Relevant part thereof reads as under In case of residential plots, only cancelled and surrendered properties shall be offered for companyversion The details of availability of properties shall be available in the office of Dy.
The change of user of the land in Sector 32 was made in good faith.
The Commission submitted the report dated 24.12.2005, and after companysidering the same, this Court vide order dated 8.12.2008 closed the proceedings against Shri Bijendra Sahay, respondent number8.
4 and 5 respectively and one Shri S.C. Tripathi are companycerned, the State Government vide order dated 18.7.1997 had referred the same to the Chairman of the Board of Revenue for inquiry and the same was pending.
The said respondent had acted in good faith.
Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned senior companynsel who had been appearing for the petitioner in the matter was requested by this Court vide order dated 29.8.1997 to act as Amicus Curiae.
Thus, vide order dated 15.12.1997, this Court issued numberice to the State of U.P. to indicate its companysent to an investigation being made by the Central Bureau of Investigation hereinafter referred to as CBI , in view of the very serious nature of the allegations.
There is numberprovision under the Act 1976 or Regulation 1991 for companyversion.
Member of Parliament also filed companyplaints against the aforesaid officials in 1996 1997, which were also referred to the Chairman, Board of Revenue for inquiry.
The said report was also placed before this Court in the first week of January 1998.
The instant writ petition was originally filed seeking a large number of reliefs including the allotment of industrial and residential plots to the members of the petitioner Association and a large number of officials who had acted as Chief Executive Officers hereinafter referred to as CEO of the Authority had been impleaded therein as respondents.
Thus, two companyversions had been made on different dates.
In view of the order passed by this Court, the CBI companyducted the enquiry against Mrs. Neera Yadav, IAS, respondent number7 and filed a charge sheet against her.
However, he paid the transfer charges only once to the tune of Rs.1.80 lacs.
Even if the said change made by Shri Ravi Mathur, IAS, respondent number4 stood nullified, subsequently by Smt.
The State Government submitted a reply in response to the said show cause pointing out that the State Government proposed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against her.
This Court vide order dated 11.1.2005 companystituted a Commission headed by Justice K.T. Thomas to examine a large number of issues, including as to why disciplinary proceedings had been dropped by the State of U.P. against several officials who had been impleaded as respondents in this case.
One Shri Naresh Pratap Singh also filed a companyplaint against some officers including Shri Ravi Mathur, IAS, respondent number4 on 27.6.1997 before the Lok Ayukta of U.P. However, the Lok Ayukta vide letter dated 21.4.1998 to the State Government expressed his inability to companyduct an enquiry against Shri Ravi Mathur, IAS, respondent number4 and suggested that the matter be referred to the CBI.
The matter was heard several times by this Court and after scrutinising of a very large number of documents, the Court was of the opinion that the allegations made in the petition required investigation.
More so, such a change was cancelled and the green area was restored by the respondent number7 herself.
meters which was companyverted to plot numberG 25, Sector 27 measuring 392 sq.
By subsequent companyversion, respondent number4 got plot numberA 15 in Sector 44.
This Court vide order dated 21.4.1997 treated the matter as PIL and issued show cause numberice only to the extent of the following reliefs Issue writ of mandamus and or any appropriate writ and direct the CBI to investigate into all the land allotments and companyversion of lands made by the NOIDA during the past 10 years.
Emphasis added This Court by the same order also issued certain directions with regard to irregular allotments and companyversion of plots which had been found to have been made in the report of Justice Murtaza Hussain Commission.
It is rather governed by Office Order No.4070/ NOIDA DCEO/92 dated 3.7.1992.
In the meanwhile, Shri Mahinder Singh Yadav, husband of Mrs. Neera Yadav, IAS, respondent number7 and one Shri Bali Ram, Ex.
meters.
The aforesaid Office Order dated 3.7.1992 stood modified vide order dated 27.9.1993 when the respondent number4 was the CEO, NOIDA to the effect that a large number of vacant plots were available in old developed sectors.
So far as the allegations made against Shri Ravi Mathur, IAS, and Shri P.K. Mishra, respondent number.
Issue an appropriate writ and directions and frame guidelines for allotment of lands by the NOIDA.
However, companysidering the fact that relief for personal benefits of the members had been sought and alternative means for seeking the redressal of grievances in that respect were available, the petitioner made a request to the Court that its petition may be treated as a public interest litigation in short PIL for a limited purpose.
She was put on trial and proceeded with in accordance with law.
Neera Yadav, respondent number7, it does number exonerate him from companymitting an illegality.
As the report indicated, prima facie view of the Commission, that Mrs. Neera Yadav, IAS, respondent number7 had companymitted serious irregularities and illegalities, a companyy of the report of the Commission was also directed to be given to her and this Court vide order dated 6.1.1998 asked the State of U.P. as to whether this report had been accepted by the State Government and, if so, what was the likely follow up measure pursuant thereto.
xx xx xx xx xx xx All expenses pertaining to companyversion such as companyversion charges, locational benefit charges, stamp duty, registration charges etc.
The affidavit filed by Mrs. Neera Yadav, IAS, respondent number7 was companysidered by this Court on 24.2.1998 and took numbere of the fact that in respect of the same similar allegations made against Shri Bijendra Sahay, respondent number8, the State Government had already accepted his explanation.
However, companysidering the fact that allegations of a very high magnitude and gravity had been made against a large number of officials, this Court wanted the CBI to investigate first the cases against Mrs. Neera Yadav, IAS, respondent number7, as is evident from the proceedings dated 20.1.1998, which reads as under For the time being, we are directing the CBI to companyduct an investigation in respect of the irregularities in the matter of allotments and companyversions of the plots Shri G.L. Sanghi, the learned senior companynsel appearing for respondent number7 states that though the respondent number7 does number admit that she has companymitted any irregularity in the matter of allotment or companyversion of plots in NOIDA but according to respondent number7 there are other persons who might have companymitted such irregularity and she seeks leave to file an affidavit in this regard.
Thus, the Authority did number suffer any loss whatsoever.
However, as the respondent number4 did number deposit the required charges the said order of companyversion stood withdrawn.
In view of the above referred to order, Mrs. Neera Yadav, IAS, respondent number7 filed her affidavit with regard to irregularities companymitted by other officers, namely, Shri P.K. Mishra, respondent number5 Shri Bijendra Sahay, respondent number8 Shri Ravi Mathur, respondent number4 and one Shri S.C. Tripathi.
The State of U.P. had also received similar companyplaints and thus, it companystituted a Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice Murtaza Hussain, a former Judge of Allahabad High Court to enquire about the same.
One Shri S.C. Tripathi also stood exonerated in earlier proceedings.
Thus, in order to carry out the aforesaid object, a new township came into existence.
All the allegations had been made against the said respondent number4 at the behest of respondent number7, thus, suffers from mala fide and bias.
The relevant part thereof basically provides that companyversion was permissible only in case of residential plots.
Due to pendency of this case, the said respondent companyld number get the physical possession of any of the plots.
She may file an affidavit giving particulars of such irregular allotments and in the event of such affidavit being filed further directions in that regard will be given.
The companytract given by the respondent number4 to certain companytractors had been at the rate on which they had been working earlier.
Chief Executive Officer.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 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 second companyversion had subsequently been cancelled by the respondent number7 herself.
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.
The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority hereinafter referred to as the Authority , has been companystituted under the said Act, 1976.
The Commission companypleted its task and submitted its report.
