Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]latest-news-updates/hc-annuls-acquisition-of-72-hectares-7708.html"/> LATEST NEWS UPDATES | HC annuls acquisition of 72 hectares | Im4change.org
Resource centre on India's rural distress
 
 

HC annuls acquisition of 72 hectares
-The Indian Express
 
Says the authority did not have specific plan for development in Greater Noida

A day after annulling acquisition of nearly 157 hectares of land in Greater Noida, Allahabad High Court on Friday annulled acquisition of 72 hectares of land by the Greater Noida Authority in Surajpur village.

Along with the recent cancellation of acquisition of more than 200 hectares of land as directed by the Supreme Court, this becomes the third case in which the land acquisitions, made through arbitrarily invoking the “urgency clause”, have been rejected.

In all the three cases, the state had invoked the clause of urgency under section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, thereby dispensing away with section 5-A of the Act, which allows the right of the landowner to be heard by the land acquiring agency. In all these cases, the authorities had argued the land was needed on an urgent basis for planned industrial development and if not acquired quickly, it may give way to unauthorised construction and illegal encroachment. It had also mentioned that if a public inquiry was allowed, it would take several years, thereby defeating the purpose of the acquisition.

In all the cases, however, the court pointed out the Authority did not have any specific plan for development. Passing its order on Friday, the Division Bench comprising Justices Sunil Ambwani and K N Pandey observed that invoking section 17 (1) of the Act was illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and was in “colourable exercise of power”.

In the present case, the Greater Noida Authority had issued the final notification of land acquisition on January 15, 2009. However, the process had begun in November 2006, when the district administration had issued a letter for acquisition of nearly 79 hectares. Subsequently, representations were made by some individuals and private concerns, including Satyawati Traders and Satyawati Rice Mills. In 2007, another private firm, along with some other individuals, also made representations seeking exemption. With some of these representations being accommodated, the final area of land to be acquired came to around 72 hectares.

Petitioners M/S R P Electronics and others challenged the acquisition on the ground that while some of the firms had been dropped from the list, their plot of land was acquired, despite the fact that they were running a floriculture unit, which has an industry status. The bench observed: “Though the state government expressed the opinion that the provisions of sub section (1) of Section 17 are applicable, and that the urgency is such that the minimal hearing under Section 5A should be dispensed with, and that the possession should be taken¿. (it) allowed the proposal to remain pending for more than two years to consider the representations of Satyawati Rice Mill and Aarti Steel & Rolling Mills, before issuing declaration under Section 4 of the Act.” It further said the Noida authorities permitted these two industries to obtain recommendations from the Director of Industries for exempting their land from acquisition. The bench observed that if the authorities could give opportunities to these two landowners, the same was required to be given to all the other landowners including the petitioners.