- (1.) THE petitioner, Subey Ram, resident of Village Dabara, Tahsil Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by the respondents for acquisition of his land. He has sought a writ of cert/bran for quashing the entire acquisition proceeding including the notifications dated 31. 10. 2005 published under Section 4 (1)/17 (1)/ (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 18s4 (hereinafter referred to as the "act, 1894") and dated 1. 9. 2006 published under Section 6/17 of the Act, 1894. He has also challenged the notice dated 21. 2. 2007 issued under Section 10 of the U. P Industrial Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "1976 Act") and the order dated 15. 2. 2008 passed by Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Gautambudh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the "gnoida") rejecting his representation for exempting land in question from acquisition. Lastly, he has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from land in question situate at Khasra No. 264-3. 1160 in Village Dabara, Tahsil Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar.
(2.) IN brief, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are, that, the petitioner claims to be the owner of certain land at Village Dabara, Tahsil Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar bearing Gata No. 250- 0. 4550,264-3. 1160 and 274-0. 0300. He has got a Kachha and Pukka house constructed thereon besides other construction and the said land is in Abadi. The said land is in common share of petitioner and his four brothers. The State Government published a notification under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17 (1) of the Act, 1894 on 31. 10. 2005 notifying its intention for acquisition of the said land alongwith other for planned industrial development in District Gautambudh Nagar through GNOIDA and dispensing with requirement of inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, 1894. The petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid notification preferred a Writ Petition No. 679 of 2006 challenging aforesaid notification wherein an interim order was passed by this Court on 06. 1. 2006 directing parties to maintain status quo with respect to the land in. question. Thereafter a notification under Section 6/17 of the Act, 1894 was published by the State Government on 1. 9. 2006 for acquisition of land in question. Notice under Section 9 of the Act, 1894 was issued by the Additional Collector (Land Acquisition) on 16. 10. 2006. The petitioner in the meantime submitted applications under Section 48 of theact, 1894 initially on 23. 3. 2006 and thereafter on 4. 9. 2006 requesting authorities to exempt his land but no action was taken by the respondents thereon. INstead GNOIDA issued a notice on 21. 2. 2007 under Section 10 of 1976 Act stating that the petitioner has made certain unauthorised construction and, therefore, should remove the same otherwise steps will be taken by the authorities concerned for removal thereof. Aggrieved thereto the petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 27094 of 2007 wherein also he sought a writ of certiorari for quashing notifications dated 31. 10. 2005 and 1. 9. 2006 and also the notice dated 21. 2. 2007 and sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to dispossess him. The aforesaid writ petition was finally disposed of by this Court on 13. 6. 2007 directing the Chief Executive Officer, GNOIDA to take decision on the petitioner's reply dated 13. 3. 2007. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction the Chief Executive Officer, GNOIDA has passed order on 15. 2. 2008 rejecting his representation. Hence this petition. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 raised a preliminary objection that in respect to the relief sought by petitioner with respect to the acquisition notifications dated 31. 10. 2005 and 1. 9. 2006, this is the third and second writ petition respectively and, therefore, is liable to be dismissed as successive writ petitions for the same cause of action are not maintainable and, therefore, is barred under Chapter XXII, Rule 7 of the Rules of the Court. He further contended that so far as the decision taken by respondent No. 4 on the petitioner's reply against the notice under Section 10 of 1976 Act the same has been passed after considering factual aspects of the matter and hence a finding of fact having been recorded which has not been shown to be perverse by placing any material on record, therefore, no inference is called for against the impugned order. So far as the petitioner's contention that his land ought to have been exempted under Section 48 of 1894 Act, it is contended that the said provision only confers discretion upon the State Government to exempt a land which is not required for acquisition but no corresponding right has been created in favour of the person whose land has been acquired. He also contended that the said power is not to be exercised as and when requested by the owner of the land whose land has been acquired. He contended that the issue is squirely covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 15483 of 2008, Babu v. State of U. P. and others decided on 24. 4. 2008. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and also the written submission filed on behalf of the petitioner through his counsel Sri A. Prasad.
(3.) IT is not in dispute that the notification dated 31. 10. 2005 was challenged by the the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 679 of 2006 which is pending before this Court and in which an interim order is operating in favour of petitioner till date. The reliefs sought in the aforesaid writ petition are as under: " (i) to call forth the records of the case. (ii) to issue a writ or order in the nature of certiorari the Land Acquisition Proceeding dated 31. 10. 2005 published on 10. 11. 2005 (Annexure2 ). (Hi) to issue a writ of order in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to acquire the land of Khasara No. 250-0-4550, house, building boundary wall etc. of the petitioner and further to restrain them not to dispossess the petitioner from the land and not to demolish the construction etc. (iv) to issue a writ or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide the objection filed by the petitioner. (v) to issue any other writ or order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (vi) to award the cost of the petition to the petitioner. " Thereafter notification under Section 6/17 of the Act, 1894 was published. Another notice under Section 10 of 1976 Act was issued to the petitioner for removing the alleged unauthorised construction which is a separate proceeding. The petitioner again approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 27094 of 2007 wherein also he sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the notifications dated 31. 10. 2005 as well as 1. 9. 2006 and notice dated 21. 2. 2007 issued under Section 10 of 1976 Act. The reliefs sought in the said writ petition are quoted as under: " (i) to issue a writ or order to call forth the records of the case. (ii) to issue a writ or order in the nature of certiorari for quashing the entire land acquisition proceeding and or process of the publication of Notification No. 5484/77-04-05-59n/05 dated 31. 10. 2005 under Section 4 (1 )/17 (1) and (4) (Annexure 1) and the declaration Notification No: 5079/77-04-06-59n/05 dated 1. 9. 2006 under Section 6/17 of the Act (Annexure 8) and further in pursuance of order/notice dated 21. 2. 2007 (Annexures 15 and 16) in respect of Gata/plot-Khasara No. 264-3. 1160 situated in village-Dabara, Tahsil and Paragana-Dadri, G. B. Nagar. (iii) to issue a writ or order in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents that the petitioner may not be dispossess from his arazi/abadi No. 264-3. 1160 and further his Kachha and Pakka houses other constructions over there may not to be demolished situated at village-Dabara, Tehsil and Paragana-Dadri, District-G. B. Nagar. (iv) to issue a writ or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents i. e. 'the competent authority' (the State Government) to comply the judgment and order and the direction issued by the Hon'ble Court in cases of: (A) W. R-18896-87 (M/s Sons Engineer Corporation v. State of U. P.) decided on 11. 9. 91. (B) 1992 (Suppl) 2 SCC136 (UOI v. Balram Singh) (C) 1996 (7) SCC 269 (Sfafe of Tamil Nadu v. Maha Laxmiammal and others) (D) W. P- 6484-05 (Hem Raj Singh v. State of U. P. and others) decided on 3. 4. 2007. and the application (s)/representation (s)/objection (s) (Annexures 7 and 9) be decided finally. (v) to issue any other writ or order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (vi) to award the cost of the petition to the petitioner. ";