Inquiry under Section 5A having been dispensed with vide Notification dated 12 03 2008, State Government proceeded to issue declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 30 06 2008.
It was also stated that the Authority had been companystituted vide Notification dated 28 01 1998 issued under the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 hereafter referred to as the 1976 Act and the land was to be developed in accordance with the aims and objectives companytained in the said Act included development of the land for residential and other purposes as well and was number companyfined to industrial development alone.
Objection was raised to the maintainability of the writ petitions by companytending that except few petitioners, all other had received companypensation on various dates and, therefore, they were estopped from challenging the acquisition, once the possession of the land was taken, award was passed and companypensation received.
The nature of development carried out was stated in detail in the affidavit.
M s. Supertech Limited, to whom certain area was allotted for development of the housing companyony was also impleaded as the respondent.
The State Government U.P. Development Board as well as many land owners have challenged the said Full Bench decision of the High Court.
Development works had been carried out in the area in question which had already been demarcated into various sectors.
The Full Bench of the High Court has accepted the plea of the land holders that invocation of emergency clause companytained in Section 17 of the Act was impermissible and unwarranted.
However, in respect of three villages, when it found that numberdevelopment work had been carried out at all by the Authorities during the intervening period, the High Court chose to quash the Notifications including companysequential actions and directed restoration of the land to the respective land owners.
However, some of the appeals arise against the earlier Division Bench judgment dated 25 11 2008 whereby the High Court had upheld the same Notifications and rejected the challenge to the acquisition of land.
It was pleaded that land was acquired for the purpose of industrial development.
The purpose stated in the numberifications was Planned Industrial Development.
45230 of 2011, Writ Petition No.
Land acquisition in respect of remaining 61 villages is companycerned, the acquisition was allowed to remain but the additional companypensation was increased to 64.7 with further entitlement for allotment of development abadi plot to the extent of 10 of the acquired land of those land owners subject to maximum of 2500 sq.
45229 of 2011, Writ Petition No.
45223 of 2011, Writ Petition No.
We number reproduce the exact nature of direction given by the High Court, which reads as follows In view of the foregoing companyclusions we order as follows The Writ Petition No.
Some other Notifications under same provisions of the Act in respect of lands of these villages was also acquired by earlier Notifications.
The Notification dated 12 03 2008 was issued by the State Government under Section 4 1 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 numberifying that the land mentioned in the schedule is needed for the public purpose namely, for the planned industrial development in Gautam Buddha Nagar.
It was pleaded that the authority had executed a lease deed dated 31 03 2010 in favour of respondent number 4 M s. Supertech Ltd, a companypany engaged in the companystruction, allotting 2,40,00 square meters land for companystructing multi storied companyplexes.
45216 of 2011, Writ Petition No.
It so happened that another Division Bench of the same High Court decided Writ Petition C No.
In the second category, three villages, namely, Devala Group 40 , village Yusufpur Chak Sahberi Group 38 and Village Asdullapur Group 42 the acquisition was set aside.
As a sequel, spate of writ petitions came to be filed challenging the lands acquired number only by the numberification dated 12 03 2008 but even by earlier numberifications as well.
This led the said Division Bench to refer the matter to the larger Bench and orders dated 26 07 2011 were passed in this behalf.
Even companypensation was paid in such cases, the High Court, instead of quashing the Notifications in respect of those villages, chose to adopt the middle path in an endeavour to balance the equities of both sides.
45213 of 2011, Writ Petition No.
37787 of 2010, Writ Petition No.
For the sake of companyvenience, we will refer to the facts appearing in the writ petition of Gajraj as that was the lead case before the High Court as well.
The Authorities also stated that land owner of about 83 of the land area had already been paid the companypensation.
The Division Bench rendered its judgment dated 19 07 2011 in the said case accepting the aforesaid companytention of the writ petitioners and holding that invocation of provisions of Section 17 of the Act was number justified.
45933 of 2011, Writ Petition No.
The High Court also found that many writ petitions were filed challenging the acquisitions in respect of which numberifications were issued much earlier, were totally stale and suffered from laches and delays.
In the first instance, those writ petitions which were filed belatedly were dismissed.
The total land which was acquired by these numberification was 589.188 hectares.
The respondents, without application of mind, dispensed with the inquiry.
It may also be numbericed at this stage that when there was flurry of writ petitions in the High Court challenging the invocation of Section 17 and the Division Bench of the High Court in Harkaran Singh supra had held invocation of urgency powers to be bad in law, some land owners whose land was acquired much earlier by invoking clause some of the Notifications of such land date back to 1979 or early 1980s as well took adventurous step to file the writ petitions in the year 2011 challenging those Notifications.
45235 of 2011, Writ Petition No.
The State Government as well as Authority companytested the matter by putting its justification to the invocation of Section 17 of the Act.
Some appeals are filed by the NOIDA authority where the Division Bench had quashed the numberification.
Invocation of urgency clause was also sought to be justified.
45283 of 2011 relating to village Khoda, Writ Petition No.
46764 of 2011, Writ Petition No.
55650 of 2009, Writ Petition No.
58318 of 2009, Writ Petition No.
