- (1.) WE have heard Sri R. C. Singh, learned counsel for the peti tioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4.
(2.) WITH the consent of learned counsel for the parties this writ petition has been heard for final disposal at the admission stage under the Rules of the Court and is being decided at this stage itself. The petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has come to this Court aggrieved by the order dated 20. 2. 2008 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) of the State Government rejecting his representation whereby he claimed release of his land from acquisition under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "act" ). He has also challenged the notifications dated 31. 12. 2004 (An nexure 3 to the writ petition) and 5. 9. 2005 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act respectively in so far as they pertain to plot No. 222 situated in Village Sakipur, Pargana Dadri, Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Budh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the "land in dispute" ). In brief, the case of petitioner is that he is a Bhumidhar of land in dispute measuring 2 bigha 9 biswa 8 biswansi. He has constructed a Pucca residential house consisting of 4 living rooms, courtyard, Verandah, cattle shed, store room etc. and the land is surrounded by a boundary wall. The petitioner has also his own source of water inside the boundary wall of the house and living at the said residence with his family members consisting of wife, daughter, sons, daughter-in-law, grandsons and grand daughters. A notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued on 31. 12. 2004 proposing to acquire certain land including plot No. 222, i. e. the land in dispute, for the purpose of Planned Industrial Develop ment through Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "gnida") The petitioner claims to have filed an objection on 11. 1. 2005 whereupon it is said that no order was passed by the respondents. On the con trary, the respondent-State issued a notification dated 5. 9. 2005 under Section 6 of the Act for acquisition of the land in question. Consequently the petitioner filed writ petition No. 67852 of 2005 challenging the notifications dated 31. 12. 2004 and 5. 9. 2005. The said writ petition, however, was finally disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 3. 4. 2007 directing the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation before the respondent No. 1 and the said authority was required to examine his grievance and pass appropriate order expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months and till then, parties were directed to maintain status quo. In furtherance thereto, the petitioner made a representation on 19. 5. 2007, and, the same has been rejected by the respondent No. 1 vide impugned order dated 20. 2. 2008.
(3.) THE contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 are null and void having not been issued by com plying the mandatory requirement of the Act. In any case, it is submitted that the order passed on the petitioner's representation cannot be said to be a speaking order. Moreso, it is based on presumptions and the findings recorded are non-est since without considering evidence on record the respondent No. 1 has passed the impugned order and, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. Sri R. C. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner besides mak ing oral submissions, as aforesaid, has also filed a written argument wherein the submissions raised in brief are as under: (1) The order is not a reasoned order and being non speaking is liable to x be set aside. (2) The report dated 11. 1. 2005 with respect to the construction of resi dential building at the land in dispute has not been considered and relevant material has been ignored. (3) Non exclusion of the petitioner's land is based on unfair and unrea sonable consideration of the matter and the conclusion drawn by respondent No. 1 is perverse. (4) The construction was existing prior to the coming into existence of GNIDA and is support thereof the electricity bills telephone bills, and ration card etc. have been filed by the petitioner but the same have not been consid ered and this vitiates the impugned order. (5) The Khasra entry showing Abadi on the land in dispute has also not been considered. The order is perverse, whimsical and is based on no evi dence. (6) Since the reasons for rejecting petitioner's application are not ger mane, arbitreary and irrational, therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside.;