RAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the notification dated 2.5.2003 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and also the declaration dated 5.6.2003 issued under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. They have further prayed for a direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents no. 1 and 2 i.e. State of U.P. and Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority not to allow the respondents no.3 to 8 (which are the private Developers) to use the land of the petitioners acquired for planned industrial development for construction of flats and give back the land to the petitioners after receiving the compensation paid to them.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 that plot no. 806 which, according to the petitioners, belong to them, has not been notified for acquisition in either of the two notifications. It is also submitted that no document whatsoever has been filed by the petitioners to show that they are the owners of the said plot (even if it is presumed that the said plot was acquired). It has also been stated that this writ petition has been filed against six private Developers without there being any evidence to show that the land of the petitioners or any other land which was acquired, is to be or has been allotted in their favour and it is thus contended that this writ petition has been filed only for the purposes of stalling the acquisition proceeding and to blackmail the respondents, in case the petitioners succeed in getting an interim order in their favour or even getting notices issued to the respondents.

(3.) On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioners could not produce any document to show that the petitioners are owners of plot no. 806, of which the petitioners claim to be Bhumidhars, as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. Further when the learned counsel for the petitioners was confronted as to whether the said plot was notified for acquisition, after verifying the same from the notifications which have been filed as annexures to this writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out that the plot in question was acquired by any such notification. Although it has been stated in paragraph 22 of the writ petition that the petitioners have received compensation from the respondent-authorities but it has not been mentioned as to what was the amount of compensation received by the petitioners and on which date did they receive the same and in pursuance of which Award passed by which authority. All averments made in the writ petition are absolutely vague. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the land has been acquired under the notifications of 2003 under the garb of there being urgency for planned industrial development which, according to the petitioners, is for the benefit of respondents no. 3 to 8 but nowhere has any document been filed to show that any land, which was acquired under the said notification, was allotted to any of the private respondents no. 3 to 8. All that the learned counsel for the petitioners stated during arguments is that the entire acquisition in NOIDA has been for the benefit of the private respondents no. 3 to 8 and thus they have been impleaded as respondents in this writ petition. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is totally misconceived.