AJAY PAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri D.K. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (N.O.I.D.A.). Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.

(2.) The petitioners are aggrieved by non-delivery of physical possession of the land, subject-matter of patta certificate dated 25.4.1988 and also alleges that the Noida Authority is interfering in their possession by raising construction over the land in question.

(3.) Sri R.P. Singh while referring to his counter-affidavit has submitted that certain portion of Plot No. 361 was acquired by the Noida Authority but insofar as the other plots mentioned in paragraph 20 of the counter-affidavit are concerned, the Noida Authority is not interfering in the same nor making any construction thereupon. He places reliance on paragraphs 19 and 20 of the counter-affidavit filed alongwith Stay Vacation Application No. 41917 of 2012. Both the paragraphs are quoted hereunder: