are not
being party to those proceedings the said judgment may not be binding on
the present petitioners. It is, however, relevant to notice one or two
361
judgments in which notifications were upheld. One of the Division Bench
judgments is relied by the respondent is Munshi Singh Vs. State of U.P.
and others 2009 Volume VIII A.D.J. 360 by which judgment the
notifications dated 20 June 2007 under Section 4 and notification dated 18
June 2008 under Section 6 was challenged. The Division Bench dismissed the
writ petition. The Division Bench while dismissing the writ petition has relied
on Division Bench of this Court in Radhey Shyam and others Vs. State of
U.P. 2009 Volume 2 A.D.J. 388. Against the judgment of Radheya Shyam
and others by which Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ
petition upholding the notification, special leave petition was filed in the
Supreme Court and the Division Bench Judgement of the High Court has been
reversed by Apex Court in Radhey Shyam Vs. State of U.P. 2011 Volume
5, S.C.C. 553.
Another Division Bench judgment of this court which is relevant is
Sudhir Chandra Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and another 2008 Volume
III A.D.J. 289 by which the acquisition notification under Sections 4 and 6
relating to Village Tushiana were upheld one of the arguments raised by the
petitioners was that the invocation of Section 17 sub clause 4 by dispensing of
the inquiry under Section 5-A was illegal. The Division Bench felt satisfied with
the materials which was before the State Government and held that subjective
satisfaction of State Government in forming the opinion that Section 17(4) be
invoked can not be challenged. The Division Bench although in paragraph 25
of the judgment itself noted that one of the reasons given for invocation of
urgency that in case the land is not made available then various foreign
industrialist who intend to establish industries shall go to some other State,
was considered and it was held that the said ground could not be
substantiated by the authority. It is useful to quote paragraphs 24,25,26
which is to the following effect :
“24. The averment in the counter affidavit and the
record produced before us would go to show that land use
of the land in Village Tushiana in the master plan was
reserved as, 'institutional'. The land was part of notification
of the industrial area under Section 3 of U.P. Act No.6 of
1976. The development of the area was proposed for
allotment to various industries and institutions and that it
362
was stated that in case the development plan is not made
available, the investors would establish their industries in
some other States affecting the development of the
industrial area.
25.On our request, a list of industries with their proposals
was provided by the GNIDA alongwith their first
supplementary counter affidavit. A perusal of the list of the
industries would show that the GNIDA relied upon names of
some of the industries, which have already set up their
industrial units in other parts of Greater Noida and that there
were no foreign companies or institutions, which had
proposed to set up an industrial unit in the area. In fact
GNIDA could not demonstrate or give the name of any
foreign industry, which may have shown their interest for
allotment of land in Greater Noida.
26.The sufficiency or insufficiency of the material, and
the names of industries, which may have applied with
concrete proposals for establishment of industrial units, is not
material for the purposes of judicial review of the subjective
satisfaction of the State Government. When there exists
material before the State Government, in the shape of
recommendations and that material is relevant for applying
the mind for recording subjective satisfaction of invoking the
urgency clause for acquisition of the land, the law does not
permit the Court to consider the material as if it was
weighing the evidence for the purposes of recording
subjective satisfaction of invoking the urgency clause for
acquisition of the land. If the material is relevant, on which
competent authority, as reasonable person may invoke the
urgency clause for acquisition of the land, the Court would
not put such material on the scales, to weigh or measure
such urgency. The court is not competent to carry out judicial
review of the sufficiency or insufficiency on the material
placed before it. What the Court required to see is whether
such material is relevant, and that the competent authority in
the State Government could have formed an opinion without
their being any motive or ill-will for invoking the urgency
clause. In the present case the State has given in the counter
affidavit, the material on which it had placed reliance and
has produced the material before us, which we find to be
relevant for the purpose of invoking urgency clause. Even if
we may, after perusing the record arrive on different
conclusion, we would restrain ourselves from interfering, as
in such case we would be substituting our opinion in place of
opinion of the competent authority in the State Government.
If we do so, we would be sitting in appeal over the subjective
satisfaction recorded by the State Government. The legal
position obtained from the judicial precedents restrain us
from doing so.
363
We are of the view that one of the grounds which was basis for
arriving at subjective satisfaction for invoking Section 17(4) having not been
substantiated by the authority, the subjective satisfaction was clearly vitiated
as has been laid down by the apex court in Sibban Lal Saxena's case
(supra).
It is also relevant to note that against the Division Bench judgment in
Sudhir Chandra Agarwal case special leave to appeal Civil no.11551 of 2008
was filed in the Apex Court which was dismissed by following order dated 12
May 2008:
“Heard. The Special Leave petition is dismissed. However,
the petitioner be given ex-post-facto hearing within two
months from today.”
The respondents have also referred two judgment of the Apex Court
dated 12.12.2008 by which order the Special Leave to Appeal Civil no.28731
of 2008 filed against the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated
16.09.2008 in writ petition no.38793 of 2008 was challenged. The Supreme
Court by order dated 12.12.2008 dismissed the Special Leave Petition by
following order:
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No merit. The
special leave petition is dismissed”
Learned counsel for the respondent sought to contend that since the
Division Bench judgment of this court as mentioned above has been upheld by
the Apex court by dismissing the special leave to appeal the said judgment
having approval of the Apex Court are binding precedent under Article 141.
We have considered above submission of the learned counsel for the
respondent. The orders of the Apex Court as quoted above were orders by
which the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition. The special
leave was not granted by the Apex Court. The dismissal of special leave
petition was not by an speaking order nor the Apex court considered any of
the issues on merits nor any ratio can be culled out from the orders of the
364
Apex Court as quoted above. The Apex Court in 2000 (6) S.C.C. 359
Kunhayammed and others Vs. State of Kerala and another had
occasion to consider the effect of dismissal at the stage of Special Leave by
non speaking/speaking order. Apex court held that said order do not
constitute any ratio within meaning of Article 141 nor it attracts doctrine of
merger, following was laid down by the Apex court in paragraph 27:
“ A petition for leave to appeal to this Court may be
dismissed by a non-speaking order or by a speaking order.
Whatever be the phraseology employed in the order of
dismissal, if it is a non-speaking order, i.e. it does not
assign reasons for dismissing the special leave petition, it
would neither attract the doctrine of merger so as to stand
substituted in place of the order put in issue before it nor
would it be a declaration of law by the Supreme Court
under Article 141 of the Constitution for there is no law
which has been declared. If the order of dismissal be
supported by reasons then also the doctrine of merger
would not be attracted because the jurisdiction exercised
was not an appellate jurisdiction but merely a discretionary
jurisdiction refusing to grant leave to appeal. We have
already dealt with this aspect earlier. Still the reasons
stated by the Court would attract applicability of Article 141
of the Constitution if there is a law declared by the
Supreme Court which obviously would be binding on all the
courts and tribunals in India and certainly the parties
thereto. The statement contained in the order other than
on points of law would be binding on the parties and the
court or tribunal, whose order was under challenge on the
principle of judicial discipline, this Court being the apex
court of the country. No court or tribunal or parties would
have the liberty of taking or canvassing any view contrary
to the one expressed by this Court. The order of Supreme
Court would mean that it has declared the law and in that
light the case was considered not fit for grant of leave. The
declaration of law will be governed by Article 141 but still,
the case not being one where leave was granted, the
doctrine of merger does not apply. The Court sometimes
leaves the question (sic) open. Or it sometimes briefly lays
down the principle, may be, contrary to the one laid down
By the High Court and yet would dismiss the special leave
petition. The reasons given are intended for purposes of
Article 141. This is so done because in the event of merely
dismissing the special leave petition, it is likely that an
argument could be advanced in the High Court that the
Supreme Court has to be understood as not to have
differed in law with the High Court.
