HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 59154 of 2015 Petitioner :- Man Mohan Nath Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Komal Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupeshwar Dayal Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has challenged the notification issued under Sections 4 (1) and 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act by filing Writ Petition No.19125 of 1987 wherein interim/stay order was passed. During pendency of the said writ petition on 15.3.2003, a recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner for exemption of the land in dispute upon which the State Government took a decision on 21.4.2003 directing the Development Authority to adjust the land acquired for passage/road and for other necessary purpose, and thereafter, release the remaining land in favour of the petitioner.
On the basis of said letter of State Government, Meerut Development Authority vide letter dated 21.4.2003 required the petitioner to deposit the necessary charges for reconveyance of the land as provided under Section 17 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. After petitioner gave his consent to the same, the State Government reconsidered the matter vide letter dated 10.11.2004 and again confirmed its earlier decision dated 21.4.2003 and the Meerut Development Authority was again required to execute the same.
Petitioner again made representation on 25.6.2006 but nothing was done, and therefore, petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.28327 of 2006 before this Court and vide order dated 22.5.2006, this Court directed the Meerut Development Authority to do the needful in the matter.
Thereafter, on 2.6.2006 petitioner gave representation alongwith certified copy of order passed in Writ Petition No.28327 of 2006 to the Meerut Development Authority. The State Government, this time, passed another order dated 14.7.2006 recalling its earlier order dated 21.4.2003 on the ground that land was needed for various development works, and thus, exemption was not justified.
The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.52023 of 2006, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 26.2.2013 setting aside the order dated 12/14.7.2006 and remanding the matter to the State Government for fresh consideration. The Division Bench of this Court, allowed the writ petition by making following observations:
"There is no dispute about the fact that earlier there was a decision of the State Government dated 21.4.2003 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and thereafter on reconsideration of the matter, the State Government reiterated/affirmed the earlier decision by order dated 10.11.2004. On careful perusal of both the orders, we find that reasons have been given for taking a decision and on assessment of the need of the public, arrangement has been directed to be made and in that manner Meerut Development Authority proceeded and also wrote to the petitioner.
It is not a case where there was any concealment of fact rather all the facts were made clear. In fact in the representation dated 2.6.2006 petitioner gave complete details for the purposes of passing appropriate order, but this time the State Government without taking care of earlier orders and the reasons given therein proposed to negative claim of petitioner. Although the State Government has withdrawn the order dated 21.4.2003 but there is no reference in the order dated 10.11.2004 by which the earlier decision was reiterated and direction was given to execute the same.
The reason given in the impugned order is that for the development, the land is needed, can be said to be just and proper, but at the same time the earlier opinion as was affirmed by the State Government was required to be taken note.
The impugned order has been passed without any notice or calling upon the petitioner to explain and therefore, it appears that necessary facts did not come before the State Government"
The State Government vide order dated 22.2.2014 rejected the representation of the petitioner and reiterated its earlier order withdrawing to release of the land from execution proceedings. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.27512 mainly on the ground that order had been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.5.2014 again allowed the writ petition and quashed the order passed by the State Government with the direction to the State Government to hear and decide the same in accordance with law giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other concerned parties by passing reasoned speaking order.
Again, the matter was reconsidered by the State Government and in pursuance of aforesaid direction, State Government vide order dated 14.9.2015, has rejected the representation of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that again the reason for rejecting the representation of the petitioner is that land is needed for development works by the Meerut Development Authority.
It is further submitted that authority has again thus reiterated the earlier stand without recording any finding. It is also submitted that in view of the fact that awarded compensation was not deposited, the proceedings lapsed in view of Section 24 (1) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2003.
It is also submitted that without going into the facts in this regard, the respondent no.1 has simply recorded that petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Section 24.
Prima facie the matter requires scrutiny.
Notice on behalf of State-respondent has been accepted by the learned Standing Counsel. Notice on behalf of respondent no.2 has been accepted by Shri Bhupeshwar Dayal.
Respondents may file counter affidavit within four weeks. The petitioner will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.
List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, until further orders of this Court, parties shall maintain status-quo with regard to the nature and possession over the land in dispute.
Order Date :- 2.11.2015 Ajeet