Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5057 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ramesh Chand And 2 Others Respondent :- Civil Judge, (S.D.), Gautam Buddh Nagar And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Uma Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Anjali Upadhya
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners and Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority.
The petitioners are before this Court with request to issue direction to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar to decide the injunction application 6C under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC filed in Original Suit No.377 of 2018 (Ramesh Chand and others vs. Greater Noida and others) within stipulated time.
Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent states that so far as the disputed property is concerned, the same was already acquired by the State Government for industrial development of the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority. The notification under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17 (1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 20.10.2009 acquiring the land in question for industrial development and the notification under Section 6 was issued on 3.12.2009. The possession of the land in question was taken over by the State Government and thereafter, it was handed over to the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on paragraph-78 of the judgement passed by a Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj vs. State of UP and others reported in 2011 (11) ADJ 1. He further makes submission that once the acquisition of the land in question has already been approved and the same has also been affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court then at this stage no positive direction can be issued by this Court. He has also placed reliance on the judgement of Apex Court in Laxi Chand and others vs. Gram panchayat, Kararia and others (1996) 7 SCC 218.
Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners states that he is not inclined to press the writ petition.
The writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 RKP