ANAND PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The land in dispute has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The notification under Section 4/17 was issued as far back as on 2.3.1989 vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. That notification states that the land was to be acquired for planned development in district Ghaziabad through U. P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.

(2.) THE petitioner has alleged that they were using the acquired land as dump yard for storing steel. Petitioners applied for exemption. In Writ Petition No. 32670 of 1991 a Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 29.8.2003 directed that petitioner's exemption application should be considered vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition.

(3.) IN the present case, the notification under Section 4/17 was issued as far back as in 1989, i.e., about 15 years back. IN Amar Singh's case (supra) a Division Bench of this Court held that the Court should not issue directions for deciding exemption application against the acquisition of the land. If such orders are passed, in practice, it will result in disrupting the scheme. The notification under Section 4 discloses that the land was being acquired for planned industrial development in district Ghaziabad through U. P. State INdustrial Development Corporation Ltd. There was urgency in the matter because Section 17 was invoked but the matter is lingering on since 15 years. Whether to grant the exemption or not is in the discretion of the Government and this Court should not issue any direction in this connection as held in Amar Singh's case (supra). When land is acquired under the scheme for planned development the land has to be levelled, arrangement of water supply and sewerage has to be made, there has to be plotting and other facilities provided. The entire scheme is disrupted when the High Court passes an order for deciding the exemption application. If an area of land is acquired and some plot is ordered to be exempted there can be total confusion and disruption of the scheme. Hence, this should not be done by the Court.