365
The recent judgment of the Apex court in M/s. Royal Orchid Hotel Ltd.
fully support the contention of the petitioners that their rights are not affected
by the Division Bench judgment of this Court upholding the notification in
which they were not party. In the aforesaid case the co-tenure holders of the
tenure holders whose land was acquired had filed writ petition in Karnataka
High Court challenging the land acquisition which was dismissed. Special leave
petition filed by them was also dismissed. Following was laid down by the
Apex court in M/s. Royal Orchid Hotel Ltd. and another Vs. G.
Jayarama Reddy and others decided on 29.9.2011 in paragraph 24:
“24. A reading of the impugned judgment, the relevant
portions of which have been extracted hereinabove shows
that the Division Bench of the High Court adverted to all
the facts, which had bearing on the issue of delay
including the one that on the advice given by an advocate,
respondent No.1 had availed other remedies and opined
that the delay had been adequately explained. Thus, it
cannot be said that the discretion exercised by the High
Court to entertain and decide the writ petition filed by
respondent No.1 on merits is vitiated by any patent legal
infirmity. It is true that the writ petitions filed by the
brothers of respondent No.1 had been dismissed by the
learned Single Judge on the ground of delay and the writ
appeals and the special leave petitions filed against the
order of the learned Single Judge were dismissed by the
Division Bench of the High Court and this Court
respectively, but that could not be made basis for denying
relief to respondent No.1 because his brothers had neither
questioned the diversification of land to private persons
nor prayed for restoration of their respective shares. That
apart, we find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to
approve the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge
in dealing with Writ Petition Nos. 2379 and 2380 of 1993
filed by the brothers of respondent No.1.
He distinguished the judgments of the Division
Bench in Mrs. Behroze Ramyar Batha and others v. Special
Land Acquisition Officer (supra) and Smt. H.N.
Lakshmamma and others v. State of Karnataka and others,
without any real distinction and did not adhere to the basic
postulate of judicial discipline that a Single Bench is bound
by the judgment of the Division Bench. Not only this, the
learned Single Judge omitted to consider order dated
3.10.1991 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 19812 to 19816 of
1990 - Annaiah and others v. State of Karnataka and others
in which the same Division Bench had quashed notifications
dated 28.12.1981 and 16.4.1983 in their entirety.
366
Unfortunately, the Division Bench of the High Court went a
step further and dismissed the writ appeals filed by the
brothers of respondent No.1 without even adverting to the
factual matrix of the case, the grounds on which the order
of the learned Single Judge was challenged and ignored
the law laid down by the coordinate Bench in three other
cases. The special leave petitions filed by the brothers of
respondent No.1 were summarily dismissed by this Court.
Such dismissal did not amount to this Court's approval of
the view taken by the High Court on the legality of the
acquisition and transfer of land to private persons. In this
connection, reference can usefully be made to the
judgment in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC
359.”
We, however, hasten to add that the Division Bench judgment as
referred above in which the different writ petitions filed by the petitioners of
those cases challenging the acquisition proceedings were dismissed are
binding between the inter parties and the effect of that judgment is not to be
affected by any of observations made by us in this judgement except to their
precedential value.
In view of the foregoing discussions we are of the view that Division
Bench Judgemnt in Harischand case is not to be approved whereas the view
taken in the Division Bench Judgement in Har Karan Singh that the
invocation of Section 17(4) was not justified is approved.
17. Reliefs:
As discussed above the question of grant of relief to land owners in a
land acquisition proceedings depends on several important factors. The fact of
creation of third party rights, developments undertaken over the land in
dispute and the steps taken by the land owners after declaration made under
section 6 of the Act are all relevant considerations for granting the reliefs to
the land owners:
The acquisition of land specially of fertile agricultural land/or the land
which is being used as Abadi for farmers has serious consequences not on the
land owners but their future generations. India is a country where agriculture
is one of the main vocation/occupation of its residents. Planned development
367
of cities, towns is welcome factor but while proceeding with planned
development/industrial development, good fertile agricultural land cannot be
always sacrificed. As observed above, the right of objection of land owners as
contemplated under section 5A was done away so that land owners could not
point out any shortcomings/flaw in the acquisition process or justify exclusion
of their land from acquisition.
In these writ petitions in majority of cases third party rights have been
created after issue of declaration under section 6 and after taking possession
substantial developments including constructions have been undertaken which
has been already noted in detail by us in preceding paragraphs but there are
few villages in which no third party rights have been created and no
substantial developments have taken place. The cases where third party rights
have not been created and no substantial developments have taken place and
the cases where third party rights have been created, substantial
developments have taken place and constructions made have to be separately
treated and cannot be dealt with by same yardstick. As noted above, the
cases in which relief of quashing the notification under sections 4 and 6 was
not granted despite holding that dispensation of inquiry under section 5A was
invalid were cases where third party rights have been created and substantial
developments/construction have already been undertaken. We thus, proceed
to consider first the case of those villages where no third party rights have
been created and no substantial developments have taken place. We first take
the case of village Devla of Greater Noida. There are 23 writ petitions in this
group (group 40). The notifications under section 4 read with Sections 17(1)
and (4) was issued for acquiring the 107.0512 hectrares land of village Devla
on 26.5.2009, which was published in the news paper on 4.5.2009.
Declaration under section 6 was issued on 22.6.2009 which was published in
the news paper on 30.7.2009. The possession is claimed to have been taken
on 14.9.2009. 8 writ petitions were immediately filed in the year 2009 itself.
First we take up the writ petition No. 50417 of 2009 M/S. Tosha International
Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others. The said writ petition has been filed
by five petitioners challenging the notifications under section 4 and 6. The writ
petition was filed on 16.9.2009 which was heard on 18.9.2009 and following
order was passed by this Court:
368
“We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3 and Sri
Ramendra Pratap Singh for respondent no.4.
Respondents may file counter affidavit within one month.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within three days
thereafter.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged
notification dated 26.5.2009 issued under Sections 4 of
Land Acquisition Act and Notification dated 22.6.2009
under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that in view
of the decision of Apex Court in M/s. Essco Fabs Private
Limited and another Vs. State of Haryana and another
(2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 377 the authority is
required to record his satisfaction as to why applicability of
Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act is to be dispensed
with. The Apex Court has held in Sethi Auto Service Station
and another Vs. Delhi Development Authority and others
(2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 180 that on the noting of
the authorities the State Government's satisfaction cannot
be inferred and the State Government is required to record
its own independent reasons for invoking the urgency
clause. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the petitioners
are entitled for interim order.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further urged that
in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Munshi
Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in
A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1150 for dispensing with an enquiry under
Section 5A, mere mention of word "Land Development of
the Area" is not sufficient and respondents are bound to
show that the interested persons were aware of the
scheme or were shown the scheme or the master plan in
respect of land development.
