138,943+ Members
   Get Started   Latest Posts Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
IREF® Real Estate in India - Property Discussion
IREF® - Indian Real Estate Forum > Real Estate in India > Real Estate Noida > Ajnara Ambrosia, Sector 118, Noida
Like Tree187Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 15 2012, 05:03 PM   #471
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 936
Likes Received: 98
Likes Given: 68
My Mood: Breezy
Default

Guys look for little bigger and better location in 1255 size, even rear park is good sized and green to see. No much PLC in that also.

 
Old May 15 2012, 09:59 PM   #472
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 59
Likes Received: 23
Likes Given: 18
My Mood: Angelic
Icon20

does any body have idea about the date of official launch of ajnara ambrosia? my broker said it will take another 3 months........
 
Old May 15 2012, 10:01 PM   #473
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 59
Likes Received: 23
Likes Given: 18
My Mood: Angelic
Default

one more doubt members..... wht the details of ajnara ambrosia and information is not available at Ajnara's official web site???????
 
Old May 16 2012, 12:27 AM   #474
Senior Member
 
Naveen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Noida
Posts: 695
Likes Received: 146
Likes Given: 146
My Mood: Relaxed
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by maxikus View Post
Ajana ambrosia got issue with farmers.... all brokers have been ran away from the site. no info from builder.... this project maight be in trouble now. Please confirm and post. i am at site right now. only farmers are there with protest. should withdraw money????

Already Posted ~

It may come as some relief for buyers in sectors 117 and 119 of Noida that the Allahabad high court in its latest judgement on 12/05/11 has upheld the allottment of Group housing plots in these sectors,quashing the claims of some farmers.

please go through the following link.It also give some references to judgements in similar cases in other states.

Also, 118 is in between these 2, so hadly there is a chance of any dispute ...

Kissanon ko aaj kal har jagah maze lene hote hain, unka kuch nai kar sakte yaar

Security Code Check for Accessing Judgment/Order
GauravDBest and maxikus like this.
__________________
Rgds, Naveen
 
Old May 16 2012, 12:28 AM   #475
Senior Member
 
Naveen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Noida
Posts: 695
Likes Received: 146
Likes Given: 146
My Mood: Relaxed
Icon15 Judgement copy

eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System (Judgment/Order in Text Format)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Deputy Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

AFR

Court No.35

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.8885 of 2010
Vijay Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.
Hon. K. N. Pandey, J.

