Detailed script could be located at Security Code Check for Accessing Judgment/Order.
Read more
Reply
18 Replies
Sort by :Filter by :
  • Originally Posted by itismaddy
    Detailed script could be located at Security Code Check for Accessing Judgment/Order.


    Sensible !
    CommentQuote
  • Some of important points -

    ---------
    (Hon.Mr. Justice Amitava Lala & Hon.Mr. Justice Ashok Srivastava)
    Amitava Lala, J.-- This Bench is burdened with several writ petitions regarding various acquisition of lands in the State inclusive of various villages, which fall within the area of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, particularly by the side of Yamuna Expressway. Prima facie, we are of the view that the State used the urgency clause in the routine manner. The act of the State appears to be unexplainable in nature. It seems to be departure from solemn duty of the State towards people. A lot of hue and cry is there in respect of the ways and means of the acquisitions of lands by the State ignoring the necessity of hearing of the land owners under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter in short called as the "Act") applying the urgency clause under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act. Inspiration of filing so many writ petitions is outcome of the latest Supreme Court and High Court judgements in this regard. Therefore, in addition to consideration of the cause, the Court has additional duty to find out who is genuine and who is unscrupulous litigants, trying to take advantage of the situation.
    However, with the consensus of the parties, the matters with regard to Village Patwari, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Buddh Nagar have been taken up at first. There is a reason for taking up those matters at first. Recently, on 19th July, 2011 another Division Bench of this Court delivered a judgement in Writ-C No. 17068 of 2009 (Har Karan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others), by which the notification dated 20th March, 2007 under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 (1) of the Act and notification dated 09th July, 2008 under Section 6 read with Section 17(4) of the Act have been set aside. In the supplied copy of such judgement, the date of first notification is shown as 12th March, 2008 when that of the second notification is shown as 30th June, 2008. Most likely these two dates are the dates of publication of such notifications, particularly when no objection has been raised by the petitioners about dates of notifications. It appears to us that the judgement was delivered in the light of the judgement delivered by the Supreme Court on 06th July, 2011 reported in 2011 (6) ADJ 480 (SC) (Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Vs. Devendra Kumar and others).

    Main attack of the petitioners is that the lands were acquired for the purpose of industrial development but instead of developing the same, it has been given to several private builders to construct the residential accommodations for the respective purchasers. No change of land use is made. No opportunity of hearing has been given. Payment of compensation is grossly inadequate. Mr. Pankaj Dubey, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the first writ petition, has virtually reiterated the judgement delivered by the Division Bench of this Court on 19th July, 2011 to establish his case. On the other hand, Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State, has contended before us that the judgement, which has been delivered by the Division Bench of this Court on 19th July, 2011, is not based on the correct appreciation of facts. He has submitted that before delivery of the judgement dated 19th July, 2011, another Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 25th November, 2008 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45777 of 2008 (Harish Chand and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) upheld the application of urgency clause of the selfsame notifications upon going through the records, whereas in Har Karan Singh (supra) the Division Bench failed to appreciate final pronouncement of Harish Chand (supra) based on the records and delivered a separate judgement only on exchange of affidavits. There was no scope for the subsequent Division Bench to pass such judgement ignoring the earlier judgement passed on the verification of records and no appeal was preferred from such order to the Supreme Court. Since both the Benches of this Court are of similar strength, these matters are required to be heard by a larger Bench. Moreover, the question of laches in filing the writ petitions have not been considered by the Division Bench in Har Karan Singh (supra) at the time of passing such order. To the last part of the submission of Mr. Rao as aforesaid, Mr. Dubey has contended that in such type of cases laches can not be held to be a good ground for refusal.

    Against this background, prima facie we are of the view that a larger Bench is required to be formed for the purpose of hearing these matters not only in respect of the village in question but also for all the acquisition matters in respect of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority for the ends of justice, to reduce the fume and to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings.

    At this juncture, Mr. Dubey has contended before this Court that he has no objection regarding hearing of such type of matters upon formation of a larger Bench, but the petitioners are entitled for an interim order of status quo, which has been opposed by the respondents by saying that since the writ petitions have been filed after 3-4 years of requisition and acquisition, at this stage there is no necessity of passing any interim order, otherwise litigations will multiply.

