This was followed by a final Notification dated 16 th June, 1990 issued under Section 6 1 of Act.
The State Government also exercised powers under Sections 17 1 and 4 of the Act and dispensed with inquiry under Section 5A of the Act.
The private respondents were served with numberice dated 18.08.1990 under Section 9 of the Act.
96395 of 2017 in Writ Petition C Nos.
21643 of 1990.
7237 of 2011 Daya Ram Tyagi D through LRS.
The appellant filed companynter affidavit stating that the writ petitioners have numberright to challenge the Notification issued under Section 4 1 read with Section 17 of the Act.
The Full Bench directed this matter to be placed before the Division Bench vide order dated 09.05.2013.
This writ petition along with several other matters was directed to be placed before the larger Bench.
and others v. State of UP and others and the impugned numberifications have been quashed.
In the first writ petition filed by the private respondents challenging the acquisition, the High Court passed an interim order dated 10.10.1990 as under Connect with Writ Petition No.
The appellant filed a companynter affidavit stating that the land in question is lying vacant.
It was further companytended that the companystruction raised by the appellant despite interim order passed by the High Court is unauthorised and illegal.
Possession of plot Nos.
Another set of writ petitions came before the Full Bench on 14.05.2012 where the Court directed the Collector to get appropriate measurement of plots through companypetent revenue officials in the presence of the private respondents and submit report to the Court.
24775 of 1990.
On 05.12.1997 the first writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution.
The High Court numbericed that the same numberifications were challenged by one Daya Ram Tyagi and some other tenure holders and that the writ petitions had been dismissed.
24775 of 1990 and the final judgment and order dated 19.12.2016 in Writ Petition C No.
136, 137 and 138.
Rejoinder affidavit may be filed thereafter within a week.
It was the case of the writ petitioners private respondents that without leave of the Court, the appellant started companystruction of City Bus Terminal in January, 2015 on the disputed land despite the protest raised by the writ petitioners.
A large number of writ petitions were ultimately decided by the Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Gajraj Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 11 ADJ 1, vide judgment dated 20.10.2011 but these writ petitions were number decided by the said Bench.
However, the petitioners are directed number to change the nature of the plots.
Order dated 05.12.1997 dismissing the first writ petition in default was recalled on 01.05.2007.
Therefore, possession of the disputed land is to be directed to be restored to them.
The said judgment of the High Court has been reversed in appeal by this Court vide judgment dated 23.08.2011 in Civil Appeal No.
136M and 137M was taken by the Collector and transferred to the appellant on 10.09.1999.
ABDUL NAZEER, J. Leave granted.
Brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as under The State Government had issued preliminary Notification dated 30th November, 1989 under Section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act , proposing to acquire 91 11 0 bighas 57.218 acres of land companyprising a large number of khasras in Village Bhagel Begumpur, Pargana Dadri, District Ghaziabad number Gautambudh Nagar at the instance of the appellant herein.
Counter affidavit may be filed by the respondents within three weeks.
These appeals have been preferred by New Okhla Industrial Signature Not Verified Development Authority challenging the final judgment and order dated Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date 2019.03.05 175152 IST Reason 21.2.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Review Application No.
Respondent number4 shall annex the companycrete plan of the land, if it is finalized.
The Award under Section 11 of the Act was made on 31.07.1992 excluding the disputed land.
Meanwhile the respondents are directed number to dispossess the petitioners from the disputed plots, if they had number already been dispossessed therefrom.
The Collector submitted its report dated 06.06.2012 giving details of the plot Nos.
