Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46485 of 2011 Petitioner :- Performers Collective Pvt. Ltd. And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Udayan Nandan,Akhilesh Kumar Singh,Shashi Nandan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rakesh Pande,Ramendra Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard Sri R. K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Akhilesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 4 and Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no.2 and 3.
The petition was filed on behalf of three persons making as many as six prayers.
The order of the Court dated 20.2.2019 reveals that the counsel for the petitioners has not pressed this petition on behalf of the petitioners no.1 and 2 meaning thereby the petition is being pressed only on behalf of petitioner no.3.
The said order further reveals that the petitioner no.3 has given up prayers no.1 and 2, therefore petitioner no.3 is left with prayer no.3, 4, 5 and 6 only.
In other words the petitioner no.3 has given up the challenge made to the notification issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the land in question.
The challenge basically is to the order dated 5.6.2010 by which the request of the petitioner to lease out the acquired land to him has been rejected.
The petitioner had purchased land of Gata No.4, 5 and 6 situate in Village Sadopur, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar, vide registered sale deed dated 5.7.2007. Thereafter, the aforesaid land was acquired vide notification dated 1.8.2007 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act followed by a declaration dated 30.6.2008. Consequently an award under Section 11 was pronounced and even the possession of the land was taken. Thus there is no dispute that the land had vested in the State and stood transferred in favour of the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority.
The only issue is whether after such acquisition the land which has been acquired from the petitioner can be leased out to him.
The petitioner in this connection had earlier filed a Writ Petition No.28369 of 2009, which was disposed of vide order dated 29.5.2009 with the direction to the authority to consider the representation of the petitioner for leasing out the said land. The aforesaid order clearly mentions that the petitioner does not want to press the prayer for quashing of the notifications issued for acquiring the land. It is in compliance with the above order of the High Court that the petitioner moved a representation which has been considered and decided by the impugned order dated 5.6.2010 and the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected.
The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of Government Order dated 24.4.2010, he is entitled to be leased out the land which has been acquired from him.
The aforesaid Government Order provides that where the acquired land for any reason is not suitable for utilization by the authority, the authority would be free to lease out the acquired land in favour of the original owners.
The aforesaid stipulation is not an absolute condition that in every case the acquired land has to be given back to the owners on lease. It is only if the land is not found to be suitable for the authority then such exercise can be undertaken, that too at the discretion of the authority.
A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar Vs. District Magistrate, Agra and others 2005 (2) AWC 1650 (FB) in respect of extending additional benefits to the land holders whose land has been acquired held that no such benefits, if not provided under the Act, can be extended as the Land Acquisition Act is a self contained code in itself. Accordingly any Government Order or Circular granting additional benefits would be violative of the Act and Article 16 of the Constitution of India and as such Government Orders are liable to be ignored. In short, petitioners whose land has been acquired and on acquisition has been vested in the State/Noida are not entitled to any additional benefit other than those provided under the Act itself not even on the basis of any Government Order.
The Act nowhere provides for leasing out the acquired land to the erstwhile owners.
The writ petition as such is devoid of merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019/Pramod Tripathi