    According to us, balance of convenience does not prescribe to pass any interim order at this stage but prescribes for early disposal. Even in the earlier occasion on 11th July, 2011 no interim order was passed.

    However, petitioners will be protected with their rights in the following manner:
    (a) Principle of lis pendens will be applicable in these cases. Therefore, whatever steps will be taken by the respondents in the meantime, the same will abide by the result of the writ petitions.

    (b) Willing petitioners may make applications to the State or the appropriate authority to consider their grievances and if it is made, the same will be considered carefully upon giving fullest opportunity of hearing to them, if necessary with the assistance of the pleader, by 12th August, 2011 and a report to that extent will be placed before the Court along with the records of all the acquisition cases on the next date of hearing i.e. on 17th August, 2011. Applications, if any, for such settlement out of the Court are totally optional on the part of the petitioners. Rights, if any, of the unwilling petitioners under Section 11-A of the Act will not be infringed.

    (c) If the petitioners make such applications for settlement out of the Court with the State or the State authority, the same will be considered by them in the line of the Uttar Pradesh Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997, which is commonly known as ''Karar Niymawali, 1997'.

    It is pertinent to note that several applications have been made either by the respective builders and/or purchasers of flats and/or the banks for impleadment, which have been strongly opposed by the petitioners by saying that they can not be made parties to these writ petitions as in the cases of land acquisition the land owners and the requiring bodies, sometime acquiring bodies, are the necessary parties and not others. On the part of one of the applicants it is submitted before this Court that as per the Rules of this High Court any aggrieved or affected party can be treated to be intervenor in any of the proceedings, therefore, no one can be restrained from getting opportunity of hearing. In these special circumstances, they are required to be heard. However, at this stage we do not propose to entertain such applications.
    The matters will appear on 17th August, 2011.

    Let it be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice/ Hon'ble Senior Judge, as per the Rules and practice of this Court, to take an administrative decision about formation of the larger Bench as early as possible, so that the matters can be placed before such larger Bench on the next date itself.


    (Justice Amitava Lala)
    I agree.

    (Justice Ashok Srivastava)

    Dated: 26th July, 2011.
    SKT/-
    CommentQuote
  • Right.... it is important to note, that high court never said that builders can not be party. It was trick pulled out by media channels. Infact they recognized the need for them to be party and refused to entertain request as of now but only on 17th Aug.

    Other important point to note is that HC recognized many of the applications are just opportunistic while others are genuine.
    CommentQuote
  • Fritolay.. you are real gem...

    rightly said itismaddy... so we can see now who are saying to go to court now... can get the clear indication from this...

    I heard on news channel.. some ppl are asking compensation for land given in 1976... too good..
    CommentQuote
  • many many thanks

    Originally Posted by fritolay_ps
    Some of important points -

    ---------
    (Hon.Mr. Justice Amitava Lala & Hon.Mr. Justice Ashok Srivastava)
    Amitava Lala, J.-- This Bench is burdened with several writ petitions regarding various acquisition of lands in the State inclusive of various villages, which fall within the area of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, particularly by the side of Yamuna Expressway. Prima facie, we are of the view that the State used the urgency clause in the routine manner. The act of the State appears to be unexplainable in nature. It seems to be departure from solemn duty of the State towards people. A lot of hue and cry is there in respect of the ways and means of the acquisitions of lands by the State ignoring the necessity of hearing of the land owners under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter in short called as the "Act") applying the urgency clause under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act. Inspiration of filing so many writ petitions is outcome of the latest Supreme Court and High Court judgements in this regard. Therefore, in addition to consideration of the cause, the Court has additional duty to find out who is genuine and who is unscrupulous litigants, trying to take advantage of the situation.
    However, with the consensus of the parties, the matters with regard to Village Patwari, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Buddh Nagar have been taken up at first. There is a reason for taking up those matters at first. Recently, on 19th July, 2011 another Division Bench of this Court delivered a judgement in Writ-C No. 17068 of 2009 (Har Karan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others), by which the notification dated 20th March, 2007 under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 (1) of the Act and notification dated 09th July, 2008 under Section 6 read with Section 17(4) of the Act have been set aside. In the supplied copy of such judgement, the date of first notification is shown as 12th March, 2008 when that of the second notification is shown as 30th June, 2008. Most likely these two dates are the dates of publication of such notifications, particularly when no objection has been raised by the petitioners about dates of notifications. It appears to us that the judgement was delivered in the light of the judgement delivered by the Supreme Court on 06th July, 2011 reported in 2011 (6) ADJ 480 (SC) (Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Vs. Devendra Kumar and others).

