DENSO INDIA LTD. Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Kesari Nath Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Sri Ajay Bhanot, Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh for Greater NOIDA and learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 & 6. Sri Anuj Kumar has accepted notice for the Gaon Sabha. Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 are the employees of the petitioner - company, in whose name the notice under section 122-B has been issued and served for the purpose of initiating the proceedings under section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

(2.) The dispute arose on account of the alleged unlawful occupation of Plot No. 803-M, area 0.2800, which is recorded as Khalihan (threshing floor). If the land is recorded as a public utility as defined under section 132 of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act and is under illegal occupation of any individual, then the same can be subjected to the proceedings under section 122-B of the Act.

(3.) Sri Kesari Nath Tripath, assailing the entire proceedings as being frivolous and without jurisdiction, contends that the stand of the company has been through out that the land of Plot No. 803 was never in its occupation. On the contrary, the petitioner is in occupation of Plot No. 804 which has been acquired on lease and, therefore, proceedings under section 122-B are without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel, accordingly, contends that the impugned order reflects complete non-application of mind and relying on the case of Shankar Saran and others v. State of U.P. and others,1987 RevDec 157 contends that the finding recorded being against pleadings and without consideration of the relevant material vitiates the same and, therefore, the order deserves to be set aside. The entire proceedings deserve to be dropped. Sri Tripathi further submits that not only this,' the inflated and disproportionate penalty proposed against the petitioner also reflects non-application of mind to the tune of the area of the land as alleged to be under illegal occupation of the petitioner and on that issue also neither the report nor the order reflects any relevant discussion hence the order deserves to be quashed.