Watch Zee news... HC has cancel 589 Hct land acquisition of Patwari village so 17 builder projects are now on verge of danger.
Read more
Reply
256 Replies
Sort by :Filter by :
  • Originally Posted by mnautiyal
    NODIA mai 7x ki kya baat hai? kya waha bhi kishano ne court case kiya howa hai? bahi kon sa naya sector safe hai NODIA mai. I mean new sector 7x, 117,119,120,121,Eway(137). ye sub sector mai koi hai safe?



    As per latest HC verdict against Noida sector 117, 119, 121, 122. Court has dismiss appeal of farmers as they have already taken compensation long time back so farmers can not “BLACKMAIL” again. (attaching case verdict)

    Security Code Check for Accessing Judgment/Order

    So at-least these sectors 117, 119, 121, 122 are safe from HC verdict.. (not from SC)
    CommentQuote
  • Stellar Jevan, Gayatri Aura, Eros Sampornam, Panchsheel Hyinsh are affected too according to ZEE News.
    CommentQuote
  • Fritolay , please attach it again , there is some security code error while trying to view your attachment. Thanks.

    Edit - Never mind, guess the high court web site has crashed !
    CommentQuote
  • This link is not working, can you please post correct link or attache PDF.

    Originally Posted by fritolay_ps
    As per latest HC verdict against Noida sector 117, 119, 121, 122. Court has dismiss appeal of farmers as they have already taken compensation long time back so farmers can not “BLACKMAIL” again. (attaching case verdict)

    Security Code Check for Accessing Judgment/Order

    So at-least these sectors 117, 119, 121, 122 are safe from HC verdict.. (not from SC)
    CommentQuote
  • 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.
    CommentQuote
  • "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. ...."
    CommentQuote
  • 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."
    CommentQuote
  • 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/
    CommentQuote
  • :( :( :(

    Guys, what is the fate of Noida Extention.??? more dan 25% of the acquired land is cancelled by the courts.........

    humein apna flat milega???
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by fritolay_ps
    Worst hit - Builders who invested money on purchase of plot and put lots of money on advt/construction etc

    Second worst – G.Noida Authority, bad image and in future scheme (builder, commercial, residential)….people will take care and think twice before investing.

    Third worst – Buyers who invested in builder flats with BANK LOAN… even if they get refund with some 4-5% interest.. they had paid 9-10% bank interest on home loan and everyone knows that 85-90% amount in initial EMI is just interest. So if someone has been paying EMI form last 8-10 months on EMI than 2-3 lakh loss( on 15-20 lakh loan). Bank/authority/building will not pay this interest amount.

    Fourth worst – builder proejct’sbuyers without any loan.... service tax amount paid with EMI to builder will not be refunded

    sir... many people start full EMI from very first disbursement (let's say 3 lacs). In that case, they pay less interest & more principal. Its because full amount has not been taken till then... hence interest component is only on 3 lacs. If the total loan sanctioned is of 32 lacs & EMI comes 32K,

    Month 1 : Disbursement of 3 lacs.
    Interest paid ~3K & principal paid ~27 K

    Month 2 : No additional disbursement
    Interest paid will be on (3 lacs minus 27 K = ) 2.73 lacs i.; nearly 2730.

    Anyone please correct me if i am wrong.

    See the attached file.
    CommentQuote
  • HC quashes acquisition of 600 hectares of land in Greater Noida


    The Mayawati government received yet another jolt on Tuesday when the Allahabad high court cancelled the acquisition of 589 hectares of land in the Dewala and Patwari villages in Greater Noida falling under Dadri tehsil of Gautambuddh Nagar district.

    The acquisition was done through notification using the urgency clause in March 2008 and May 2008 in the name of industrial development but was handed over to builders for building residential complexes.

    The order came barely a fortnight after the Supreme Court had struck down acquisition of 156 hectares of land by the state government in village Shahberi in the area, saying the authorities were "subserving" private builders in the name of public interest.

