Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38437 of 2018 Petitioner :- Neeraj Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Singh,Sri Ashok Mehta (Senior Advocate) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupeshwar Dayal
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
The petitioner has instituted this writ petition for issuance of a direction upon the first respondent to take appropriate decision on the representations made on 12.2.2018 and 5.3.2018.
It is stated that the petitioner's father had purchased Plot Nos. 1058/2 admeasuring 0-13-6, 1059 area 0-12-10, total area 1 bigha 5 biswa and 16 biswansi situated at Village Rithani, Tehsil and District Meerut.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Meerut Development Authority in the year 1987 proposed Shatabdi Nagar Yojana at Meerut and in this regard a notification was issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land. The acquisition proceedings were challenged by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23183 of 1987 which was finally disposed of on 11.9.1991 issuing certain directions to Meerut Development Authority. Pursuant thereto on 5.3.2003 a communication was sent by the State Government to Meerut Development Authority wherein it was reported that on the disputed land a construction was found and the petitioner was in possession thereon. Hence, a recommendation was made that in the proposed acquisition proceedings the land of the petitioner be exempted, however, the State Government vide communication dated 6.6.2005 did not accede the recommendation of Meerut Development Authority and the earlier Government Order dated 5.3.2003 was reversed. The said decision was challenged by the petitioner by way of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41738 of 2006. It is stated in paragraph- 11 of the writ petition that the said writ petition was allowed and the order of the State Government dated 6.6.2005 was quashed remitting the matter back to the State Government with a direction to re-examine the issue and pass appropriate order. In compliance thereof the State Government issued a notice on 30.3.2010 to the petitioner to place his case before the State Government.
The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the order of this Court dated 6.7.2007 and their own notice dated 30.3.2010 no decision has been taken by the State Government as yet, whereas the petitioner has submitted his case before the State Government. It is stated that the inaction on the part of the State Government is arbitrary and illegal.
We have heard Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pradeep Singh Sisodia and Ms. Roli Kaushal learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ramanand Pandey, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Bupeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.
Having due regard to the facts of the case, we do not propose to express any opinion on the merits of the case as this Court has already issued directions to the State Government in the earlier writ petition. We are amazed to note that for eight years the State Government has not taken any decision though the notice was issued on 30.3.2010 by the State Government.
In view of the above, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be subserved by issuing a direction upon the first respondent to take appropriate decision as early as possible but not later than two months from the date of communication of this order.
We make it clear that we have not expressed our opinion on the merits of the case. The authority concerned shall pass the order independently and in accordance with law.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.11.2018 Digamber