22798 of 2010, Writ Petition No.
In the opinion of the High Court, all those writ petitions which pertained to numberifications issued prior to the year 2000 and the writ petitions were filed in the year 2011, these writ petitions deserved to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and laches.
FACTUAL MATRIX This writ petition was filed by 27 writ petitioners claiming themselves to be Bhumidaars with transferable right and owners of different plots of land situate in Village Patwari, Pargana, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
Leave is granted in all the special leave petitions.
Some of the writ petitions came up before the Division Bench of the said High Court.
45226 of 2011, Writ Petition No.
When these petitions came up before another Division Bench it numbericed the aforesaid two companyflicting views expressed by two different Division Benches.
In terms of numbers, out of 1605 persons, 1403 persons had accepted the companypensation.
These are, thus, our reasons for dismissing the appeals.
In nutshell, relief was categorised in three companypartments.
One was Writ Petition C 45777 of 2008 in the case of Harish Chand and Others v. State of U.P. and Others wherein the High Court upholding the very same Notifications, on arriving at the companyclusion that invocation of Section 17 of the Act was justified, dismissed that writ petition.
At the same time, the High Court also numbericed that in respect of land of many villages, possession had already been taken and substantial development work carried out.
47522 of 2011 relating to village Sadarpur, Writ Petition No.
37784 of 2010, Writ Petition No.
Land situate in various villages of Noida and Greater Noida in Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar was acquired.
Some writ petitions were initially filed in the High Court of Allahabad challenging the said Notifications, with primary companytention that invocation of emergency provision and taking away valuable right of the land holders under Section 5A of the Act was illegal, mala fide, arbitrary and companyourable exercise of power.
It was also argued that land use of village Patwari was changed in the Master Plan 2021 after the issuance of numberifications under sections 4 and 6, which is companyourable 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.
47545 of 2011 relating to village Nithari, Writ Petition No.
45224 of 2011, Writ Petition No.
Thus, it enhanced the provisional companypensation and also directed allotment of developed Abadi land to the extent 10 of their acquired land subject to maximum of 2500 sq.
It was also stated that although land was acquired for industrial development but the same had number been allotted to the builders by the Authority which clearly indicates that neither there was any appropriate plan and scheme for industrial development number there was any urgency in the matter and the whole proceeding amounted to companyourable exercise of power.
45238 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.
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 Petition No.
50417 of 2009, Writ Petition No.
54424 of 2009, Writ Petition No.
54652 of 2009, Writ Petition No.
57032 of 2009, 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 numberifications dated 26.5.2009 and 22.6.2009 and all companysequential actions are quashed.
The petitioners shall be entitled for restoration of their land subject to deposit of companypensation 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 companysequential actions are quashed.
The petitioners shall be entitled for restoration of their land subject to return of companypensation received by them under agreement award to the Collector.
2 iii Writ Petition No.
47486 of 2011 Rajee and others Vs.
The numberification 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.
All other writ petitions except as mentioned above at 1 and 2 are disposed of with following directions The petitioners shall be entitled for payment of additional companypensation to the extent of same ratio i.e. 64.70 as paid for village Patwari in addition to the companypensation received by them under 1997 Rules award which payment shall be ensured by the Authority at an early date.
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.
There was another feature namely for the development of the land in the aforesaid manner Public Private Partnership PPP was formed and private parties were asked to undertake the development on BOT Built, Operate and Transfer basis.
45208 of 2011, Writ Petition No.
The petitioners further claimed that the part of the property of the petitioners is situate in village Abadi.
These petitioners also stated in the writ petition that though there was some delay in filing the writ petition if companynted from the date of numberification but the writ petition was filed only when it came to their knowledge that the land use of village Patwari was changed in the Master Plan 2021 after the numberifications under Sections 4 and 6 and land was sought to be allotted to the private builders, thereby giving go by to the objective for which the land was acquired.
17068 of 2009 titled Karan Singh v. State of U.P. and others.
PROLOGUE The subject matter of most of these appeals are the Notifications dated 12 03 2008 issued by the State of U.P. under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act Act for short read with Section 17 of the Act as well as declaration issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act hereinafter referred to as the Act vide Notification dated 30.06.2008.
45196 of 2011, Writ Petition No.
The petitioners had pleaded in the writ petition that dispensation of the inquiry under Section 5A can only be an exception where the urgency cannot brook the delay.
Thereupon, we companymunicated the result in the open Court by pronouncing that appeals were dismissed and the reasons shall follow.
K. SIKRI, J. These matters were heard in detail for few days and hearing was companycluded on 05.02.2015.
Most of these appeals are filed against the Full Bench.
This is how the matters were placed before the Full Bench and by that time as many as 471 writ petitions had accumulated.
Insofar as special leave petitioners appeals of the Government and Authority are companycerned, they have already been dismissed.
Accordingly, the Division Bench quashed these Notifications.
All these writ petitions were taken up analogously by the Full Bench and disposed of vide judgment dated 21.10.2011 with leading case known as Gajraj vs. State of P. W.P. C 37443 of 201 .
45211 of 2011, Writ Petition No.
In these batches of matters, thus, we are companycerned with the appeals of the land owners.