    Main attack of the petitioners is that the lands were acquired for the purpose of industrial development but instead of developing the same, it has been given to several private builders to construct the residential accommodations for the respective purchasers. No change of land use is made. No opportunity of hearing has been given. Payment of compensation is grossly inadequate. Mr. Pankaj Dubey, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the first writ petition, has virtually reiterated the judgement delivered by the Division Bench of this Court on 19th July, 2011 to establish his case. On the other hand, Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State, has contended before us that the judgement, which has been delivered by the Division Bench of this Court on 19th July, 2011, is not based on the correct appreciation of facts. He has submitted that before delivery of the judgement dated 19th July, 2011, another Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 25th November, 2008 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45777 of 2008 (Harish Chand and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) upheld the application of urgency clause of the selfsame notifications upon going through the records, whereas in Har Karan Singh (supra) the Division Bench failed to appreciate final pronouncement of Harish Chand (supra) based on the records and delivered a separate judgement only on exchange of affidavits. There was no scope for the subsequent Division Bench to pass such judgement ignoring the earlier judgement passed on the verification of records and no appeal was preferred from such order to the Supreme Court. Since both the Benches of this Court are of similar strength, these matters are required to be heard by a larger Bench. Moreover, the question of laches in filing the writ petitions have not been considered by the Division Bench in Har Karan Singh (supra) at the time of passing such order. To the last part of the submission of Mr. Rao as aforesaid, Mr. Dubey has contended that in such type of cases laches can not be held to be a good ground for refusal.

    Against this background, prima facie we are of the view that a larger Bench is required to be formed for the purpose of hearing these matters not only in respect of the village in question but also for all the acquisition matters in respect of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority for the ends of justice, to reduce the fume and to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings.

    At this juncture, Mr. Dubey has contended before this Court that he has no objection regarding hearing of such type of matters upon formation of a larger Bench, but the petitioners are entitled for an interim order of status quo, which has been opposed by the respondents by saying that since the writ petitions have been filed after 3-4 years of requisition and acquisition, at this stage there is no necessity of passing any interim order, otherwise litigations will multiply.

    According to us, balance of convenience does not prescribe to pass any interim order at this stage but prescribes for early disposal. Even in the earlier occasion on 11th July, 2011 no interim order was passed.

    However, petitioners will be protected with their rights in the following manner:
    (a) Principle of lis pendens will be applicable in these cases. Therefore, whatever steps will be taken by the respondents in the meantime, the same will abide by the result of the writ petitions.

    (b) Willing petitioners may make applications to the State or the appropriate authority to consider their grievances and if it is made, the same will be considered carefully upon giving fullest opportunity of hearing to them, if necessary with the assistance of the pleader, by 12th August, 2011 and a report to that extent will be placed before the Court along with the records of all the acquisition cases on the next date of hearing i.e. on 17th August, 2011. Applications, if any, for such settlement out of the Court are totally optional on the part of the petitioners. Rights, if any, of the unwilling petitioners under Section 11-A of the Act will not be infringed.

    (c) If the petitioners make such applications for settlement out of the Court with the State or the State authority, the same will be considered by them in the line of the Uttar Pradesh Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997, which is commonly known as ''Karar Niymawali, 1997'.

    It is pertinent to note that several applications have been made either by the respective builders and/or purchasers of flats and/or the banks for impleadment, which have been strongly opposed by the petitioners by saying that they can not be made parties to these writ petitions as in the cases of land acquisition the land owners and the requiring bodies, sometime acquiring bodies, are the necessary parties and not others. On the part of one of the applicants it is submitted before this Court that as per the Rules of this High Court any aggrieved or affected party can be treated to be intervenor in any of the proceedings, therefore, no one can be restrained from getting opportunity of hearing. In these special circumstances, they are required to be heard. However, at this stage we do not propose to entertain such applications.
    The matters will appear on 17th August, 2011.