In this view of argument made by the learned counsel for
the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel is directed to
produce the entire records of acquisition on 21.10.2009 to
demonstrate that satisfaction has been recorded by the
State Government by applying in its own independent mind
and enquiry under Section 5A was dispensed with in
accordance with law.
List on 21.10.2009.
Until further orders of this court, parties are directed to
maintain status quo.”
369
The petitioners' case in the writ petition is that petitioners are owners
of plots as mentioned in paragraph 7 of the writ petition which are recorded in
the revenue records in their name. Case of petitioner no.1 is that petitioner
no. 1 has started its unit which has been manufacturing black and white
picture tube in the year 1990. The petitioner no. 1 claims to be registered
under the Factories Act with Deputy Director, Factories, Western Zone, Meerut
as well as under the Sales Tax Act. The petitioner no. 1 also claims to have
been allotted a import code by the office of Joint Chief Controller Import and
Export since 1988. No objection of U.P. Pollution Control Board was obtained
on 22.10.1990. The petitioner's case is that in the plots owned by the
petitioner no. 1 in the village as well as in the adjoining village Gulistanpur.
Factory building, tanker shed, power plant room, LPG tanker plant and other
plants have been constructed. The petitioner also took steps for grant of SEZ
status under the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005. The petitioner submitted
proposal before the competent authority. The petitioner has annexed in the
writ petition correspondences with the District Magistrate, State Government
as well as Govt. of India in this regard. The letter of Government of India,
Ministry of Commerce Industries dated 17.1.2006 has been filed as Annexure-
10 by which the Government of India granted approval in principal subject to
obtaining recommendations of the State Government and certain commitment
by the State Government. Correspondence with the Greater Noida Authority
by the petitioner as well as with the State Government has been brought on
record. The State Government has asked report from Greater Noida. The
petitioners had earlier also come to this court by filing writ petition being writ
petition No. 49736 of 2007, M/s Tosha International Ltd. Vs. and others Vs.
The State of U.P. and others. The said writ petition was disposed of by this
Court vide order dated 11.10.2007 directing the Principal Secretary Industrial
Development U.P. Government Lucknow to decide the claim of the petitioners
which was submitted with regard to grant of SEZ status to the petitioner. The
petitioner submitted a copy of the order before the Government and the
matter is said to be pending. The petitioner in the writ petition has also
referred to two earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioners in this Court with
regard to acquisition of land of different plots belonging to the petitioners in
the same area. The petitioner's case is that this Court entertained the writ
petition and granted interim relief also. The petitioner has pleaded that the
370
State Government has exempted land belonging to one M/s Arti Roiling Mills
from the acquisition proposal whereas the petitioner has been discriminated
since the petitioners' industry is also running from 1990.
Although in writ petition No. 50417 of 2009, no counter affidavit has
been filed by the State despite the order of this Court dated 18.9.2009 but the
counter affidavit of the State has been filed in the leading writ petition of the
village being writ petition No. 31126 of 2011 Chaval Singh Vs. State of U.P.
and others. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, it has been stated that
possession of the land was taken on 14.9.2009. It was also stated in the
counter affidavit filed on 14.9.2011 that no award has yet been prepared in so
far as acquisition of village Dewla is concerned. In the counter affidavit filed
by the State as mentioned above, the State has brought on record Prapatra
Sankhya 16 which is prepared of assets which is noted in the survey before
initiating proceedings for land acquisition. The said Prapatra Sankhya 16 has
been filed as Annexure C.A. 6 in the counter affidavit. It is relevant to note
that in plot Nos. 129,149,158,159,161 which are plots included in the
declaration under section 6 Tosha Picture Tube and Constructions has been
mentioned.
The Authority along with Supplementary affidavit-4 has filed details of
village Dewla in which it has been stated that in the village in question only
19% land owners have accepted compensation under agreement and “a sum
of Rs. 150.37 lakhs have been incurred on the development within the un-
acquired land of the village abadi” A chart has been filed in the folder where
summary of village Dewla has been given which clearly indicates that no
allotment of any plot has been made and area under recreational green is
under process of planning. It is useful to quote the aforesaid summary of
village Dewla given in folder along with supplementary affidavit-4:
Details Area in (Sq
m)
Sector
Name
Scheme
Name
Allotted
area
Unallotted
area
Nos of
allotted
plots
Nos of
unallotted
plots
Nos of
plots on
which
building
plan
sanction
ed
Nos of
plots on
which
completion
has been
issued.
Area under
abad and abadi
256700.91 Non saleable
371
expansion
Area under
M.P. Road
91206.00 Non Saleable
Area under
Recreational
Green
1150599.09 Under process of planning
Total. 1498506.00
From the materials which are on record with regard to Dewla in this
writ petition as well as in the leading writ petition and another writ petition, it
is clear that neither any third party rights have been created in this village nor
any substantial development has been made In the note which has been
submitted by the Authority under folder along with Supplementary affidavit-4
with regard to development, following has been stated in paragraph 5:
“ 5.The Authority has incurred a total expenditure of Rs.
150.37 lakhs upto July 2011 on the development. A sum of
Rs. 150.37 lakhs have been incurred on the development
within the un-acquired land of the village abadi”
Thus the development which is claimed by the Authority is within the
unacquired land of the village abadi.
Another writ petition which needs to be noted in this context is writ
petition No. 57032 of 2009 Manaktala Chemical (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P.
and others which was filed in this Court on 29.10.2009. An interim order was
also passed directing the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to
possession as on date. The petitioner's case in the writ petition is also that the
petitioner is a registered company which is using the plots in question for
industrial purposes. The factory claims to be in existence over it. Reliance has
also been placed on survey report dated 8.11.2007 which has been filed as
Annexure-6 to the writ petition (as referred to above, while considering the
writ petition of Tosha International Ltd.). In the survey on the plots which the
petitioner claims, the mention of factory against plot nos. 566 and 564 was
there and it was noted that factory was closed. The petitioner's claim that
factory is in existence since 1990. Other grounds challenging the notifications
have been taken.
From the details as submitted by the Authority along with
372
Supplementary affidavit-4 regarding the village in question, the land use as on
the date of notification under sections 4 and 6 as well as of today is
institutional green, recreational green, residential and commercial. The
petitioners claim to be running industry over their plot, whose land use has
now been changed in the sector plan which is not an industrial. Meaning
thereby that the industries as per land use of the area has to be closed,
whereas as noted above, the object and purpose of the Authority under the
1976 Act is industrial development. When the object of the Act is itself
industrial development what purpose shall be served in shutting down the
running industries has not been explained. In any view of the matter, there
being no creation of third party rights and there being no substantial
developments, we are of the view that the notifications under challenge dated
26.5.2009 under section 4 invoking Section 17(1) and 17(4) and notification
under section 6 dated 7.6.2009 and all consequential actions deserves to be
quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled to restoration of their land. As noted
above, the award has not yet been given in this village. Several writ petitions
in the villages were filed immediately after notifications in which interim
orders were also granted.
Next writ petition to be considered is writ petition relating to village
Yusufpur (Chak Sahberi) being writ petition No. 17725 of 2010 Ombir and
others Vs. State of U.P. . By means of said writ petition, the petitioners have
challenged the notifications dated 10.4.2006 issued under section 4 read with
Section 17(1) and 17(4) and the declaration dated 6.9.2007 under section 6.
