- (1.) Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) submitted a proposal to the Collector and District Magistrate, Ghaziabad for the resumption of 43.99 hectares of land. The Commissioner, Meerut Division issued separate resumption notifications in exercise of powers conferred by Section 117 (6) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Act). By the first of those notifications dated 7 February 2014, land admeasuring 1.7120 hectares comprised in Khasra Nos. 949 and 1080 was resumed from the Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad and was vested in GDA for the purpose of planned development. By the second notification dated 3 December 2014, land admeasuring 5.2040 hectares comprised in Khasra Nos. 96, 97, 952 and 1034 was resumed from the Gram Sabha/Nagar Nigam, as the case may be, and was vested in GDA for planned development. The possession of the land was transferred on 11 May 2015. GDA advertised a scheme on 28 June 2015 by which it invited bids for the sale of two plots of land, which forms the subject matter of the present proceedings. These were listed at serial nos. 20 and 21 of the auction notice. Both of these plots were comprised in the Noor Nagar Scheme and were described respectively as plot GH-2 admeasuring 5535 sq.mtrs. and plot GH-1 admeasuring 12045 sq.mtrs. The brochure issued by GDA laying down the terms and conditions governing the allotment of group housing and non-residential plots, inter alia, stipulated that the purchaser would obtain free hold rights. Clause 2.4 which is material, reads as follows: "2.4 Purchaser shall get freehold rights in the plot, provided that the freehold right shall be subject to architectural control prescribed by the GDA/Ground Coverage & FAR as given in Table. - 1 Other terms and condition will be as per building bye laws."
(2.) Gda has stated that it fixed a reserved price at Rs.22,200/- per sq. mtrs. The eighth and ninth respondents participated in the auction. On 25 July 2015, a letter was issued to the ninth respondent allotting plot GH-1. On the same day, a communication was issued to the eighth respondent allotting plot GH-2 to him. The allotment of plot GH-1 to the ninth respondent was on the basis of the highest bid of Rs.24,200/- per sq. mtr at a total consideration of Rs.29.14 crores upon which, after computing lease rent and free hold rights, a total demand of Rs.32.64 crores was made. The allotment of plot GH-2 to the eighth respondent was on the basis of the highest bid of Rs.24,500/- per sq. mtrs. at a value of Rs.13.56 crores. After computing lease rent and free hold rights, a total demand of Rs.15.18 crores was made.
(3.) The petitioners in these proceedings which have been instituted in public interest, have sought to challenge the resumption notifications issued respectively on 7 February 2014 and 3 December 2014 besides challenging the allotments made to the eighth and ninth respondents on 25 July 2015. Several grounds have been urged on behalf of the petitioners in support of the writ petition. The first ground is that the land had vested in the State under the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act, after which under Section 117(1) of the Act, the land which has vested in the State is vested in the Gram Sabha or any other local authority by the State. Under sub-section (6) of Section 117, the State Government is empowered to amend or cancel any notification made in the case of a Gram Sabha or local authority and to resume the land upon which the Government is empowered to vest the land resumed in the same or any other local authority. Hence, it was urged that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (6) of Section 117 would indicate that the absolute title to the land which vests in the State under Section 4 is conferred upon the State. GDA proceeded on the misconceived basis that it had absolute title to the land and proceeded to issue an auction notice on that basis. In this regard, reliance was placed on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Maharaj Singh vs. State of U.P., 1976 AIR(SC) 2602. The submission before the Court is that GDA has proceeded on a misconceived basis that it has an absolute right, title and interest in the land which it was alienating and the sale and auction in favour of the eighth and ninth respondents must be treated as void.;