    Let it be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice/ Hon'ble Senior Judge, as per the Rules and practice of this Court, to take an administrative decision about formation of the larger Bench as early as possible, so that the matters can be placed before such larger Bench on the next date itself.


    (Justice Amitava Lala)
    I agree.

    (Justice Ashok Srivastava)

    Dated: 26th July, 2011.
    SKT/-

    Many many thanks to all of you for posting such important news. Keep it up.
    The present judges seems to be real judge as they are visibly appear for it. They are talking in proper way. I am sure earlier judges were Congi Agent. Sorry if it hurt someone. But this is truth.
    CommentQuote
  • Logix Eway Karar Niymawali

    Can anyone advice if Karar Niymawali was not executed for this Noida Ex. Land case and now if any out of court settlement can be considered as Karar Niymawali ?

    Can we assume if Karar Niymawali executed already for any Land then it is safe enough. if so then below Logix clarification about Eway land can be considered true.

    https://www.indianrealestateforum.com/forum/city-forums/ncr-real-estate/greater-noida-real-estate/17326-ne-projects-safe-clarification-issued-by-logix?t=19498


    Originally Posted by fritolay_ps
    Some of important points -

    ---------
    (Hon.Mr. Justice Amitava Lala & Hon.Mr. Justice Ashok Srivastava)

    However, petitioners will be protected with their rights in the following manner:
    (a) ...
    (b) ....
    (c) If the petitioners make such applications for settlement out of the Court with the State or the State authority, the same will be considered by them in the line of the Uttar Pradesh Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997, which is commonly known as ''Karar Niymawali, 1997'.

    .....
    .....

    (Justice Amitava Lala)

    Dated: 26th July, 2011.Some of important points -

    ---------
    (Hon.Mr. Justice Amitava Lala & Hon.Mr. Justice Ashok Srivastava)

    However, petitioners will be protected with their rights in the following manner:
    (a) ...
    (b) ....
    (c) If the petitioners make such applications for settlement out of the Court with the State or the State authority, the same will be considered by them in the line of the Uttar Pradesh Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997, which is commonly known as ''Karar Niymawali, 1997'.

    .....
    .....

    (Justice Amitava Lala)

    Dated: 26th July, 2011.
    CommentQuote
  • Can anyone advice if Karar Niymawali was not executed for this Noida Ex. Land case and now if any out of court settlement can be considered as Karar Niymawali ?

    Can we assume if Karar Niymawali executed already for any Land then it is safe enough. if so then below Logix clarification about Eway land can be considered true.

    NE projects safe, clarification issued by Logix



    Originally Posted by fritolay_ps
    Some of important points -

    ---------
    (Hon.Mr. Justice Amitava Lala & Hon.Mr. Justice Ashok Srivastava)

    (c) If the petitioners make such applications for settlement out of the Court with the State or the State authority, the same will be considered by them in the line of the Uttar Pradesh Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997, which is commonly known as ''Karar Niymawali, 1997'.

    (Justice Amitava Lala)
    Dated: 26th July, 2011.
    SKT/-
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by nsharma
    Can anyone advice if Karar Niymawali was not executed for this Noida Ex. Land case and now if any out of court settlement can be considered as Karar Niymawali ?

    Can we assume if Karar Niymawali executed already for any Land then it is safe enough. if so then below Logix clarification about Eway land can be considered true.

    NE projects safe, clarification issued by Logix


    Sorry to say.. I am a buyer of Patel Neotown in Noida Ext. In my case as a per lawyer in our google group says, karar niyamavali was signed. Land is registered under Patel's name, lease deed executed and all legal parameters were done.
    Still Patwari where 85 percent farmers have taken compensation, Allahabad high court had denotified the land.
    So the court has taken harsh steps despite everything done legally bcoz its holding the aquisition process using urgency clause illegal. My POV.
    Thanks..
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by new_indian
    Sorry to say.. I am a buyer of Patel Neotown in Noida Ext. In my case as a per lawyer in our google group says, karar niyamavali was signed. Land is registered under Patel's name, lease deed executed and all legal parameters were done.
    Still Patwari where 85 percent farmers have taken compensation, Allahabad high court had denotified the land.
    So the court has taken harsh steps despite everything done legally bcoz its holding the aquisition process using urgency clause illegal. My POV.
    Thanks..


