Allahabad High Court
Rajendra vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 3 December, 2022
Bench: Sunita Agarwal, Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33959 of 2022
Petitioner :- Rajendra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Dubey,Rishu Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Anjali Upadhya
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Ms. Ishita Sand holding brief of Ms.Anjali Upadhya learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.06.2021 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Greater NOIDA on the representation filed by the petitioner herein along with the judgment and order dated 25.2.2020 passed in Writ C no.6661 of 2020 (Rajendra vs State of U.P and others) whereunder the petitioner has sought prayer for lease back of the land in question namely Gata no.324 area 5004.70 Sq. meter.
The order impugned categorically records that though the claim of the petitioner along with the other co-tenure holders was recommended by the Committee constituted under the Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority Rural Abadi Site (Management and Regularization) Regulations 2011 as amended 2015 in its meeting held on 31.12.2010. But on a perusal of the recommendation of the Committee, it was found that the area of 400 Sq. meter of Khasra no.324 had already been left out of acquisition wherein constructions were found at the time of acquisition.
However, about the recommendation of the Committee for release of additional 3000 Sq. meter, it is recorded that no details with regard to the size of the family of the petitioner has been given by filing affidavit in that regard. Moreover, the co-tenure holder of the plot in question namely Gata no.324 had received their share of compensation which was to the extent of 2/3 portion of the plot in question under Karar Niyamawali, 1997.
In the said situation, prayer of the petitioner for release of his share of Gata no.324 area 5004.70 Sq. meter is not permissible.
This order is sought to be challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner with the only submission that the recommendation of the Committee constituted under Regulation 2011 was illegally ignored by the Chief Executive Officer while passing the order impugned.
In any case, the petitioner has not received compensation for his 1/3 portion of plot in question namely Gata no.324.
However, considering the said submissions having noticed the provisions of the Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority Rural Abadi Site (Management and Regularization) Regulations, 2011, as amended 2015, it is evident that the purpose of lease back under the said Regulations is to release existing rural Abadi, defined under the Regulations 2011 itself. It is an admitted fact of the matter that an area of 400 Sq. meter of Gata no.324 which was existing Abadi has not been acquired. As per the recommendation of the Committee, the additional area of 3000 Sq. meter was to be leased back looking to the size of the family and the Gher of the joint dwelling unit existing on the spot but this recommendation of the Committee could not be given effect to for the reason that other co-tenure holders of the acquired plot had taken compensation for 2/3rd of the total area of said plot.
In the said situation, it was held that it is not possible to accept the prayer of the petitioner for lease back of an area of 5004.70 Sq. meter of Gata no.324. No infirmity is found in the decision of the respondent in rejection of the claim of the petitioner.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.12.2022
Harshita
