Decided on July 17,2014

Rajesh Goyal And Ors. Respondents


Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. - (1.)IN these special appeals are two orders under challenge. The first is an order dated 20.05.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 2929 of 2013 (M/S) and Writ Petition No. 694 of 2014 (M/S) which is in special appeal No. 263 of 2014 and in Special Appeal No. 262 of 2014 respectively, and second is an order dated 23.05.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 686 of 2014 (M/S) which is here in Special Appeal No. 261 of 2014 before us. The impugned orders have been passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in exercise of his review jurisdiction whereby the learned single Judge while reviewing his earlier order dated 10.04.2014, has recalled it and thereafter quashed a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was not done earlier. For sake of convenience, however, the facts which are reported here relate to Special Appeal No. 263 of 2014. Before we come down to the powers in review and on the jurisdiction of the Court in exercise of such powers, under the parameters of Order 47, Rule 1 of C.P.C., we will first examine the merits of the order dated 20.05.2014 which is presently under challenge in these special appeals.
(2.)BUT before that to the preliminary objection of the private respondents. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel representing the private respondent regarding the maintainability of these special appeals at the hands of the Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "M.D.D.A."). We will deal with this objection first.
According to the counsel for the private respondents, the Development Authority i.e. M.D.D.A is not a "person aggrieved" as a result of the quashing of the notification and hence these appeals are not maintainable by M.D.D.A. He would argue that the notification was issued by the State Government under Section 4 of the (old) Land Acquisition Act, and if anybody is aggrieved by the quashing of the said notification, it should be the State Government, and State Government alone. The State Government has not filed present special appeals. These special appeals have been filed by a beneficiary of the acquisition. Logically, therefore, he would argue that when the State is not aggrieved by quashing of its notification, how can a beneficiary be aggrieved.

(3.)LEARNED counsel for the M.D.D.A., on the other hand, submits that even if M.D.D.A. is a "beneficiary" in the present acquisition, it is not an ordinary beneficiary. It is a Statutory beneficiary, as M.D.D.A. is a body created by a Statute known as "Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973". The said Act of 1973 is applicable in the State of Uttarakhand as well. The Act of 1973 is for declaration of development area and thereafter its planned development by a specialized body which in the present case is M.D.D.A. Section 3 of the Act of 1973 reads as under: - -
"3. Declaration of development areas: - -If in the opinion of the State Government any area within the State requires to be developed according to plan it may, by notification in the Gazette declare the area to be a development area."


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.