Disposed

M/S Imperia Structures Limited v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Sept 2024WRIC/29518/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging demand notices for additional farmers' compensation, referencing prior Full Bench and Supreme Court decisions. The Court allowed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 1 crore and file a representation, directing the authority to decide it on merit and prohibiting coercive action for six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Stay of coercive action for 6 weeks conditional on deposit of Rs. 1 crore and filing of representation.

M/S Imperia Structures Limited vs State of U.P. and 3… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:144609-DB

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29518 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S Imperia Structures Limited Respondent :- State Of U.P. and 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devaang Savla,Sr. Advocate,Vishakha Pande Counsel for Respondent :- Aditya Bhushan Singhal,C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Vishakha Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner company, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent no.1 and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A.B. Singhal, learned counsel for Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (respondent nos.2 to 4).

¶6

The instant writ petition is preferred inter-alia with following reliefs:-

¶7

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Demand Notice dated 24.5.2024 (Annexure No.15) & Demand Notice dated 11.7.2022 (Annexure No.8) issued by the Manager (Properties), Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority i.e. Respondent No.3; and

¶8

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Development Authority to provide just and proper calculation of the outstanding dues payable towards additional farmers compensation to the petitioner company in respect of Plot No.GH-F3 Super Area 20,234.50 sq. mtrs. situated at Sector-25, Jaypee Greens Sports City SDZ, Yamuna Expressway, Gautam Budh Nagar, thereby issuing a fresh demand notice, if any; and

¶9

III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Development Authority to adjust/refund the amount of Rs.41,54,033/- already paid by the petitioner towards additional farmers compensation in respect of Plot No.GH-F3 Super Area 20,234.50 sq. mtrs. situated at Sector-25, Jaypee Greens Sports City SDZ, Yamuna Expressway, Gautam Budh Nagar; and

¶10

IV. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Development Authority to provide No-Dues Certificate to the petitioner and consequently, re-validate the Sanctioned Layout Plan for project 'Mirage' being developed over Plot No.GH-F3 Super Area 20,234.50 sq. mtrs. situated at Sector-25, Jaypee Greens Sports City SDZ, Yamuna Expressway, Gautam Budh Nagar and

¶11

V. Issue any suitable writ or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶12

VI. Award costs of the petition to the petitioner."

¶13

It appears from the record that a concession agreement dated 07.02.2003 was entered into between Taj Expressway Industrial Development Authority (now, Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (in short, YEIDA) and Jaiprakash Industries Limited (now, Jaiprakash Associates Limited) (in short, JAL) granting concession to develop, design, engineer, finance, procure, construct, manage, operate and maintain the Yamuna Expressway. The JAL had executed a sub-lease deed dated 03.05.2013 in favour of the petitioner company, sub-leasing a plot of land admeasuring 20,234.50 sq. mtrs. for development of a Group Housing project. Thereafter, the petitioner company approached the respondent authority for approval of the lay out plan for the proposed residential project, which was approved on 08.5.2014 but despite the approval and sanction of the layout, the petitioner company could not complete the project on account of farmers' protest.

¶14

It further appears from the record that a large number of writ petitions were filed before this Court by the farmers. All the said writ petitions were decided by the Full Bench of this Court vide its judgment and order dated 21.10.2011 with leading case viz. Gajraj and others v. State of U.P . and others , 2011 (11) ADJ 1, wherein the Full Bench had held that the urgency clause ought not to have been invoked and the farmers were unlawfully denied the benefit of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. However, taking into consideration the subsequent developments that the lands had already been developed and third party rights had accrued, the Full Bench in Gajraj (supra) considered it appropriate not to disturb the acquisition and directed payment of additional compensation of 64.7% plus some other benefits to the farmers. The aforesaid judgment of Full Bench in Gajraj (Supra) was approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Savitri Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 7 SCC 21.