    New_indian,

    One correction to what you have said...

    In Patwari Karaniyamwaali was done....but it was done in the wrong way...the farmers were forced to agree and sign...

    Also, the land in patwari was acquired for housing only...so there was no land use change...its different from Shaberi...

    https://api.indianrealestateforum.com/api//v0/attachments/fetch-attachment?node_id=2798

    The acquisition was caneled coz of improper execution of karar niyamwaali...not coa of change of land use
    Attachments:
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by new_indian
    Sorry to say.. I am a buyer of Patel Neotown in Noida Ext. In my case as a per lawyer in our google group says, karar niyamavali was signed. Land is registered under Patel's name, lease deed executed and all legal parameters were done.
    Still Patwari where 85 percent farmers have taken compensation, Allahabad high court had denotified the land.
    So the court has taken harsh steps despite everything done legally bcoz its holding the aquisition process using urgency clause illegal. My POV.
    Thanks..


    New_Indian,

    Even I am a buyer of Noida Extension..

    Everything will be fine...we will get our flats...and will live in them

    Just have patience...
    CommentQuote
  • Thanks for the info. Can you please help to know what does it mean by improper or wrong way execution of karar niyamwaali. Is it different from "karar niyamwaali" done 10 yrs back for Noida Land acquisition?


    Originally Posted by Amadeus
    New_indian,

    In Patwari Karaniyamwaali was done....but it was done in the wrong way...the farmers were forced to agree and sign...

    The acquisition was caneled coz of improper execution of karar niyamwaali...
    CommentQuote
  • It seems Court has given decision in haste and now making Larger bench seems to corrective action and hope it is going to be positive ... if it is only urgency clause has issue then it has done for all Noida land also ..

    Originally Posted by new_indian

    .......
    So the court has taken harsh steps despite everything done legally bcoz its holding the aquisition process using urgency clause illegal. My POV.
    Thanks..
    CommentQuote
  • First of all many thanks frito_lay for posting cruicial information. There is definitely a ray of hope. Earlier the opportunity of getting heard was denid to Farmers as urgency clause was used by the authority. Now, the court has restored the right of hearing to farmers. Now farmers can not say their objections were not heeded t by the authority. Let us all hope that better sense will prevail and all the persons involved may stand benefitted.
    CommentQuote
  • He has submitted that before delivery of the judgement dated 19th July, 2011, another Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 25th November, 2008 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45777 of 2008 (Harish Chand and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) upheld the application of urgency clause of the selfsame notifications upon going through the records, whereas in Har Karan Singh (supra) the Division Bench failed to appreciate final pronouncement of Harish Chand (supra) based on the records and delivered a separate judgement only on exchange of affidavits. There was no scope for the subsequent Division Bench to pass such judgement ignoring the earlier judgement passed on the verification of records and no appeal was preferred from such order to the Supreme Court




    One thing that comes out going deeply through this judgment is that previous two judgments were passed in undue haste. If you read the judgment carefully it mentions clearly that similar case was dismissed earlier by another bench of same high court. These days there is tendency by judges to mix their ideological inclination with final judgement. Looks like now GNA has hired more competent lawyer.
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by akamal
    He has submitted that before delivery of the judgement dated 19th July, 2011, another Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 25th November, 2008 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45777 of 2008 (Harish Chand and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) upheld the application of urgency clause of the selfsame notifications upon going through the records, whereas in Har Karan Singh (supra) the Division Bench failed to appreciate final pronouncement of Harish Chand (supra) based on the records and delivered a separate judgement only on exchange of affidavits. There was no scope for the subsequent Division Bench to pass such judgement ignoring the earlier judgement passed on the verification of records and no appeal was preferred from such order to the Supreme Court




    One thing that comes out going deeply through this judgment is that previous two judgments were passed in undue haste. If you read the judgment carefully it mentions clearly that similar case was dismissed earlier by another bench of same high court. These days there is tendency by judges to mix their ideological inclination with final judgement. Looks like now GNA has hired more competent lawyer.


    There was one judgement given for Noida sectors 119 and few more...where HC said that residential is a requirement for setting up industries....so changing of land use was covered up by the need of residential area....authority won that case and HC said that farmers are trying to extract more money on the land where farmers have already accepted compensation....I wil share the link soon
    CommentQuote