MUKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plot No. 87 in village Chhaprauli Bangar, Pargana Dadri, Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Budh Nagar has an area of 0.8470 Hectare. In the year 2003, Noida acquired 0.4873 hectares of plot No. 87 under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of planned industrial development. Compensation as per law was given to the tenure-holder. It transpires that in the year 2010, the entire area, namely, 0.8473 hectares of the plot was transferred by Noida to a private respondent, namely, M/s. Three C. Projects Pvt. Ltd., respondent No. 5 for the purpose of Group Housing Scheme. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said transfer, filed Writ Petition No. 73850 of 2010, Smt. Kaushalwati and another v. State of U.P. and others, in which the learned Counsel for Noida made a statement that possession of the area of Plot No. 87 would be given only to the extent which had been acquired by Noida under the Land Acquisition Act and that the unacquired portion will not be given to private respondent No. 5. On the basis of the statement made by the learned Counsel for Noida, the writ petition was disposed of accordingly. It transpires that the statement made by the learned Counsel for Noida was incorrect and that prior to the disposal of the writ petition, Noida had executed a lease deed on 3.9.2010 in favour of respondent No. 5. It is alleged by the petitioner that the possession of the entire plot No. 87 has been handed over by Noida to respondent No. 5. The petitioner, being aggrieved filed the present writ petition praying for the quashing of the allotment of the land made in favour of respondent No. 5 and for quashing the lease deed executed by Noida in favour of respondent No. 5 and has also prayed that the unacquired portion of plot No. 87, namely, 0.3597 hectares of the land be given back to the petitioner.

(2.) The counter-affidavit of Noida reveals that they have handed over the entire plot No. 87 in favour of respondent No. 5 with the instruction that no construction would be made on the unacquired portion of plot No. 87. For facility, paragraph 27 of the counter-affidavit of Noida is extracted hereunder:

(3.) Respondent No. 5 contends that they have been given possession of plot No. 87 that was acquired by Noida from the tenure-holder and that they are not in possession of the unacquired portion of plot No. 87, nor are they making constructions on it.