Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24720 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pratap Singh And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Pratap,Abhishek Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vrindavan Mishra Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
The petitioners are five in number. They have instituted this writ petition for issuance of a direction upon the 3rd respondent to permit them for construction/development of their land situated in Village - Sadat Nagar, Ikla and Village - Dasna, District - Ghaziabad; or alternatively, direct the respondents not to refuse permission/sanction of map for development activity in the aforesaid two villages. The reliefs in the writ petition, amongst other, read as under:-
"(a) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondent no. 3 Ghaziabad Development Authority to consider the case of the petitioners for permission for construction/development of land in village - Sadat Nagar Ikla and village - Dasna, District - Ghaziabad in accordance with law without being influenced by the license granted to respondent no. 5 or alternatively direct the respondent development authority not to refuse permission/sanction of map for development activity in the aforesaid two villages on account of license granted to the respondent no. 5 for developing Hi-tech City in the area.
(b) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondents to exempt the land of the petitioners from the area earmarked for Hi-Tech Township to be developed by the respondent no. 5.
(c) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondents to consider cancellation of MoU entered between the GDA and the respondent no. 5 for the Hi-Tech Township at Ghaziabad for failure of the respondent no. 5 to comply with the time frame provided in the MoU for completion of the projects i.e. establishment of Hi-Tech Township.
(d) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondents from granting any extension to the respondent no. 5 for establishing Hi-Tech Township under the MoU to treat the extension already granted having been negative for non compliance of the terms and conditions of the MoU."
It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Ghaziabad Development Authority has entered into a contract with the 5th respondent and Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) has been signed between them for Hi-tech Township at the aforesaid two villages. For the said reason, the Development Authority is not sanctioning the map for raising construction and development of the petitioners' land. It is asserted that the said action of the Development Authority violates their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
It is stated that the State Government, in the year 2003, also framed a policy to attract private investment for development of Hi-tech Township in the areas adjoining major cities in the State. It is stated that in this regard, a Government Order dated 22.11.2003 was issued by the State Government. Pursuant to the said scheme, in 9 districts of the State, the Hi-tech Township is to be established. It is stated that the respondent - Development Authority has issued an advertisement inviting the bids for the construction of the said hi-tech city. Pursuant to the said advertisement, six developers have been found to be eligible and selected for implementation of 9 projects in the State.
The 5th respondent has been selected to develop Hi-tech Township over an area of 1500 acres in Ghaziabad. Consequently, an MoU has been executed between the 5th respondent and the Development Authority on 17th March, 2011.
The grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of the said MoU of the year 2011, no progress has been made in respect of the construction of the hi-tech city and in the meantime, application of the land owners for development of their land is also held up, which is causing severe monetary loss to the land owners in the aforesaid villages.
It is further stated that the petitioners have made several representations for redressal of their grievance, but they have failed to elicit any response from the respondents.
We have perused the materials on the record.
Having due regard to the facts of the case, we are of the view that ends of justice requires that the cause of the petitioners be considered by the 3rd respondent, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.
Needless to say that we have not expressed our opinion on the merit of the case and the Authority concerned is free to pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.7.2019/Amit Mishra