- (1.) All these three writ petitions have been filed with a prayer for payment of compensation for the unacquired land of the petitioners comprising of Khata No. 395, Khasra No. 618 having an area 0.126 Hectare, Khata No. 119, Khasra No. 700 having area 0.215 Hectare situated at revenue Village Dashahara Khearli and Khata No. 181, Khasra No. 462 having an area 0.0630 Hectare situated at revenue Village Nayfal alias Unchagaon, Pargana and Tehsil Khurja, District Bulandshahar, which are allegedly being utilized by the Tehri Hydro Development Corporation India Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'THDC') which has been impleaded as a respondent in the writ petitions.
(2.) In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 5-THDC in Writ-C No.- 38938 of 2017, paragraph nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are reproduced below: "8. That the contents of paragraph no. 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the writ petition are false, incorrect & misleading, hence denied. In its reply it is submitted here that petitioners are still continuing peaceful possession of the land in question and it is not transferred to respondent no. 5 till today. The petitioners are still in physical, actual and cultivatory possession of the land in question and there is no objection or obstruction by officials of respondent no. 5 regarding possession of the petitioners. The aforementioned boundary wall surrounding the land in question is not a problem because there is no change in the way of petitioner's land as it still exists as it used to exist before 2013. The petitioners are not deprived from his property even after start of the construction of the power plant. 9. That the contents of paragraph no. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the writ petition are false, incorrect & misleading, hence denied. In its reply it is submitted here that the petitioner's land is not acquired and it is not in possession or being used by respondent no. 5. There is no obstruction by officials of respondent no. 5 over the land in question. The land in question belongs to the petitioners and the same is not necessarily required to the respondent no. 5 so there is no question of payment of compensation to the petitioners. Neither there is any violation of law. 10. That the contents of paragraph no. 15, 16 and 17 of the writ petition are the matter of records and same may be verified there from. It is further submitted here that in compliance of judgement and order dated 23-05-2017 the District Committee formed under Government Order dated 19-03-2015 decided that if the land of petitioners are required then the acquiring agency may enter into agreement by awarding proper compensation and getting a sale deed executed in their favour otherwise the petitioner may not be restrained from using the land in question. 11. That the contents of paragraph no. 18 of the writ petition are the matter of record and same be verified there from but it is also pertinent to mention here that for smooth hurdle free working of the plant THDC India Ltd. i.e. respondent no. 5 has proposed two options before the petitioners through the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr, on the following conditions which are as follows:- i) To execute sale deed in favour of respondent no. 5 in lieu of proper compensation as awarded to other farmers. ii) To exchange their land with other fertile land of respondent no. 5 outside the boundary in the nearby area of their village having same measurement. Photo copies of the letters dated 20.06.2017 & 21.06.2017 issued by THDC India i.e. respondent no. 5 to District Magistrate, Bulandshahr & Pankaj Tomar respectively, providing aforementioned proposals, are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. C.A.-1(A) & C.A. 1(B) to this affidavit. 12. That the contents of paragraph no. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 of the writ petition are misleading, misguiding and incorrect, hence denied. In its reply it is submitted here that the petitioner's land in question is neither necessarily required by the respondent no. 5 nor any obstruction is caused by the officials of the respondent no. 5 over petitioners in using their land in question."
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners state that they want their land back, to which the learned counsel for respondent-THDC states that respondent would have no objection.;