LAWS(ALL)-2010-4-28

RAM CHAUDHARY Vs. TECHNOLOGY PARK

Decided On April 06, 2010
Ram Chaudhary Appellant
V/S
Technology Park Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the very out set we would like to make the picture clear with regard to connectivity and analogous hearing of the aforesaid matters in order to avoid any confusion in this regard. Initially, when aforesaid First Appeal From Order No. 120 of 2008 was filed as defective [FAFO No.(25) of 2008], a Division Bench of this Court upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties on 08th January, 2008 condoned the delay and directed the department to allot regular number of the appeal. It appears that against this order dated 08th January, 2008, M/s Technology Park Ltd. approached the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil).CC No. 7154 of 2008 (M/s Technology Park Ltd. Vs. Sri Ram Chaudhary and others), wherein Sri Ram Chaudhary (the appellant in FAFO No. 120 of 2008) filed Intervention Application No. 3 of 2008. Ultimately, on 30th June, 2008 the Supreme Court while dismissing the special leave petition and I.A. No. 3 of 2008, passed the following order: "Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties in I.A. No. 3/2008, the special leave petition filed by M/s. Technology Park Ltd. is itself taken up for consideration. It appears from the pleadings and from the submissions of the counsel that there are various writ petitions W.P.(C) No. 65654/06, W.P.(C) No. 68436/06 & W.P.(C) No. 4812/07, and also F.A.O. No. 120 of 2008 (defective), pending before the Allahabad High Court. The said First Appeal arises out of a Civil Suit O.S. 456/2007 filed by respondent No. 1 herein for specific performance, pending before the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Gautam Budh Nagar, (U.P.).

(2.) THEREAFTER when the said appeal came up before this Bench with a prayer for analogous hearing, Court required formal assignment to maintain the propriety and on 23rd July, 2008 directed the parties to place the matters before the Hon'ble Chief Justice/ Hon'ble Senior Judge for obtaining appropriate order of assignment. Consequently, when the matters were assigned to the Bench presided over by one of us (Amitava Lala, J.), we directed to list the appeal along with Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 65654/2006, 68436/2006 and 4812/2007. Thereafter under the various orders of different Benches of this Court, all the aforesaid matters have been connected for analogous hearing and have been heard accordingly.

(3.) ONE Mr. Shaukat Rai Malhotra, an entrepreneur, in or around 1983, conceived a project for setting up technology park and/or electronic city, which would be self contained in themselves, for which he approached the Government of India as well as the Government of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana. Initially the Government of India decided that such technology park/ electronic city would be set up in both the States i.e. Uttar Pradesh and Haryana, pursuant whereto the matter was publicised. In order to achieve the said object, Mr. Malhotra incorporated a company, namely, Technology Park Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner company') under the Companies Act, 1956 with the primary object of setting up Technology Park/ Electronics City and applied to the Department of Industries, Government of U.P. for grant of requisite sanction for land use clearance of 200 acres, which was accorded by the Department of Industries, Government of U.P. vide its letter dated 29th July, 1985. Similarly sanction of no objection certificate was also granted by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad by letter dated 11th December, 1985. Since the implementation of said project required the acquisition of land of 200 acres, in view of the restrictions imposed on the right of bhumidhars to transfer the land by way of sale or gift under Section 154 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act') the petitioner company was required to apply for necessary permission to acquire such land, which was also applied and the State Government by letter dated 19th July, 1986 duly granted such permission with certain conditions, which as per the English version supplied by the petitioner company are as follows: