Heard Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
Let counter affidavit be filed within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List in the 1st week of September 2010 before the appropriate Bench.
The petitioner is a registered Trust and is engaged in charitable and educational activities. The UPSIDC executed a registered sale deed for a period of 90 years in favour of the petitioner's Trust for setting up Information Technology institution. The possession of the entire land was handed over to the Trust. The petitioner's Trust started construction and development activities of the institution as per the terms and conditions spelt out in the Trust Deed. In the meantime, at the instance of some interested persons of the area, there occurred interference in the construction and development activities. As usual the villagers were also causing hindrance. Being aggrieved the petitioner approached the revenue authorities up to the level of Divisional Commissioner, who had rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner on 1.02.2010. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.11544 of 2010 before this Hon'ble Court seeking indulgence. This Court had passed an interim order on 9.3.2010. The petitioner in consonance with the interim order continued with the construction and development activities for establishing an educational institution. Some villagers who were bent upon causing nuisance again raised hindrance alleging that the petitioner cannot raise constructions. A contempt petition was preferred and notices were issued to the opposite parties requiring them to file counter affidavit. The District authorities after receiving notices and without application of mind, in a haste passed order on 3.6.2010 directing stoppage of all the construction and development activities forthwith. These circumstances have compelled the petitioner to file the present writ petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The order passed by this Court is still in vogue and there is no justification to issue a restraint order by the respondent no.3. i.e. Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Gautam Budh Nagar on 3.6.2010.
In view of above, it is provided that till further orders of the Court, the opposite parties no.3 and 4 are restrained from interfering in the construction and development activities carried out by the petitioner's educational institution over the land in dispute and the operation of the order dated 3.6.2010 shall remain stayed. The construction activities carried out by the petitioner shall not be disturbed by the opposite parties.
Order Date :- 14.6.2010 pks