We have heard Shri G.N. Verma assisted by Shri Sanjay Kumar for the petitioners. Shri M.C. Tripathi, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh appears for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida). Shri Rahul Sahai and Shri Vimlendu Tripathi appear for respondent Nos.5 and 6 respectively.
By this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for directions to quash the notifications dated 24th March, 1988 under Section 4/17 and notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) dated 5th July, 1988 applying Section 17 (1) of the Act, issued by the State Government for planned industrial development by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA). The petitioners have also prayed for directions not to sell, transfer or alienate the land of the petitioners to any other person; not to change the nature of the land in dispute; quash all the incidental proceedings, which have taken place after the petitioners' land has been acquired under Section 9, 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and to give opportunity to the petitioner under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act.
It is submitted by Shri G.N. Verma, Sr. Advocate that though the land was acquired by notification under Section 6 applying the provisions of Section 17 (1) on 5th July, 1988, the possession was taken on 28.3.1990 and that award was declared on 17.8.1990, the NOIDA did not utilise the land for planned industrial development for about 20 years. The land has now been proposed and is used contrary to the purpose for which the land was acquired. The State Government and the Noida authorities have played fraud with the petitioner for acquiring the land on payment of a very small amount as compensation and thereafter allotting it on much higher rate. The land acquired in Village Parthala Khanjarpur, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri Distt. Ghaziabad has been carved out into Sectors, 117, 119, 122 and 123 and has been allotted to respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 for multihousing complex. He submits that though the State has power to acquire the land and that after taking over possession the land vests free from all encumbrances in the State for which compensation has also been paid, and for which the petitioner had made application under Section 18 for enhancement, as an oustee of the land the petitioner has a right to question the use of the land even after it has been acquired and the proceedings have concluded.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Noida it is stated that the land was acquired by notifications issued under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17, proposing to acquire total area of 115.562 acres in Village Parthala, Khanjarpur for planned industrial development, published on 24.3.1988, the notification under Section 6 published on 5.7.1988, the possession of the land was taken on 28.3.1990 and award was declared on 17.8.1990. The possession memo has been annexed to the counter affidavit. The petitioners preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act being LAR No.525 of 1990, 140 of 1990 before the 9th ADJ, Ghaziabad. The reference was allowed against which State and NOIDA preferred First Appeal No.477 of 1995. The first Appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded. It is still pending for deciding reference in Court.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of M/s Amrapali Patel Platinum, the allottee of the land it is stated that proceedings of compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act commenced, an award dated 17.8.1990 was made fixing compensation at Rs.30.75/- per Sq. Yard. The petitioners were not satisfied. They filed application under Section 18 for reference. The District Judge by judgment and award dated 23.11.1993 enhanced the compensation to Rs.72/- per sq. yard. The State of U.P. filed First Appeal No.464 of 1995. By judgment dated 31.3.2004 the matter was remanded back to the District Judge and is still pending disposal before the Addl. District Judge, Ghaziabad.
It is stated that the respondent No.6 and several other developers participated in an auction conducted by the Noida authorities for which advertisement was made in the newspapers. The respondent No.6 was declared successful bidder for Plot No.GH-01 in Sector-119, Noida. A lease deed was executed and registered on 1.5.2007. The respondent No.6 has allotted flats and has started constructions, which are on the verge of completion. The company has availed finance for the project from Bank of Maharashtra and LIC Housing Finance Ltd.
In paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit of Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, the Managing Director of respondent No.6 that the company through its joint venture company has entered into compromise with Shri Vijay Singh-petitioner No.1 in this writ petition and others for payment of additional amount at the rate of Rs.19.63 per sq. mtr. for not interfering in the possession of respondent No.6. The agreement has been annexed as Annexure No.CA-4 to the counter affidavit. In this agreement between Shri Kailash and others including Vijay Singh (petitioner No.1) dated 4.1.2008, the first party has taken a sum of Rs.19.63 per sq. yard (total amount of Rs.16,83,863/-) by bank draft for not interfering in the right of respondent No.6 as allottee for making construction over the land. The receipt of payment of the amount has also been annexed.
The execution of the agreement and the receipt of the amount have not been denied in the rejoinder affidavit.
Shri M.C. Tripathi has raised preliminary objection with regard to right of the petitioner to be enforced by writ petition. He submits that after acquisition of the land of which possession has been taken and award has been declared, the petitioners are not left with any right or title to question the validity of acquisition on the ground of its user. This writ petition has not been filed in public interest litigation but by way of exercising individual rights over the land, which have ceased in favour of the petitioner in the year 1988. The petitioners have approached this Court after 20 years apparently to blackmail the allottees of the land. The objection of the writ petition is not to enforce any right but to grab some more money from the State, Noida Authorities and the allottees of the land. The petitioner did not raise any objection to the development of the land by Noida or the land use. The land can be used for housing as an integral part of industrial development.
In para 9 of the counter affidavit of Shri S.K. Allen, Assistant Law Officer, NOIDA Administrative Office, Sector-6, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar filed on behalf of NOIDA, it is stated as follows:-
"9. That the acquired land of said acquisition was utilized for Planned Industrial Development and for the public purpose. The acquired land falls under Sector 117, 119 and 122. The construction work of sewer treatment plan is under progress in Sector 123, which is also the land of Village Parthala Khanjarpur. The Sector 123 situates towards east of Sector 119 and Sector 122 just across the road. The land which was acquired by the said notification is being utilized nor only for group housing it is also being utilized for infrastructure like roads, green belts, schools, institutions, and huge parks etc. under plan industrial development. It is further stated that a residential scheme was also launched for weaker section named as Sharamik Kunj Yojna. The Shramik Kunj Yojna was in Sector 122 and Sector 93. Hence, the land was being utilized for public purpose. The public purpose has been defined under Section 3 (f) of Land Acquisition Act. The photocopy of the brochure of Sharamik Kunj Yojna and photographs of Sharamik Kunj situated at Sector 122 are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.CA-4 & CA-5 to the counter affidavit."

Relying upon averments made in paras 9, 12 and 13 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Noida it is submitted by Shri M.C. Tripathi for the State of U.P. and also by Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh for NOIDA that the filing of the petition is not to make to the notice of the Court any fraud played upon the petitioner but to blackmail the NOIDA Authorities and the allottees from making constructions.
In Banda Development Authority, Banda Vs. Moti Lal Agarwal & Ors., Civil Appeal No.3604 of 2011 decided on 26.4.2011 the Supreme Court allowed the appeal against the judgment of the High Court interfering in land acquisition proceedings challenging notifications dated 8.9.1998 and 7.9.1999 in the year 2008. The writ petition was filed on 24.3.2008 challenging the notification on the ground that the proceedings have lapsed under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act as award was not declared within 2 years. The Supreme Court held that though objections for delay and latches was not raised in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government and Noida Development Authority, the High Court was duty bound to take cognizance of the long gap of 9 years between issue of declaration under Section 6 (1) and to decline relief on the ground of latches. The Supreme Court relied upon judgment of Sawaran Lata Vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 4 SCC 532 in which dismissal of the writ petition filed after 7 years of the publication of declaration and 5 years of the award passed by the Collector was upheld with the following observations:-
"In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioners that they had not been aware of the acquisition proceedings as the only ground taken in the writ petition has been that substance of the notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act had been published in the newspapers having no wide circulation. Even if the submission made by the petitioners is accepted, it cannot be presumed that they could not be aware of the acquisition proceedings for the reason that a very huge chunk of land belonging to a large number of tenure-holders had been notified for acquisition. Therefore, it should have been the talk of the town. Thus, it cannot be presumed that the petitioners could not have knowledge of the acquisition proceedings."

