- (1.) Heard Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) The main prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to respondent No. 3 to execute a lease deed in his favour in respect of his one-fourth share in Khasra No. 306 covering an area 1.1635 hectares situated in Village Khairpur Gurjar Pargana and Tehsil Dadari in the District of Gautam Buddha Nagar in pursuance of Government Order dated 24.4.2010.
(3.) The father of the petitioner was the original tenure holder of Khasra No. 306 situated in Village Khairpur Gurjar in the District of Gautam Buddha Nagar. After his death the said Khasra has been recorded in the name of the petitioner along with four other co-sharers in the revenue records. The State Government by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 8.11.2007 and declaration under Section 6 read with Section 17(1) of the said Act dated 7.7.2008 acquired several patches of land including that of Khasra No. 306 and paid compensation. The State Government considering the hardship of farmers whose lands have been acquired took a decision to release part of their land and accordingly issued a Government Order on 24.4.2010 wherein it is provided that the farmers whose land has been acquired shall be entitled to get by way of lease from the Acquiring Authority some percentage of the land acquired and relying on the above Government Order, prayer was made before the respondent No. 3 for execution of a lease in terms of Government Order dated 24.4.2010 considering the share of the petitioner in the total property acquired under the above notification. The above prayer of the petitioner was turned down by respondent No. 3 and the said decision was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 18864 of 2013. The Court disposed of the above writ petition on 10.4.2013 with the following directions: "On hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent no.3, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, we find that the impugned order dated 21st January, 2013 contained in Annexure No.1 has been passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Authority on the basis of the materials produced before him, which included a submission that certain lands in Village Sadopur were leased back to the land holders and therefore, land of the petitioner should also be leased back to him. Since the situation of the land in Village Sadopur for the purpose of use of the Authority may be quite different from utility of land of the petitioner situated in another village, it is difficult for this Court to interfere with the order on the ground that petitioner has been denied equality of treatment vis-a-vis the land holders of Village Sadopur. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage has drawn our attention to statements made in paragraph No.20 wherein a chart has been prepared in a tabular form to show that land holders of same Village i.e. Khairpur Gurjar have also been allowed their prayers for lease back of the land. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that his land is similarly situated as lands of some of his co-villagers indicated in paragraph No.20. Copies of orders passed in favour of some of such persons have been annexed as Annexure No. 14 in series. However, at the same time, it is not in dispute that such facts and orders were not placed before the Chief Executive Officer of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and therefore, such materials could not be considered by him at the time of passing of the impugned order contained in Annexure No.1. Since the Scheme for lease back of the lands is an administrative scheme envisaged in terms of directions of the State Government, it is not necessary that there should be a specific power of review in respondent no.3 to consider the matter. Hence, in the facts of the case, we are inclined to grant liberty to the petitioner that if so advised, he may file a review petition before the respondent no.3 giving all the relevant details and documents in support of his plea that similarly situated land holders of his village have been given benefits and therefore, he should also be accorded similar treatment. If such an application is filed within one month, then respondent no.3 shall consider the same appropriately and fairly so that petitioner may not have a grievance that his claim has not been considered properly vis-a-vis his other co-villagers. It is expected that if such application is filed, it will be disposed of within three months of its filing. The writ petition is disposed of. ";