AJAY GUPTA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF U P & 2 OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-2018-1-124
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on January 11,2018

Ajay Gupta And Another Appellant
VERSUS
State Of U P And 2 Others Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SUKHBIR SINGH AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. HARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The main relief that has been pressed for by Shri Ashok Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners assisted by Sri Manoj Kumar Pandey and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra at the time of hearing of the writ petition is that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) shall be deemed to have lapsed under the provisions of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) since though the award was made on 22 February 1990, but compensation has not been paid to the petitioners.
(2.)The records indicate that a notification dated 14 August 1987 was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act for acquisition of a large tract of land 1830.65 acres for construction of residential/commercial/industrial houses under a planned development scheme in District Meerut by the Meerut Development Authority (Development Authority). The petitioners claim to be owners of Plot Nos. 1082/2, 1082/3 and 1077 situated in Village Rithani, Pargana Tehsil, District Meerut. These plots were included in the aforesaid notification. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was followed by a declaration made under Section 6 of the Act on 4 September 1987. The aforesaid plots was also included in this declaration. The award was, thereafter, made under Section 11 of the Act on 22 February 1990.
(3.)The petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 23183 of 1987 to assail the acquisition and an interim order was granted on 14 September 1989 that in case the petitioners had not been dispossessed from the plots in dispute they shall not be dispossessed till 31 October 1989. This interim order was extended on 11 December 1989 till further orders of the Court. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed on 11 September 1991 with certain directions. It was left open to the petitioners to make a representation before the Development Authority for exemption of their land on which construction existed before the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act within six weeks. It was further directed that in case a representation was filed, the Development Authority will investigate into the matter and get the concerned plots surveyed and thereafter decide on the basis of the material produced by the petitioners and its own records within two months from the date of the receipt of the representation. It was further directed that in case the Development Authority finds that the plots of the petitioners had pre notification constructions, it will make necessary recommendation to the State Government for exemption but if the Development Authority decides against any of the petitioners, it will be open to them to make representation before the Government within one month after the decision of the Development Authority and the Government would look into the grievance of the petitioners and pass an appropriate order expeditiously. It was further directed that till a decision was taken by the Government, status quo shall be maintained by the parties.
;


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