In C. Padma & Ors. Vs. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (1997) 2 SCC 627 the Supreme Court held that when the acquired land is vested in the State and compensation has been paid to the claimant, the claimants are not entitled to restitution of the possession on the ground that either the original public purpose has ceased to be in operation or that land could not be used for any other purpose.
In Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2008) 4 SCC 695 the Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition challenging declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 8.2.1984 and in which possession was taken on the ground of latches. In para 16 to 19 the Supreme Court held as follows:-
"16. 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 the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (1996) 11 SCC 501 where K. Ramaswamy, J. speaking for a Bench consisting of His Lordship and S.B. Majmudar, J. held :

"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 discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches."

In the concurring judgment, S.B. Majmudar, J. held as under :

"..... Such a belated writ petition, therefore, was rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground of gross delay and laches. The respondent-writ petitioners can be said to have waived their objections to the acquisition on the ground of extinction of public purpose by their own inaction, lethargy and indolent conduct. The Division Bench of the High Court had taken the view that because of their inaction no vested rights of third parties are created. That finding is obviously incorrect for the simple reason that because of the indolent conduct of the writ petitioners land got acquired, award was passed, compensation was handed over to various claimants including the landlord. Reference applications came to be filed for larger compensation by claimants including writ petitioners themselves. The acquired land got vested in the State Government and the Municipal Corporation free from all encumbrances as enjoined by Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thus right to get more compensation got vested in diverse claimants by passing of the award, as well as vested right was created in favour of the Bombay Municipal Corporation by virtue of the vesting of the land in the State Government for being handed over to the Corporation. All these events could not be wished away by observing that no third party rights were created by them. The writ petition came to be filed after all these events had taken place. Such a writ petition was clearly stillborn due to gross delay and laches. ...."

17. Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. 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. ...."

18. To the similar effect is the judgment of this Court in the case of Municipal Council, Ahmednagar & Anr. v. Shah Hyder Beig & Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 48 this Court, following the decision of this Court in the case of C. Padma v. Dy. Secy. to the Govt. of T.N. (1997) 2 SCC 627 held :

"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.) ...."

19. 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 of the case and is dismissed as such. No costs."

In Sulochana Chandrakant Galande Vs. Pune Municipal Transport & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 467 the Supreme Court held in para 16 to 22 as follows:-
"16. Thus, "free from encumbrances" means vesting of land in the State without any charge or burden in it. Thus, State has absolute title/ownership over it.
17. In Satendra Prasad Jain & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2517, this Court held that once land vests in the State free from all encumbrances, it cannot be divested. The same view has been reiterated in Awadh Bihari Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 31; U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow Vs. M/s. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1170; Pratap & Anr. (Supra); Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 405; Allahabad Development Authority Vs. Nasiruzzaman & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 424; State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. M. Bhaskaran Pillai & Anr., AIR 1997 SC 2703; M. Ramalinga Thevar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (2000) 4 SCC 322; Printers (Mysore) Ltd. Vs. M.A. Rasheed & Ors., (2004) 4 SCC 460; Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. Vs. R. Hanumaiah & Ors., (2005) 12 SCC 508; and Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Syed Akbar, AIR 2005 SC 492.
18. So far as the change of user is concerned, it is a settled legal proposition that once land vests in the State free from all encumbrances, there cannot be any rider on the power of the State Government to change user of the land in the manner it chooses.
19. In a similar situation, in Gulam Mustafa & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 448, this Court held as under:-
"Once the original acquisition is valid and title has vested in the Municipality, how it uses the excess land is no concern of the original owner and cannot be the basis for invalidating the acquisition. There is no principle of law by which a valid compulsory acquisition stands voided because long later the requiring Authority diverts it to a public purpose other than the one stated in the.......declaration."
20. Re-iterating a similar view in C. Padma & Ors. Vs. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (1997) 2 SCC 627, this Court held that if by virtue of a valid acquisition of land, land stands vested in the State, thereafter, claimants are not entitled to restoration of possession on the grounds that either the original public purpose is ceased to be in operation or the land could not be used for any other purposes.

