- (1.) HEARD Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent- Greater NOIDA.
(2.) BY this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 23rd March, 2007 passed by the Greater NOIDA authority by which representa tion of the petitioner was rejected. Petitioner's case, in the writ petition, is that in pursuance of an order passed by this Court on 31/01/2007, petitioner's representation was con sidered by the Greater NOIDA authority. The petitioner's case in that writ petition was that petitioner's land was acquired and hence he is entitled for residential plot to the extent of 5%. The petitioner has purchased the land from the original tenure- holder on 12-1-2000 and on the strength of the sale-deed, the petitioner has pursued the representation before the Greater NOIDA authority. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, referring to the Board's meeting of the Greater NOIDA, dated 28- 10-1997 and 20th March, 2006, has submitted that a decision has been taken by the Greater NOIDa authority in its Board meeting to the effect that those tenure-holders who were original residents of the area prior to the constitution of the Greater NOIDA authority, that is, 28th January, 1991 are entitled for the allotment of 5% land for Abadi site. For all those persons, whose land has been acquired and have acquired right after constitution of Greater NOIDA authority, a scheme for payment of a Bonus has been made. Petitioner claims entitlement of Abadi Plot which was rejected by the impugned order taking the view that the petitioner is entitled for payment of Bonus.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was also entitled for allotment of the Abadi Plot and error has been committed by rejecting the representation of the petitioner. We have considered submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.;