Allahabad High Court
M/S. Tosha International Ltd. & Ors. vs State Of U.P. & Others on 4 January, 2010
Bench: Devendra Pratap Singh, Arvind Kumar Tripathi
Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 50417 of 2009 Petitioner :- M/S. Tosha International Ltd. & Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- K.K. Arora Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Ramendra P.Singh Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J.
The following order was passed on 18.9.2009.
"We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3 and Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh for respondent no.4.
Respondents may file counter affidavit within one month. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within three days thereafter.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged notification dated 26.5.2009 issued under Sections 4 of Land Acquisition Act and Notification dated 22.6.2009 under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that in view of the decision of Apex Court in M/s. Essco Fabs Private Limited and another Vs. State of Haryana and another (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 377 the authority is required to record his satisfaction as to why applicability of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act is to be dispensed with. The Apex Court has held in Sethi Auto Service Station and another Vs. Delhi Development Authority and others (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 180 that on the noting of the authorities the State Government's satisfaction cannot be inferred and the State Government is required to record its own independent reasons for invoking the urgency clause. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the petitioners are entitled for interim order.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further urged that in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Munshi Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1150 for dispensing with an enquiry under Section 5A, mere mention of word "Land Development of the Area" is not sufficient and respondents are bound to show that the interested persons were aware of the scheme or were shown the scheme or the master plan in respect of land development.
In this view of argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel is directed to produce the entire records of acquisition on 21.10.2009 to demonstrate that satisfaction has been recorded by the State Government by applying in its own independent mind and enquiry under Section 5A was dispensed with in accordance with law.
List on 21.10.2009.
Until further orders of this court, parties are directed to maintain status quo."
However, neither a counter affidavit has been filed nor record has been produced.
Let that be done by the next date. List on 22.1.2010.
Order Date :- 4.1.2010 AU