The respondents claimed to have taken possession on 29.11.2007 and the
award is claimed to be declared on 14.9.2011 whereas the writ petition was
filed on 2.4.2010. The petitioners claimed to be owner of plots No. 87 and
144. The petitioner's case is that abadi of the petitioners exist on the plot. The
petitioners claim that their plot were not exempted inspite of representation
being submitted. Grounds challenging the invocation of section 17(1) and
Section 17(4) have also been taken. Counter affidavits have been filed both by
the Authority and State. In the counter affidavit filed by the Authority, there is
no mention or details of any creation of third party rights or developments in
the village. In the Supplementary affidavit-4 filed by the Authority details
regarding village Yusufpur Chak Sahberi has been given in folder. In the
373
summary of village Yusufpur given in the folder, it is clear that the area is
agricultural area plus river and no allotment has been made in the village.
Summary of Yusyfpur Chak Sahberi as given in the folder is as follows:
Details Area in (Sq
m)
Sector
Name
Scheme
Name
Allotted
area
Unallotted
area
Nos of
allotted
plots
Nos of
unallotted
plots
Nos of
plots on
which
building
plan
sanctioned
Nos of
plots on
which
completion
has been
issued.
Agricultural
Area +River
1,293,118.15 Under process of planning
Total. 1,293,118.15
In paragraph 6 of the note submitted along with the folder, following has
been mentioned:
“The Authority has incurred a total expenditure of Rs.
386.00 lakhs upto July 2011 on the development. A sum of
Rs. 25.00 lakhs has been spent on the development of the
acquired land while an amount of Rs. 361.00 lakhs have
been incurred on the development within the un-acquired
land of the village abadi”
From the materials brought on record, it is thus clear that neither any
third party rights have been created in the village nor any substantial
development has been made in the acquired area and the award claims to
have been given on 14.9.2011 i.e. much after filing of the writ petition and
after hearing in this writ petition had begun. The writ petition deserves to be
allowed and notifications including all consequential actions be quashed. The
petitioners shall be entitled to restoration of their land.
Next writ petition to be considered is Writ Petition No.47486 of 2011;
Rajee and others vs. State of U.P. and others (Group-42) relating to village
Asdullapur, NOIDA. Notification under Section 4 was dated 27.1.2010. The
declaration was issued under Section 6 dated 13.7.2010. The possession of
22.432 hectares (out of total land acquired 33.6115 hectare) is claimed to be
taken on 24.6.2011. No tenure holder has accepted compensation. No award
has been made. No third party rights have been created. The notifications
374
27.1.2010 and 13.7.2010 and all consequential actions deserve to be
quashed. The petitioners are entitled to restoration of their land.
There are three more villages where third party rights have not been
claimed to be created, which are Khanpur. Sadopur and Pali. Writ petition No.
39037 of 2011 has been filed with regard to Khanpur. The petitioners
challenge the notification dated 31.1.2008 and notification dated 30.6.2008.
In the counter affidavit filed by the State as well as the Authority, possession
of land is claimed to have been taken on 10.10.2008. The writ petition was
filed on 14.7.2011. In paragraph 6 of the note submitted in the folder
alongwith supplementary affidavit-4 following has been stated about the
developments:
“6. The Authority has incurred a total expenditure
of Rs. 899.88 lakhs upto July 2011 on the development. A
sum of Rs. 564.32 lakhs has been spent on the
development of the acquired land while an amount of Rs.
335.56 lakhs have been incurred on the development
within the un-acquired land of the village abadi”
Substantial amount has been spent by the Authority on the
developments after acquiring the land and taking possession and the writ
petition having been filed only on 14.7.2011, we are of the view that the
petitioners are not entitled for quashing the notifications under section 4 and
6 in respect of above village.
Writ petition No. 46026 of 2011, Umesh Chaudhary & Others Vs. State
of U.P. has been filed with regard to village Sadopur. The said writ petition
has been filed by the petitioners challenging the notification under section 4
read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) dated 31.8.2007 and the notification
under section 6 dated 30.6.2008. The writ petition has been filed on
10.8.2011. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that possession has
been taken on 16.2.2009 and out of 825 tenure holders 61 have received
compensation. The writ petition having been filed only on 10.8.2011, we are
of the view that the petitioners are not entitled for relief of quashing the
notification.
375
Now comes the writ petitions of village Pali, the leading writ petition
being writ petition No. 46933 of 2011, Rabhubar and others Vs. State of U.P.
The writ petition has been filed on 16.8.2011 challenging the notification
dated 7.9.2006 under section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) as well as
notification dated 23.7.2007 under section 6. The possession of the land is
claimed to have been taken on 1.11.2007 and 10.4.2008. It has been further
stated in the counter affidavit that out of 558 tenure holders 470 have
accepted compensation under agreement and for 93.49% area, the
compensation has already been paid and award was made on 10.8.2011. In
the facts of the present case, we are of the view that the petitioners are not
entitled for the relief of quashing the notifications.
Now comes the issue as to what reliefs be granted to the petitioners of
other writ petitions even though they are not entitled for quashing the
notifications under section 4 and declaration under section 6 due to creation
of third party rights, substantial developments, constructions made on the
land in dispute and delay. A three Judges Bench recently had occasion to
consider all aspects of land acquisition and the consequences which take
place due to acquisition of land in (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 129
Bondu Ramaswamy & Ors. Vs. Bangalore Development Authority &
Ors. In the said case acquisition of land by Banglore Development Authority
for planned development was under challenge. Land of 16 villages was
notified to be acquired near adjoining Banglore city for planned development.
The acquisition was challenged in the writ petition. A learned Single Judge
allowed the writ petition quashing the acquisition against which a writ appeal
was filed. The Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the order of
learned Single Judge and issued various directions to balance the equity of
the parties. The land owners being dissatisfied with the directions issued by
the Division Bench filed appeal to the apex Court. The apex Court considered
the nature of acquisition and the consequences which took place. The apex
Court has categorised the acquisition in three categories in paragraph 151. It
was observed by the apex Court that in acquisition of category (ii) and
category (iii) there is a general feeling among the land-losers that their lands
are taken away, to benefit other classes of people when the land is given to
others and their grievance and resentment are unaddressed, the result is
376
unrest and agitation. The apex Court in paragraph 153 has said that the
solution is to make the land-losers also the beneficiaries of acquisition so that
the land-losers do not feel alienated but welcome the acquisition. Acquisition
which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition is acquisition
of second category as mentioned in paragraph 151 of the judgment. It is
useful to quote paragraphs 150,151,153.1 and 153.2:
“150. Frequent complaints and grievances in regard to the
following five areas, with reference to the prevailing system
of acquisitions governed by Land Acquisition Act,1894,
requires the urgent attention of the state governments and
development authorities:
(i) absence of proper or adequate survey and planning
before embarking upon acquisition;
(ii) indiscriminate use of emergency provisions in section 17
of the LA Act;
(iii) notification of areas far larger than what is actually
required, for acquisition, and then making arbitrary
deletions and withdrawals from the acquisitions;
(iv) offer of very low amount as compensation by Land
Acquisition Collectors, necessitating references to court in
almost all cases;
(v) inordinate delay in payment of compensation; and
(vi) absence of any rehabilitatory measures.
While the plight of project oustees and landlosers affected
by acquisition for industries has been frequently highlighted
in the media, there has been very little effort to draw
attention to the plight of farmers affected by frequent
acquisitions for urban development.
