SUDHA YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri O.P.Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite-parties. The petitioner being aggrieved by the Notification dated 22nd September, 2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was published in the U.P.Government Gazette dated 29th September, 2007 and the Notification dated 29th September, 2008 issued under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as the Act), has filed the instant writ petition. The petitioner has alleged that she is a Bhumidhar of Khasra no.1268 measuring 0.112 hectare situate at village Allu Nagar Diguitiya, Pargana, Tehsil and district Lucknow. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned Notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act are arbitrary and illegal as no clearance from Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India through the Pollution Control Board has been obtained by the opposite-parties before issuing the Notifications. He further submits that the land has been acquired by the impugned Notifications for Prabandh Nagar Avasiya Yojna, Phase-II, covering an area of 324.633 hectares, which is green-belt/agricultural. He further submits that without changing the land use in the Master Plan, the land of the petitioner and others has been acquired by the impugned Notification. He further submits that the impugned Notifications are also against the Shahari Avas Niti, 1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. C.Kenchappa and others reported in (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 371. The learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite-parties submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has not filed any objection under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. He further submits that the Government will develop the land under acquisition in accordance with Master Plan, 2021 as well as the up to date urban policy. He further submits that before making development, all the necessary clearance from other departments will be obtained at appropriate stages. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued by the State Government for the land of the petitioner along with other land for residential scheme Prabandh Nagar Yojna, Phase-II of Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow. A perusal of the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act reveals that a right of objection was afforded to the tenure-holder under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioner has nowhere stated in the writ petition that against the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, she has filed any objection under Section 5-A of the Act in writing before the Collector, Lucknow. The learned Chief Standing Counsel has given an undertaking that before development of the area for residential purposes, all necessary no-objections from different departments including the Environmental Clearance from the U.P. State Pollution Control Board shall be obtained by the Lucknow Development Authority. The Chief Standing Counsel has also undertaken that the area will be developed by the Lucknow Development Authority strictly in accordance with Master Plan, 2021 and the Shahari Avas Niti, 1995 as up to date. The Notification under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 29th September, 2008 by the State Government. In view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. C.Kenchappa and others (supra), the Lucknow Development Authority before allotment of the land for development shall obtain clearance from State Pollution Control Board to preserve and protect ecology and environment. A valuable right under Section 5-A of the Act was given to the petitioner while issuing the Notification dated 22.9.2007 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. No objection was filed by the petitioner although more than a year has elapsed. We are of the view that there is no illegality in the impugned Notifications. With the above observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of.