Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of this case.

(iii) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.

Brief background of the case as is emanating, in the present case, is that under U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, NOIDA Authority was constituted under Section 3 by the State Government by means of notification issued in the said direction. After constitution of the aforementioned NOIDA Authority, various projects were being undertaken by the NOIDA Authority from time to time and this much is reflected from the record that petitioner on 10th September, 1998 purchased plot no.875 Mijmul Area 2 Acre by way of sale deed. Mutation proceedings were also undertaken and in January, 1999 Khatauni was issued by the Revenue Authorities in the name of petitioner. Subsequent to the same, proceedings under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act has been undertaken after dispensing Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act vide a notification dated 12th April, 2005 and in the said Notification in question, land of petitioner i.e. Plot No.875 Mijmul Area 2 Acre was also mentioned. Subsequent thereto, notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 27th July, 2006 and possession of the said land has been taken by the State Government on 16.10.2006.

It has been stated that in order to tackle the situation, the respondent NOIDA Authority resolved to make provision for allotment of land equivalent to 10% of their acquired holding subject to minimum of 40 sq. mts and maximum of 2500 sq. mts. so that such original residents of the area could be provided with alternative site as also for future expansion for their living etc. Similarly, additional 15% compensation in the name of rehabilitation bonus was also decided to be paid to them so that they could make provisions for their alternative livelihood. Additional 15% amount of compensation known as rehabilitation bonus is provided to those farmers whose name was recorded in revenue records as on 17.04.1976 i.e. the date of constitution of NOIDA Authority and this amount did not form part of compensation. The original residents whose land got acquired form separate category and class of persons altogether and the decision of the Board to provide 10% alternative land and 15% rehabilitation amount was meant only for such original residents i.e. sons of soil of the area, and tiller of the land, and such benefit was not applicable to other persons whose land situated in Noida area but were not the original residents of it. The policy of the respondent NOIDA Authority to provide alternative land to the original residents is based on reasonable classification and has direct nexus with the object sought to be achieved i.e. proper rehabilitation of original residents-sons of soil of the area who are likely to become landless due to acquisition of their land. The aforesaid policy of the respondent NOIDA cannot be made applicable to those who are not original residents of the area, as they are not to suffer similar hardships as would be cause to the original residents and, therefore, such non-original residents are not entitled to the benefits available to the original residents. Action of the respondent Authority is absolute just, legal and valid and is not discriminatory in any way. The policy of the respondent NOIDA Authority is based on valid, legal sustainable ground and the challenge made to it by the petitioner is liable to be fall.

There is no issue on this fact that the NOIDA Authority has the Authority to frame and formulate such a policy and the issue that is being assailed before us is to the effect that the said resolution passed by NOIDA Authority has the effect of creating class amongst class amongst tenure holders without any lawful justification and without there being any direct nexus to the object that is sought to be achieved.

In order to answer this issue we will have to examine as to what is the purport and object of rehabilitation.

"Conclusion

43. Keeping in view all these peculiar circumstances, we are of the opinion that these are not the cases where this Court should interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution. However, we make it clear that directions of the High Court are given in the aforesaid unique and peculiar/specific background and, therefore, it would not form precedent for future cases."

The said judgement in question in no way would help the petitioner as the issue of Pushtaini and non Pushtaini was not at all there. Judgements in the case of Vijay Gyan Dharmarth Sansthan and another vs. Union of India (UOI) and others 2011 (6) ADJ-7, Rajiv Sarin and another vs. State of Uttrakhand and others AIR 2011 SC 3081 and Hari Ram vs. State of Haryana 2010 (3) SCC 621 are contextually different and would not at all apply in the facts of case as isolated observations in judgement cannot be treated as precedents dehors the facts and circumstances in which the aforesaid observation was made. It is true that as of now, the NOIDA Authorities have waived off the difference between Pushtaini Kastakars and Non Pushtaini Kastakars. The said policy in question has been framed to operate prospectively and framing of policy is in the realm of the Authority concerned and in case, the policy in question is arbitrary or irrational, on limited grounds it is open to be challenged. Merely because the NOIDA Authority has waived off the difference between Pushtaini Kastakar and Non Pushtaini Kastakar on 26.08.2014, the same cannot be a ground to disapprove the resolution that has been so passed by NOIDA Authority for the reason that it is well within the domain of the NOIDA Authority to pass such a resolution.