The Court dismissed the writ petition seeking possession of allotted land. It held that without an executed lease deed, no possession can be delivered, and an inspection order is pending on irregularities in lease-back policy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19122 of 2019
Petitioner :- Panna
Respondent :- Additional Chief Executive Officer And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhanshu Narain,Shyam Narain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhya,Ramendra Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Greater Noida Authority.
Only prayer made in the present writ petition is to issue a direction to the respondent-Authority to hand over physical possession of the plot allotted to the petitioner as per the lease deed/letter/information supplied on 24.08.2012.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a decision had been taken to allot Plot No.48 having an area of 0.4500 hectares situated in Village-Fatehpur Rampur, TehsilDadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar, in 88th meeting of the Board of the Greater Noida Authority under the resolution no.36, item no.Kha/2. The said decision has not been given effect to till date and no lease deed has been executed in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that Khasra No.48, situated in Village-Fatehpur Rampur, Tehsil-Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar having a total area of 0.7758 hectares, belonging to the petitioner, had been acquired by Greater Noida Authority by means of the notifications dated 31.08.2007 and 27.02.2008 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; respectively. The possession of the land owned by the petitioner in Khasra Plot No.48, as aforesaid, had also been
taken, though the compensation awarded to the petitioner vide award dated 14.09.2011 is a meagre amount.
In order to rehabilitate the displacement farmers, the State Government had issued a Government Order dated 24.04.2010 wherein a provision had been made for providing alternative land on lease in lieu of the compulsory acquisition of land, especially where constructions had been raised by the farmers long ago. It is noteworthy that the said Government Order dated 24.04.2010 has not been brought on record either by the petitioner or the respondents.
The submission of the petitioner is that the lease as promised by the Greater Noida Authority has not been executed in favour of the petitioner and, moreover, the possession of the allotted land has not been given to the petitioner for a long time as against the promise made by it.
Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Authority, on the other hand, has placed an order of the Chief Secretary, U.P., Lucknow dated 10.1.2019 regarding institution of inquiry into the irregularities made in the allotment of land under the lease-back policy. The submission is that the Special Investigation Team constituted by the State Government is investigating into the matter and that no land can be allotted or possession can be given under the lease-back policy.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, it is relevant to note that the document/information dated 24.08.2012, which is basis of contention of the petitioner, is only a decision taken by the Board in its 88th meeting in the nature of opinion, in view of the provision contained in the Government Order dated 24.04.2010. Admittedly, no lease-deed
has been executed in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the said decision. There is no question of delivery of possession in absence of a lease-deed. Even otherwise, an inquiry has already been initiated into the irregularities committed in the matter of compliance of lease-back policy.
In view of the aforesaid facts, no direction can be given to hand over physical possession of the land proposed to be allotted in the name of the petitioner. As far as the quantum of compensation for the compulsorily acquired land belonging to the petitioner is concerned, it is always open for him to ventilate his grievances before the competent authority/court.
The writ petition is, thus, misconceived and hence dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.11.2020 SK
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can direct handover of possession when a Board decision exists but no lease deed has been executed.
Whether an interim direction can be issued pending an investigation into irregularities in land allotment.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to immediate possession despite pending compensation grievances.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Panna
Additional Chief Executive Officer And 6 Others
Sunita Agarwal
Jayant Banerji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