    This is the sixth acquisition that was done by the state government which has been quashed by the high court on the petition of farmers since March this year. The verdict on acquisition of land in Roja and Yakubpur villages in Noida is expected on Wednesday. Also, the verdict on land acquisition in around ten other villages is expected next week. In all these cases, the land was acquired by the state government using urgency clause of the Land Acquisition Act denying farmers an opportunity to register their protest or negotiate for the deal.

    Today, the court quashed the land acquisition order on the petition of over two dozen farmers of the two villages -- Dewala and Patwari. Nearly 1500 farmers were affected by the acquisition.

    Meanwhile, the state government has decided to file a special leave petition against the high court order in the Supreme Court. Government officials said that a compensation of over Rs 500 crore has already been paid to the farmers and the majority are not against the acquisition. Cnstruction work on the land has aleady started.

    The state government has removed Noida chairman Mohindar Singh and chief executive officer Rama Raman. Principal secretary social, child and women welfare Balwaindar Singh has been made chairman and chief executive officer of Noida, who has the image of an upright officer. While no official reason was cited for the removal of Mohindar Singh, sources said that he had been replaced because of the recent judgements of high court quashing land acquisition in Noida and Greater Noida. Mohindar Singh was chairman of Noida for the last three years and most of the acquisition took placeplace during his tenure. Balwindar has served in Noida as chairman and chief executive officer earlier also.

    The state government's move is being seen as a desperate attempt by chief minister Mayawati to stay clear of corruption charges and and pursuing an anti-farmer land acquisition policy.

    Significantly, the Mayawati government is not the only one to acquire land under urgency clause. Over 15,000 hectares land had been acquired in Gautambudhnagar by the Greater Noida Authority since 1991. Almost all the acquisitions were done using this clause. These acquisitions were done by successive governments in the state which include that of BJP, SP and BSP.

    HC quashes acquisition of 600 hectares of land in Greater Noida - The Times of India
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by LChand
    sir... many people start full EMI from very first disbursement (let's say 3 lacs). In that case, they pay less interest & more principal. Its because full amount has not been taken till then... hence interest component is only on 3 lacs. If the total loan sanctioned is of 32 lacs & EMI comes 32K,

    Month 1 : Disbursement of 3 lacs.
    Interest paid ~3K & principal paid ~27 K

    Month 2 : No additional disbursement
    Interest paid will be on (3 lacs minus 27 K = ) 2.73 lacs i.; nearly 2730.

    Anyone please correct me if i am wrong.

    See the attached file.



    Yes.. you are right... but still whatever interest was paid, can not be recovered + service charges for loan processing + builder service tax on EMI..

    Those who have booked flats in 2010 Aug... and have paid 40-50%+ amount.. they will be hit more than your calculation.
    CommentQuote
  • When so many cases were going on against the land accusation in the high court, builders/authority should had informed the public through a public notice in the news papers. This was not done.

    Builders/Authority should be held accountable for concealing the facts and should be brought to justice.
    CommentQuote
  • I request to every one who has booked flat in NE please get register on ::NEFBWA-Noida Extension Flat Buyers Welfare Association:: site.

    They are doing some thing for buyers please see their site they will tried to file a petetion tommorow from buyers side.

    So my request is please please get registered on this site.....
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by gaur_uni
    I request to every one who has booked flat in NE please get register on ::NEFBWA-Noida Extension Flat Buyers Welfare Association:: site.

    They are doing some thing for buyers please see their site they will tried to file a petetion tommorow from buyers side.

    So my request is please please get registered on this site.....

    Its really impressive that Association has been formed in no time and many buyers have united to fight together. I hope things get resolved. They surely will take time and will be little expensive too because of increased compensation to farmers. Everyone who has their flat booked in NE/GN should join this association, may be their project not affected till now...& let's hope will not be affected in future too...but all buyers should join this asscociation and should come together to keep their POV before the court...
    CommentQuote