GODREJ INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 7.8.2003 (Annex 11), passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, rejecting the application of the petitioner not to make the payment of compensation for the land acquired, to the respondent nos. 4 to 7, on the ground that petitioner had purchased the said land from their predecessor-in-interest vide Registered Sale Deed dated 21.12.1989 (Annex. 1).

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner had purchased the land in dispute from the predecessor-in-interest, father of respondent nos. 4 to 7 vide Registered Sale Deed dated 21.12.1989. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'Act') was issued in respect of a very large area, including the land in dispute on 27.11.2001. Applying the urgency clause, under Section 17 (4), filing of objections under Section 5-A of the Act were dispensed with. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 26.02.2002. The NOIDA made publication on. 27.11.2001 in local newspapers, inviting objections, if any, for acquisition of land. In response to the same, petitioner submitted an application on 4.12.2001, intimating the NOIDA that it was the owner of the property mentioned at Sl. No. 66 of the said advertisement, and therefore, payment should be made to it and not to any other person. Another application to the same effect was filed by the petitioner on 30.7.2002 before the respondent No. 3 who issued notice to the said respondent Nos. 4 to 7 on 18.10.2002 fixing 31.10.2002 for appearance. The respondent nos. 4 to 7 appeared before the respondent No. 3 on 10.12.2002 and filed the objection to the said application submitting that the amount had already been withdrawn by them on 18.06.2002. On the basis of the same, vide order dated 31.8.2003, application of the petitioner has been dismissed by the respondent No. 3 that as the amount had already been paid to respondent nos. 4 to 7, the application could not be allowed. Hence this petition.

(3.) Shri Rishi Chaddha, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had no notice or knowledge of the land acquisition proceedings under the Act. Publication was issued as explained above, inviting objections, anJ thus, petitioner submitted the objections. Respondent No. 3 could not have made the payment to the said respondent nos. 4 to 7, and thus, the order impugned dated 7.8.2003 is liable to be quashed, and Applications under Sections 18, 30 and 31 of the Act be referred to the Reference Court, and further this Court should direct the respondent nos. 4 to 7 to refund the amount of compensation to the petitioner. The petition deserves to be allowed.