Allahabad High Court
Lachho Devi And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 23 July, 2021
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15496 of 2021 Petitioner :- Lachho Devi And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh learned counsel for the respondent- Authority.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner herein seeks to challenge the order dated 02.04.2021 passed by the respondent no.2 whereby the representation moved by the petitioner for regularisation of the construction, in accordance with the provisions of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Rural Abadi Site (Management and Regularisation for Residential Purpose) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2011 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules, 2011'), has been rejected.
The order impugned categorically records that two plots namely Khasra no.768 area 2-0-14 bigha and Khasra no.769 area 0-11-0 bigha land had been acquired by the notifications dated 06.01.1992 and 22.09.1992 under Sections 4/17 and 6/17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, respectively. The physical possession of the acquired land had been handed over to NOIDA Authority on 26.03.1993 by the competent authority i.e. the Additional District Magistrate (Acquisition) NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar.
It appears that the petitioner had earlier moved a writ petition(C) No.24750 of 2020 before this Court with the prayer to issue a direction to NOIDA to take a decision in the matter of regularisation of construction. The said writ petition was disposed of on 05.01.2021. Thereafter, a representation dated 21.01.2021 was moved by the petitioner with the assertion that there exists an old abadi in Khasra nos.768 and 769 with regard to which no compensation had been paid to the petitioner and the constructions are to be regularised in terms of the Rules, 2011.
The order impugned has been passed on the said representation recording therein that at the time of the handing over the physical possession of the land-in-question in the year 1993, there existed no abadi and as such the provisions of the Regularisation Rules, 2011 would not be attracted. It is also recorded therein that the petitioners are not residing over the plot-in-question and not using the same for abadi purposes rather they are original residents of Gram Baraula.
The order impugned is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition on the ground that the rejection of the representation of the petitioner is based on wrong facts. It is contended that the determination has not been made in a proper manner and the NOIDA has rejected the representation on illegal grounds. The surplus land of approximately 6.5 bighas of Khasra nos.768 and 769, which had not been acquired by the NOIDA, is still in the possession of the petitioners.
Considering the said submissions, we may note that there is no challenge to the findings returned in the order impugned that the plot nos.768 and 769 had been acquired in the acquisition notifications dated 6.01.1992 and 20.02.1992.
A copy of the possession memo has also been placed before the Court.
A perusal thereof indicates that there existed no construction over plot no.768 and 769 at the time of handing over possession of the same to NOIDA. The award had been passed in the year 1997. It is not known as to why the petitioner did not receive the compensation under the award. The writ petition is completely silent as to whether the petitioner had moved application for receipt of the compensation in the Office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer or not.
Even otherwise, on the issue of regularisation of the alleged existing construction, we have noted the provisions of 2011 which clearly provides that existing abadi at the time of issuance of the acquisition notification over a land acquired for NOIDA under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act would be regularised. As is clear from the possession memo, that there existed no abadi at the time of acquisition of the plots-in-question, there is no question of regularisation of the same.
The prayer made by the petitioner has rightly been rejected.
As regards the payment of compensation is concerned, it is open for the petitioner to approach the competent authority as NOIDA being beneficiary had deposited the compensation.
For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition.
The wrie petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.7.2021 P Kesari