151. There are several avenues for providing rehabilitation
and economic security to landlosers. They can be by way of
offering employment, allotment of alternative lands,
providing housing or house plots, providing safe investment
opportunities for the compensation amount to generate a
stable income, or providing a permanent regular income by
way of annuities. The nature of benefits to the landlosers
can vary depending upon the nature of the acquisition. For
this limited purpose, the acquisitions can be conveniently
divided into three broad categories:
(i) Acquisitions for the benefit of the general public or in
377
national interest. This will include acquisitions for roads,
bridges, water supply 123
projects, power projects, defence establishments,
residential colonies for rehabilitation of victims of natural
calamities.
(ii) Acquisitions for economic development and industrial
growth. This will include acquisitions for Industrial
Layouts/Zones, corporations owned or controlled by the
State, expansion of existing industries, and setting up
Special Economic Zones.
(iii) Acquisitions for planned development of urban areas.
This will include acquisitions for formation of residential
layouts and construction of apartment Blocks, for allotment
to urban middle class and urban poor, rural poor etc.
153. The solution is to make the land-losers also the
beneficiaries of acquisition so that the land-losers do not
feel alienated but welcome the acquisition. It is necessary
to evolve tailor-made schemes to suit particular
acquisitions, so that they will be smooth, speedy, litigation
free and beneficial to all concerned. Proper planning,
adequate counselling, and timely mediation with different
groups of landlosers, should be resorted. Let us consider
the different types of benefits that will make acquisitions
landloser-friendly.
151.1 In acquisitions of the first kind (for benefit of
general public or in national interest) the question of
providing any benefit other than what is presently provided
in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 may not be feasible. The
State should however ensure that the landloser gets
reasonable compensation promptly at the time of
dispossession, so that he can make alternative
arrangements for his rehabilitation and survival.
153.2 Where the acquisition is for industrial or business
houses (for setting-up industries or special economic zones
etc.), the Government should play not only the role of a
land acquirer but also the role of the protector of the land-
losers. As most of the agriculturists/small holders who lose
their land, do not have the expertise or the capacity for a
negotiated settlement, the state should act as a benevolent
trustee and safeguard their interests. The Land Acquisition
Collectors should also become Grievance Settlement
Authorities. The various alternatives including providing
employment, providing equity participation, providing
annuity benefits ensuring a regular income for life,
providing rehabilitation in the form of housing or new
businesses, should be considered and whichever is found
feasible or suitable, should be made an integral process of
378
the scheme of such acquisitions. If the government or
Development Authorities act merely as facilitators for
industrial or business houses, mining companies and
developers or colonisers, to acquire large extent of land
ignoring the legitimate rights of land-owners, it leads to
resistance, resentment and hostility towards acquisition
process.”
It is also relevant to notice that in same judgment, the apex Court has
also noticed the consequence of unauthorised or illegal developments and the
benefits of planned developments. It is useful to quote paragraphs 130 and
131 which are to the following effect:
“130. But in an unauthorised or illegal development, the
roads are narrow and minimal, virtually no open spaces for
parks and playgrounds, and no area earmarked for civic
amenities. There will be no proper water supply or
drainage; and there will be a mixed use of the area for
residential, commercial and industrial purposes converting
the entire area into a polluting concrete jungle. The entries
and exits from the layouts will be bottlenecks leading to
traffic jams. Once such illegal colonies come up with poor
infrastructure and amenities, it will not be possible to either
rectify and correct the mistakes in planning nor provide any
amenities even in future. Residents of such unauthorised
layouts are forever be condemned to a life of misery and
discomfort. It is to avoid such haphazard, unhealthy
development activities by greedy illegal colonisers and
ignorant land-owners, the State Legislatures provided for
City Improvement Trusts and Development Authorities so
that they could develop well planned citizen friendly layouts
with all amenities and facilities.
131. In this background large tracts of lands running into
hundreds of acres are acquired to have integrated layouts.
Only when a layout is formed on a large scale, adequate
provision can be made for good size parks, playgrounds
and community/civil amenities. For example, if a layout is
made in 1000 acres of land, the developer can provide a
good sized park of twenty acres and one or two small parks
of 2 to 5 acres, have playgrounds of 5 to 10 acres. Instead
of such an integrated large layout, if 200 small individual
layouts are made in areas ranging from 2 to 10 acres, there
will obviously be no provision for a park or a playground
nor any space for civil amenities. Further small private
colonies/layouts will not have well aligned uniform roads
and accesses. While it is true that Municipal and Town
Planning authorities can by strict monitoring and licensing
procedures arrest haphazard development, it is seldom
379
done. That is why formation of small layouts by developers
is discouraged and development authorities take up large
scale developments.”
The above dictum of the apex Court laid down that acquisition for
economic development and industrial growth has to be dealt in a manner
that land owners do not feel alienated but welcome the acquisition. This is
possible only when they are made beneficiaries of acquisition apart from
normal compensation to which they may be entitled under the Act. The apex
Court in (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 705 Chairman, Indore Vikas
Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chekicals Ltd. and others had
occasion to examine the developments undertaken under Madhya Pradesh
Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam,1973. The apex Court noticed that there
are two competing interest, firstly the interest of the State, vis-a vis the
general public and secondly the right of property of an individual. The apex
Court observed following in paragraph 52:
“52. The Courts should, therefore, strive to find a balance
of the competing interests.”
The payment of adequate compensation for acquisition of land is also
the important aspect of the whole exercise. One aspect of compensation, in
the shape of payment of additional compensation with regard to land holders
of village Patwari needs to be noted. As noted above, the Division Bench while
passing the order dated 26.7.2007 for hearing of the matter by larger Bench
has left open to the petitioners, State and Authority to make an effort of
settlements. After order of this Court dated 26.7.2011, the Authority took
steps and invited the land holders of village Patwari to arrive at a settlement.
The Authority has filed a supplementary affidavit in the main writ petition
giving details of facts and events which took place towards the settlement
between the authority and the land owners regarding payment of additional
compensation. In the supplementary affidavit it has been brought on record
by the Authority in the main writ petition that an agreement was entered
between the land owners of village Patwari and Authority by which it was
agreed that an additional compensation of Rs. 550/- per square meter be
given to the land owners of village Patwari in addition to the compensation
which was paid under agreement to the villagers. In village Patwari the
380
payment of additional compensation at the rate of Rs.550/- per square meter
has already been made after 26.7.2011.