¶15

The State Government had issued a Government Order dated 29.08.2014, which provided that the farmers should be offered 64.7% additional amount on the condition that they withdraw their petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings and undertake not to institute any litigation and create any hindrance in the development work of YEIDA. The aforesaid Government order was placed before the Board of YEIDA in its 51st Board Meeting

¶16

held on 15.09.2014 and the same was approved in the said meeting vide Resolution dated 15.09.2014. M/s Shakuntala Educational and Welfare Society had filed a Writ Petition No.28968 of 2018, which was allowed by this Court vide judgement and order dated 28.05.2020. The aforesaid judgement was challenged by YEIDA before Hon'ble Apex Court by way of preferring Civil Appeals. All such appeals were allowed by the Apex Court on 19.05.2022 in Civil Appeal No.4178-4197 of 2022 ( Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development authority etc.vs. Shakuntala Education and Welfare Society & ors ).

¶17

Thereafter, Writ C No.38069 of 2022 (M/s Shakuntla Educational and Welfare Society vs. Yamuna Expressqway Industrial Development Authority) and Writ C No.2674 of 2023 (M/s Maruti Educational Trust vs. State of UP and another) were again preferred challenging the demand dated 20.9.2024 issued by the YEIDA to the extent it pertains to demand of 64.7% additional compensation to be given to the farmers. Eventually, the Division Bench had dismissed the writ petitions vide judgement and order dated 10.7.2024. The same was again subjected to challenge before Hon'ble Apex court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).18514/2024 ( M/s Maruti Educational Trust vs. State of UP and another ). The Apex Court vide order dated 23.8.2024 had dismissed the SLP permitting the petitioners to make representation before the respondent-authority/State Government, insofar as the rate of interest is concerned and if such a representation is made, the same would be decided on its own merits.

¶18

Sri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner company vehemently submitted that the petitioner company initially moved a letter to the YEIDA on 22.10.2021 for re-validation of the sanctioned layout plan but in arbitrary manner by the impugned order dated 11.7.2022 the respondent authority instead of processing the said application had raised a demand of Rs.1,41,54,033/- towards additional farmers compensation, payable by the petitioner company. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached the authority seeking justification of enhanced demand so raised against the petitioner vide demand notice dated 11.7.2022 qua the calculation or tabulation whatsoever but till date, no such calculation or tabulation had been provided. While raising a subsequent demand on 24.5.2024 the exorbitant figure has been quoted without any justification. The authority has failed to provide any detailed information or clarification with respect to the impugned notice. Since initial demand notice dated 11.7.2022 and

¶19

despite continuous and repeated clarification, no prompt reply has been accorded by the authority till date and the respondent authority had woken up from deep slumber and raised unjustified demand dated 24.5.2024, which is liable to be set aside.

¶20

Per contra, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent authority has raised an objection qua the maintainability of the instant writ petition. He submits that qua the demand of 64.7% additional compensation or any other demand, no such challenge can be accepted. He fairly concedes only to the extent that the petitioner company may move a representation in view of leave and the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 23.08.2024 passed in M/s Maruti Educational Trust (supra).

¶21

We have carefully examined the record and perused the order dated 23.08.2024 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s Maruti Educational Trust (supra) and also considered the objection so raised by Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate. No such challenge can be accepted at this stage. We accord leave to the petitioner company for a limited purpose as indicated by Hon'ble Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal on 23.08.2024.

¶22

In the facts and circumstances and with the consent of parties, we dispose of the writ petition with observation that in case the petitioner company deposits a sum of Rs.1 crore (Rupees One Crore) within a week's time from today towards the demand and files a representation, we hope and trust that the same shall be decided by the respondent authority on its own merit in further three weeks' time.

¶23

For a period of six weeks from today or till disposal of the representation, whichever is earlier, no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner company.

¶24

Order Date :- 5.9.2024 RKP

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Imperia Structures Limited v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Imperia Structures Limited v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Agarwal vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Parvin Khan vs State of Up and 3 Others

Kamal Singh and 4 Others vs State of Up and 5 Others

M/S Isgec Heavy Eng Ltd. and Another vs State of Up and 2 Others

M/S Isgec Heavy Eng Ltd. and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt Urmila Devi vs State of Up and 7 Others