21. In Bhagat Singh etc. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 436; Niladri Narayan Chandradhurja Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2002 SC 2532; and Northern Indian Glass Industries Vs. Jaswant Singh & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 335, this Court held that, the land user can be changed by the Statutory Authority after the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances.
22. In view of the above, the law can be summarised that once the land is acquired, it vests in the State free from all encumbrances. It is not the concern of the land owner how his land is used and whether the land is being used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose. He becomes persona non grata once the land vests in the State. He has a right to get compensation only for the same. The person interested cannot claim the right of restoration of land on any ground, whatsoever."

On the aforesaid discussion we find that the prayers to quash the notifications in the writ petition is not only grossly barred by latches, the petitioners do not have any right left in the land, after the notification under Section 6 was issued, possession was taken over and compensation was determined and paid to challenge the acquisition of the land. The pendency of the reference for enhancement of compensation has no material effect on the validity of acquisition of land.
We further find that in the present case the land use has not been changed. Housing is a part of planned industrial development, and that allotment of plots for housing project 15 years after the land was acquired, cannot be a ground on which acquisition can be questioned. There are no allegations of malafides or fraud in the pleading.
We further decline to interfere on the ground that the petitioners apparently not in possession of the land, have illegally caused obstruction to the utilisation of the land by the allottees. The agreement with the respondent No.6 under which the petitioners have accepted the money is by way of extortion in return, not to cause any disturbance. The petitioner has no right left to make any claim from any person in respect of land. The payment of more than Rs.16 lacs by respondent No.6, to the petitioner under an agreement is an illegal payment by way of ransom for not interfering in the possession. It is a criminal offence, for which the petitioner should be punished in accordance with law. This writ petition apparently appears to have been filed by way of threat and to exercise leverage to extract money from respondent Nos.5 and 6, when the constructions were in progress.
We leave it open to the State authorities, NOIDA and the respondent No.6 to initiate criminal action against the petitioner for blackmailing and extortion and realising money by an agreement for not interfering in the possession of the land, which was acquired more than 20 years ago and for which petitioner has also received compensation.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Dt.12.05.2011
SP/
ravi9386, caanuj and maxikus like this.
 
Old May 16 2012, 12:32 AM   #476
 
 
Cookie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 16,884
Likes Received: 2645
Likes Given: 2578
My Mood: Amused
Default

Naveen Bhai
Sorry for off topic!!

Whats your take on Unihomes-I? do you think Builder would deliver it by Diwali/December?

whats your views?
__________________
Thanks
 
Old May 16 2012, 08:11 AM   #477
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 59
Likes Received: 23
Likes Given: 18
My Mood: Angelic
Default

We leave it open to the State authorities, NOIDA and the respondent No.6 to initiate criminal action against the petitioner for blackmailing and extortion and realising money by an agreement for not interfering in the possession of the land, which was acquired more than 20 years ago and for which petitioner has also received compensation.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Dt.12.05.2011
SP/

ultimate :-) such farmers should be
 
Old May 16 2012, 08:56 AM   #478
 
 
Cookie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 16,884
Likes Received: 2645
Likes Given: 2578
My Mood: Amused
Default

guys

these farmers have nothing to do now! whatelse do you think they would do?
Had they understood ABC of Computer/english, they would have joined IREF and would have been doing time pass

Cheers!!
 
Old May 16 2012, 11:14 AM   #479
Member
 
GauravDBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 180
Likes Received: 56
Likes Given: 52
My Mood: Cool
Icon15

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kapil706 View Post
Ajnara Ambrosia project will be officially launched after 3 months, by the time atleast 500/sqft rate will be increased...

Go ahead and book a flat with confidence.....
No offense man but you look super-excited with this project. My suggestion is think twice before investing in this or supertech's project.
 
Old May 16 2012, 11:17 AM   #480
Senior Member
 
Naveen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Noida
Posts: 695
Likes Received: 146
Likes Given: 146
My Mood: Relaxed
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cookie View Post
Naveen Bhai
Sorry for off topic!!

Whats your take on Unihomes-I? do you think Builder would deliver it by Diwali/December?

whats your views?
Cookie Bro ,,, maine padha tha aapka msg ... reply kiya hai maine ... chk karo veere
 
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Join IREF Now!    
Related Threads
Supertech Renesa vs Ajnara Ambrosia vs Sethi Group Sector 150


Tags
ajnara, launch, project, sector118, soft
".Noida.", ".Uttar Pradesh."India