Some of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner with regard to
other villages have submitted that although land owners of the village Patwari
were called for negotiation and agreement but Authority have not called land
owners of other villages for negotiation and payment of additional
compensation. The amount of Rs. 550/- per square meter which has been
offered and paid by the Authority in village Patwari is on the basis of
negotiation and on the basis of settlement, the compensation which was paid
to the residents of village Patwari under agreement was Rs. 850/- per square
meter and the additional compensation which is now being paid is Rs. 550/-
per square meter which comes to about 64.70% of the compensation paid
earlier under the 1997 Rules. In the facts of the present case when the
additional compensation has been paid to the resident of village Patwari after
arriving a settlement by the Authority and farmers which indicate that in
payment of additional compensation the Authority itself has agreed to pay
additional compensation, we are of the view that the petitioners of other
villages whose land has been acquired for the same purpose and who are the
petitioners before us are also entitled for additional compensation. After
considering all aspects of the matter including the amount which has been
paid by the Authority as additional compensation, we are of the view that
payment of amount to the same extent i.e. 64.70% % of what has already
been paid under agreement or award shall meet the ends of justice which
payment of compensation shall be in addition to other directions which
hereinafter shall be issued. The apex Court in several judgments have
directed for payment of additional compensation after finding the acquisition
not in accordance with law but where the prayer of quashing the acquisition
has been declined. In this context reference is made to the judgment of the
apex Court in (2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases 4777 Competent Authority
vs. Barangore Jute Factory & Ors. In the aforesaid case, the acquisition of
land was made under the National Highways Act, 1956. The apex Court found
that acquisition was not in accordance with law. However, to meet the ends of
justice, it was held that additional compensation be paid to the land owners to
compensate them. Following was laid down in paragraph 14:
381
“Having held that the impugned notification regarding
acquisition of land is invalid because it fails to meet the
statutory requirements and also having found that taking
possession of the land of the writ petitioners in the present
case in pursuance of the said notification was not in
accordance with law, the question arises as to what relief
can be granted to the petitioners. The High Court rightly
observed that the acquisition of land in the present case
was for a project of great national importance, i.e. the
construction of a national highway. The construction of
national highway on the acquired land has already been
completed as informed to us during the course of hearing.
No useful purpose will be served by quashing the impugned
notification at this stage. We cannot be unmindful of the
legal position that the acquiring authority can always issue
a fresh notification for acquisition of the land in the event of
the impugned notification being quashed. The consequence
of this will only be that keeping in view the rising trend in
prices of land, the amount of compensation payable to the
land owners may be more. Therefore, the ultimate question
will be about the quantum of compensation payable to the
land owners. Quashing of the notification at this stage will
give rise to several difficulties and practical problems.
Balancing the rights of the petitioners as against the
problems involved in quashing the impugned notification,
we are of the view that a better course will be to
compensate the land owners, that is, writ petitioners
appropriately for what they have been deprived of.
Interests of justice persuade us to adopt this course of
action.”
In the three judges Bench judgment in the case of Bondu
Ramaswamy & Ors. Vs. Bangalore Development Authority & Others
as noticed above, the apex Court has clearly opined that giving participation
of the land owners in the acquisition proceedings in cases for economic,
industrial growth is only solution to compensate the land owners to make the
land looser a direct beneficiaries of acquisition. It has been stated on behalf
of the respondents that there is a policy of allotment of residential plots to the
land losers equivalent to 6% of the land acquired. It has been stated that with
regard to Patwari in the subsequent settlement between the Authority and
land owners, it was decided to raise from 6% to 8%. When the land of
agriculturists/farmers/ land owners is acquired, giving back certain percentage
of the land to him is both just and equitable more so when the respondents
authorities are taking steps for planned industrial development. In Bondu
382
Ramaswamy & Ors. Vs. Bangalore Development Authority & Ors.
(supra) the apex Court had issued ultimate directions for giving open land to
the land owners to accept allotment of 15% of the land acquired by way of
developed plots in leiu of compensation or in excess where the extent of the
land acquired exceed half an acre to claim additional compensation measuring
30”X40” on every half acre following to the acquisition plans recorded in
paragraph 160 of the judgement which is quoted below:
“In view of the foregoing, we affirm the directions of the
Division Bench subject to the following further directions
and clarifications:
(i) In regard to the acquisition of lands in Kempapura and
Srirampura, BDA is directed to re-consider the objections to
the acquisitions having regard to the fact that large areas
were not initially notified for acquisition, and more than
50% of whatever that was proposed for acquisition was
also subsequently deleted from acquisition. BDA has to
consider whether in view of deletions to a large extent,
whether development with respect to the balance of the
acquired lands has become illogical and impractical, and if
so, whether the balance area also should be deleted from
acquisition. If BDA proposes to continue the acquisition, it
shall file a report within four months before the High Court
so that consequential orders could be passed.
(ii) In regard to villages of Venkateshapura, Nagavara,
Hennur and Challakere where there are several very small
pockets of acquired lands surrounded by lands which were
not acquired or which were deleted from the proposed
acquisition, BDA may consider whether such small pockets
should also be deleted if they are not suitable for forming
self contained layouts. The acquisition thereof cannot be
justified on the ground that these small islands of acquired
land, could be used as a stand alone park or playground in
regard to a layout formed in different unconnected lands in
other villages. Similar isolated pockets in other villages
should also be dealt with in a similar manner.
(iii) BDA shall give an option to each writ petitioner whose
land has been acquired for Arkavathy layout:
(a) to accept allotment of 15% (fifteen percent) of the land
acquired from him, by way of developed plots, in lieu of
compensation (any fractions in excess of 15% may be
charged prevailing rates of allotment).
OR
(b) in cases where the extent of land acquired exceeds half
383
an acre, to claim in addition to compensation (without
prejudice to seek reference if he is not satisfied with the
quantum), allotment of a plot measuring 30' x 40' for every
half acre of land acquired at the prevailing allotment price.
(iv) Any allotment made by BDA, either by forming layouts
or by way of bulk allotments, will be subject to the above.”
Looking to the facts of the present case, number of land owners who
are affected by the acquisition, the fact that there is already policy of
allotment of residential plots to the land owners we are of the view that ends
of justice be met in case the allotment of developed plots is made to the land
owners up to the 10% of land acquired subject to maximum limit of 2500
square meter as already been fixed by the Authority. The allotment of 10%
developed plot be given to the land owners in the same village if possible
subject to land use or in any other suitable place. On account of allotment of
10% developed plot, compensation payable to the extent of 10% shall not be
paid.
There is one more aspect of the matter which needs to be considered.
The apex Court in (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 17 Om Prakash Vs.
Union of India has held that when a declaration is quashed by any Court, it
will only for the benefit of those who have approached the Court. Following
was laid down in paragraph 74:
“The facts of the aforesaid cases would show that in the
case in hand as many as four declarations under Section 6
of the Act were issued from time to time. Finally when
declaration is quashed by any Court, it would only enure to
the benefit of those who had approached the Court. It
would certainly not extend the benefit to those who had not
approached the Court or who might have gone into
slumber.”
As noticed above, the land has been acquired of large number of
villagers in different villages of Greater Noida and Noida. Some of the
petitioners had earlier come to this Court and their writ petitions have been
dismissed as noticed above upholding the notifications which judgments have
become final between them. Some of the petitioners may not have come to
the Court and have left themselves in the hand of the Authority and State
384
under belief that the State and Authority shall do the best for them as per
law. We cannot loose sight of the fact that the above farmers and
agricultures/owners whose land has been acquired are equally affected by
taking of their land. As far as consequence and effect of the acquisition it
equally affects on all land losers. Thus land owners whose writ petitions have
earlier been dismissed upholding the notifications may have grievances that
the additional compensation which was a subsequent event granted by the
Authority may also be extended to them and for the aforesaid, further spate
of litigation may start in so far as payment of additional compensation is
concerned. In the circumstances, we leave it to the Authority to take a
decision as to whether the benefit of additional compensation shall also be
extended to those with regard to whom the notifications of acquisition have
been upheld or those who have not filed any writ petitions. We leave this in
the discretion of the Authority/State which may be exercised keeping in view
the principles enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In view of the foregoing conclusions we order as follows:
1.The Writ Petition No. 45933 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 47545 of 2011
relating to village Nithari, Writ Petition No. 47522 of 2011 relating to village
Sadarpur, Writ Petition No. 45196 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45208 of 2011,
Writ Petition No. 45211 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45213 of 2011, Writ
Petition No. 45216 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45223 of 2011, Writ Petition No.
