Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. Katju and R. S. Tripathi, JJ.
UGRASEN - Appellant
Versus
GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 6644 Of 1989
Decided On : 07/22/2003
Land Acquisition Act - Land Policy - U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 - U.P. State Control Over Public Corporations Act, 1975 - Sections 4, 6, 41(1), 41(3), 2(1) - The court discussed the Land Acquisition Act, the Land Policy, and the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, and the U.P. State Control Over Public Corporations Act, 1975. It highlighted the provisions of the Land Policy, the authority of the State Government to issue directives, and the obligations of the Ghaziabad Development Authority under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and the U.P. State Control Over Public Corporations Act, 1975.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an order and obtain a mandamus directing the respondent not to execute a lease deed in favor of another party. The petitioner claimed entitlement to 40% of his land under the Land Policy, which was disputed by the respondent. The petitioner had withdrawn a previous petition based on assurances from the Ghaziabad Development Authority (G.D.A.), but the disputed plots were subsequently allotted to the respondent. The petitioner alleged political pressure and challenged the allotment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the petitioner, holding that the impugned order was issued in violation of the Land Policy and subsequent government orders. It concluded that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the Land Policy and directed the cancellation of the lease/sale deed/agreement in favor of the respondent, with issuance of a lease deed in favor of the petitioner.
Issues: The issues involved the entitlement of the petitioner to 40% of his land under the Land Policy, the validity of the impugned order, and the obligations of the Ghaziabad Development Authority under the Land Policy and government directives.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the Land Policy, and the impugned order was issued in violation of the policy and subsequent government orders. It emphasized the authority of the State Government to issue directives to the G.D.A. and the obligation of the G.D.A. to comply with such directives.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. Any lease/sale deed/agreement executed in favor of the respondent was directed to be cancelled, with a lease deed to be issued in favor of the petitioner.
( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 27. 3. 1989 (Annexure-1 to the petition) and for a mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not to execute the lease deed in respect of the plots in dispute in favour of the respondent No. 3.
( 2 ) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
( 3 ) BY the impugned order dated 27. 3. 1989, the Ghaziabad Development Authority (G. D. A.) has allotted the plots in question in favour of the respondent No. 3 vide Annexure-1.
( 4 ) THE background of this case is that in 1962 a notification under Section 4 of the Land acquisition Act was issued for acquiring the land for the purposes of planned development in ghaziabad. Thereafter, on 24. 5. 1965 a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was also issued and the land acquisition proceeding became final.
( 5 ) IN Para 4 of the petition, it is stated that the State Government has laid down a broad policy according to which the land falling within Ghaziabad Municipality was to be acquired. Copy of this policy is Annexure-10 to the rejoinder affidavit in reply to the counter affidavit of respondent No. 3. As per this policy, the landowners were classified in three categories:
(i) those who held an area of less than 2 Acres; (ii) those having are of more than 2 Acres but less than 20 Acres; (iii) those having an area of 20 Acres or more.
( 6 ) IT has been stated in Para 5 of the petition that the petitioner falls within the second category. The land policy has provided that persons belonging in category (i) shall be paid compensation in cash according to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, while persons falling in category (ii) shall be given an option either to accept cash compensation or to get back 40% of their land as developed plotted area after paying the cost of external and internal development. The said 40% of the land was to be given to the landowner on lease for 90 years. The policy also gave the facility of payment by instalments to the landowner of the second and third categories.
( 7 ) VARIOUS other features of the land policy are mentioned in Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the petition.
( 8 ) IT is alleged in Para 8 of the petition that the petitioner did not choose to collect money compensation for the acquisition as he was interested in getting 40% of his land as he was in the second category. With this intention the petitioner filed an application on 31. 12. 1966 with the concerned Authority. It is alleged in Para 10 that the respondent No. 3 under political pressure got some land of the petitioner allotted in his favour. Thereafter the State Government by order dated 12. 12. 1980 directed the Vice Chairman of the G. D. A. that the petitioner should be given 40% of his own land vide Annexure-2 to the petition. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 4159 of 1980 in this Court and an interim order was obtained which stated that the respondent should not allot the disputed plots to anyone. It may be mentioned that allotment of the disputed plots in favour of the respondent No. 3 was cancelled by the order dated 7. 3. 1989 (vide Annexure RA-13 to the rejoinder affidavit in reply to the counter affidavit of respondent No. 3) but the same was again allotted by the impugned order dated 27. 3. 1989 to respondent No. 3. It is alleged that the petitioner alone is entitled to allotment of the disputed plots, as these plots form part of his original holding.
( 9 ) IN Paragraphs 16 to 19 of the petition it is stated that the petitioner earlier filed a Writ Petition no. 1932 of 1980 to challenge the order dated 12. 11. 1979 by which the State Government directed the G. D. A. to allot the disputed plots to respondent No. 3. It is alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner withdrew the petition on the assurance given by the G. D. A. that the plot would be allotted to him.
( 10 ) WHEN the petitioner came to know that the G. D. A. is going to execute
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