45224 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45226 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45229 of
2011, Writ Petition No. 45230 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45235 of 2011, Writ
Petition No. 45238 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 45283 of 2011 relating to village
Khoda, Writ Petition No. 46764 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 46785 of 2011
relating to village Sultanpur, Writ Petition No. 46407 of 2011 relating to
village Chaura Sadatpur and Writ Petition No. 46470 of 2011 relating to
village Alaverdipur which have been filed with inordinate delay and laches are
dismissed.
2(i) The writ petitions of Group 40 (Village Devla) being Writ Petition No.
31126 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 59131 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 22800 of
2010, Writ Petition No. 37118 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 42812 of 2009, Writ
385
Petition No. 50417 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 54424 of 2009, Writ Petition No.
54652 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 55650 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 57032 of
2009, Writ Petition No. 58318 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 22798 of 2010, Writ
Petition No. 37784 of 2010, Writ Petition No. 37787 of 2010, Writ Petition No.
31124 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 31125 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 32234 of
2011, Writ Petition No. 32987 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 35648 of 2011, Writ
Petition No. 38059 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 41339 of 2011, Writ Petition No.
47427 of 2011 and Writ Petition No. 47412 of 2011 are allowed and the
notifications dated 26.5.2009 and 22.6.2009 and all consequential actions are
quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled for restoration of their land subject
to deposit of compensation which they had received under agreement/award
before the authority/Collector.
2(ii) Writ petition No. 17725 of 2010 Omveer and others Vs. State of U.P.
(Group 38) relating to village Yusufpur Chak Sahberi is allowed. Notifications
dated 10.4.2006 and 6.9.2007 and all consequential actions are quashed. The
petitioners shall be entitled for restoration of their land subject to return of
compensation received by them under agreement/award to the Collector.
2(iii)Writ Petition No.47486 of 2011 (Rajee and others vs. State of U.P. and
others) of Group-42 relating to village Asdullapur is allowed. The notification
dated 27.1.2010 and 4.2.2010 as well as all subsequent proceedings are
quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled to restoration of their land.
3.All other writ petitions except as mentioned above at (1) and (2) are
disposed of with following directions:
(a)The petitioners shall be entitled for payment of additional
compensation to the extent of same ratio (i.e. 64.70%) as paid for
village Patwari in addition to the compensation received by them under
1997 Rules/award which payment shall be ensured by the Authority at
an early date. It may be open for Authority to take a decision as to
what proportion of additional compensation be asked to be paid by
allottees. Those petitioners who have not yet been paid compensation
may be paid the compensation as well as additional compensation as
386
ordered above. The payment of additional compensation shall be
without any prejudice to rights of land owners under section 18 of the
Act, if any.
(b)All the petitioners shall be entitled for allotment of developed
Abadi plot to the extent of 10% of their acquired land subject to
maximum of 2500 square meters. We however, leave it open to the
Authority in cases where allotment of abadi plot to the extent of 6% or
8% have already been made either to make allotment of the balance
of the area or may compensate the land owners by payment of the
amount equivalent to balance area as per average rate of allotment
made of developed residential plots.
4. The Authority may also take a decision as to whether benefit of
additional compensation and allotment of abadi plot to the extent of 10% be
also given to ;
(a) those land holders whose earlier writ petition challenging the notifications
have been dismissed upholding the notifications; and
(b) those land holders who have not come to the Court, relating to the
notifications which are subject matter of challenge in writ petitions mentioned
at direction No.3.
5.The Greater NOIDA and its allottees are directed not to carry on
development and not to implement the Master Plan 2021 till the observations
and directions of the National Capital Regional Planning Board are
incorporated in Master Plan 2021 to the satisfaction of the National Capital
Regional Planning Board. We make it clear that this direction shall not be
applicable in those cases where the development is being carried on in
accordance with the earlier Master Plan of the Greater NOIDA duly approved
by the National Capital Regional Planning Board.
6.We direct the Chief Secretary of the State to appoint officers not below
the level of Principal Secretary (except the officers of Industrial Development
387
Department who have dealt with the relevant files) to conduct a thorough
inquiry regarding the acts of Greater Noida (a) in proceeding to implement
Master Plan 2021 without approval of N.C.R.P. Board, (b) decisions taken to
change the land use, (c) allotment made to the builders and (d)
indiscriminate proposals for acquisition of land, and thereafter the State
Government shall take appropriate action in the matter.
All the writ petitions are decided accordingly. No costs.
Let the original records be returned to the learned Chief Standing
Counsel as well as learned counsel for the Authority.
Dated: 21.10.2011
L.A./Rakesh/SB
388
(Judgment reserved on 30.09.2011)
(Judgment delivered on 21.10.2011)
Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37443 of 2011
Petitioner :- Gajraj And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Pankaj Dubey,Tahir Husain
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,C.B.Yadav,Dhruv Agarwal,J.N.
Maurya,L.Nageshwar Rao,M.C. Chaturvedi,M.C. Tripathi,Manoj Kumar
Singh,Navin Sinha,Nikhil Agarwal,Nishant Mishra,Ram Krishna,Ramendra
Pratap Singh,Ravi Kant,Ravindra Kumar,S.P. Gupta,Santosh
Krishnan,Suresh Singh,Y.K. Srivastava
WITH
OTHER CONNECTED WRIT PETITIONS
Hon'ble S.U. Khan,J.
I fully agree with the entire judgment delivered
by brother Ashok Bhushan, J., however I would like
to add something of my own which is as follows:
Land Acquisition is no more a holy cow. At
present it is a fallen ox. “Everybody is butcher when
the ox falls.” The correctness of this phrase is best
illustrated by this bunch of more than 1000 writ
petitions (about half of which are to be decided after
this judgment) almost all of which have been filed
389
after 06.07.2011 (the date on which judgment of the
Supreme Court reported in Greater Noida Industrial
Development Authority Vs. Devendra Kumar, 2011
(6) ADJ 480 was delivered) challenging land
acquisitions in North Okhla Industrial Development
Area (NOIDA) and Greater NOIDA. Almost all the
acquisitions since formation of NOIDA through
notification dated 17.04.1976 under U.P. Industrial
Area Development Act of 1976 (which received the
assent of the Governor on 16.04.1976) have been
challenged. In all the writ petitions, barring few, there
are several petitioners. Total number of petitioners is
more than ten thousand. Even during continuance of
arguments in this Full Bench scores of similar writ
petitions were filed before the Division Bench
concerned daily and all were sent to this Full Bench.
Similar petitions are being filed till date. It is not
opening of flood gate. It is tsunami. It has helped us
in understanding the problem in its entirety. Hearing
individual challenge to a particular acquisition is like
390
judging an elephant by a blind man, touching a
particular part of elephant’s body (in the proverbial
story of the elephant and six blind men). Some may
mistake it for a wall, some for tree trunk, some for
rope etc.
Till a couple of years before, it was considered
almost indecent to suggest that acquisition of land
might be quashed by higher judiciary. That was one
extreme. Quashing of the acquisition lock, stock and
barrel will be full swing to the other extreme. To keep
a pendulum clock working gentle swinging of its
pendulum is necessary. Stopping of pendulum
denotes that the clock is not working. However wild
swings damage the clock. The wilder the swings the
greater the damage. “Our age knows nothing but
reaction, and leaps from one extreme to another.”
Reinhold Niebuhr, Americal philosopher quoted by
Times of India above the editorial under ‘A thought for
today’ dated 18.05.2011.
Life of law is experience (O.W. Holmes).
391
However, spirit of law is BALANCE.
In Indian Industries Association Vs. State of
U.P. 2007 (4) AWC 3825, one of us (S.U. Khan, J.)
while dealing with the strife of capital and labour (in
respect of wages) observed in Paras-27 & 28 as
follows:
As far as industries are concerned, owner
is primarily concerned with profit, worker with
wage while interest of the public demands
good quantity and quality of commodity/service
at affordable cost. It is a sort of strife. The
strife between capital and labour and the
extreme stand which each takes and extreme
arguments which each side advances are best
illustrated by the drama 'strife' by John
Galsmorthy written in 1909. Each side may
have legitimate arguments in its favour.
However, this is a world of compromises
and no argument can be brought to its
392
logical conclusion. Philosophers and mad
dogs are liable to be shot because they
want to bring their arguments to their
logical conclusion (Thomas Hardy in 'Far
from the mad ding crowd').
Balance in nature is necessary for
survival of the Universe. Similarly balance
in society is also essential for its survival.
Economic aspect is one of the most important
aspects of human society. Economic balance
will have therefore to be given a very high
priority. For the sake of economic balance
alongwith higher earning of upper section of
the society, becoming higher and higher
rapidly, good income/wages will have to be
ensured to the lower section of the society.
We have tried to maintain the delicate balance
through the leading judgment delivered by Hon’ble
Ashok Bhushan, J.
393
Land may be acquired for a public purpose.
Public purposes for the sake of land acquisition may
be divided into two broad categories. One may be
termed as core, primary public purpose, e.g.
purposes connected with military, construction of
government offices, hospitals, government
educational institutions, canals, roads and bridges
etc. The other category may be termed as
secondary public purpose which includes
establishment of industries and development of
urban areas which basically means construction of
housing units. (In today’s ‘Times of India’, Allahabad
Edition there is a news on first page titled as ‘Delhi
Topples Mumbai as Maximum City’. It is reported
thereunder that close to 2.2 crore people now live in
Delhi’s extended urban sprawl.) In the judgment of
the Supreme Court reported in Bondu
Ramaswamy Vs. Bangalore Development
Authority, 2010 (7) SCC 129, (in Para-151), three
394
types of public purposes for land acquisition have
been mentioned. The purposes at Serial No.(i) may
be described as core, primary public purpose and
purposes at Serial No.(ii) (establishment of
industries) & (iii) (urban area development) may be
described as secondary purposes. In respect of
core, primary public purpose normally no concept of
profit making is involved. Accordingly, for such
acquisitions greater latitude may be given and strict
compliance of different provisions of Land
Acquisition Act may not be insisted. Compensation
as determined under the Land Acquisition Act can
also be treated to be quite appropriate. As
observed in the aforesaid Supreme Court authority,
normally there is no resentment against such type
of acquisitions.
However as far as acquisitions for secondary
purposes i.e. for establishing industries and
constructing residential units are concerned, they
395
stand on slightly different footing. There cannot be
any doubt that such acquisitions also serve public
purpose, however the factor of profit making is quite
apparent therein. The purpose of State in providing
land for establishment of industries is that people
will get employment and goods will be
manufactured increasing the wealth of the nation
which is squarely a public purpose. However the
purpose of the person who establishes industry
would be only and only to earn profit. There is
absolutely nothing wrong in it. Business is always
done for profit. However for establishing industry
the three major, capital investments are land,
building and machinery and the industrialist has to
pay good amount for each.
Similarly when land is allotted to builders for
constructing residential units, their purpose would
be to earn profit and the purpose of the State would
be to provide properly planned residential units to
396
the public. However if the State itself gets the
residential units constructed it would be earning
huge profit.
Serving of public purpose by the industrialist
or the builder is an unintended fall out of his
business activity. No private person or non-
governmental company does business for the
purpose of providing employment or for any other
purpose except earning profit.
If on the acquired land profit earning activity is
carried out then the person whose land has been
acquired has got full right to have something like a
share in the profit. It is for this reason that during
recent past in different parts of the country there
has been public opposition of various degrees to the
land acquisition for the purposes of constructing
dwelling units or establishing industries by private
persons or non-governmental companies. (As
government is rolling back its direct role in
397
industrialization by running industries, hence
acquisition for establishing government industries is
now a thing of past).
The first paragraph and first sentence of the
second paragraph of the book “Law in a Changing
Society” written by W. Friedmann are quoted
below:
“The controversy between those who
believe that law should essentially follow, not
lead, and that it should do so slowly, in
response to clearly formulated social
sentiment- and those who believe that the law
should be a determined agent in the creation of
new norms, is one of the recurrent themes of
the history of legal thought. It is tellingly
illustrated by the conflicting approaches of
Savigny and Bentham.
For Savigny, bitter opponent of the
rationalizing and law making tendencies
spurred by the French Revolution, law was
‘found’, not ‘made’.”
Today, hardly any jurist agrees with Savigny.
However, law may not be ‘found’ but its need can
very well be ‘found’. It is apparent that now there is
need to make necessary changes in the law of land
acquisition in respect of secondary public purposes.
398
The need of law (including change of law) may
be sensed either by the legislature or by the court.
Justice R.S. Pathak in the Constitution Bench
judgment reported in Union of India Vs. Raghubir
Singh, AIR 1989 SC 1933 (Incidentally that case
was also related to land acquisition) quoted the
following observations of Lord Reid.
“There was a time when it was thought
almost indecent to suggest that Judges
make law – they only declare it ……… but
we do not believe in fairy tales anymore.
(The Judge as Law Maker, Page-22).”
When the need for law is apparent and found
and the legislature is slow to respond then the
judiciary particularly the higher judiciary has to play
a role akin to that of law maker. Of course, it is
done through interpretation and within the bounds.
In extreme situations, the bounds may be stretched
but they are never to be broken.
It is said that great events do not leave great
399
people standing by. The Judges also cannot
remain oblivious of and unaffected with the
resentment shown by public against some law. It is
said that the best judge is he who understands the
society best.
In the matter of land acquisition, the Supreme
Court realized the importance of the resentment of
the people at an early stage. Without waiting for the
flames to rise, fire fighting efforts were initiated
immediately after seeing the smoke during last
couple of years. It is always easier to cure an
illness at its earlier stage. Either provide a safety
valve and an outlet or be ready for burst.
However, it is heartening to note that
Parliament is also responding promptly and it has
given clear indications that it intends to modify Land
Acquisition Act in near future by providing more to
those persons whose lands are acquired (double or
four times the market value). Some States have
400
already taken corrective measures.
In view of the above, we have directed payment
of something more than market value to those
persons whose lands have been acquired for
secondary public purposes in order to make them
sharer in the profit which is to be earned by
industrialists and builders.
Date:21.10.2011
NLY
Legal Notes
Add a Note....