Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S SHEIKHER HOTELS AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Sheikher Hotels And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 65687 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 20640 (6 December 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.10

          Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 65687 of 2006                              

MS Sheikher Hotels Gulmohar Enclave

and another . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . .  .. .  . . . . . .   . .  . Petitioners.

                                   Versus

State  of U.P. and others  . . . . .  . . . .  . . .  . .  . . . .   . . . .Respondents.

        ----

Hon'ble A.K. Yog,J.

Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J

 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel  representing respondents no. 1 and 2  as well as  the learned  Counsel representing respondents no. 3 and 4.

The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to challenge  notification dated 15.6.2006 issued under section 4(1) read with section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act  and notification dated 19.10.2006  under section 6  of the aforesaid Act ( Annexures no. 1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition ).

At the outset learned counsel appearing for Bulandshahr-Khurja Development Authority, Bulandshahr has raised a preliminary objection that this petition is not maintainable  at the instance of the petitioners as described in the memorandum of  the petition. Without entering into  this aspect, we  permitted the learned counsel  representing the petitioners  to argue  the matter on merits.

The main contention of the petitioners is that section 5-A of the  Land Acquisition Act  has been dispensed with arbitrarily. According to him the main ground in the notification that there is urgency since  the land in question is required for setting up Transport Nagar is not enough. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance  upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case  of 'Union of India and others Vs. Praveen Gupta and others' AIR 1997 Supreme Court 170.  In paragraphs 7 and 8 of the  reported judgment  we found that their Lordships of the Apex Court repelled the arguments of the owner of the land and held that shifting of timber business from walled city  to the outskirts of the city was for urgent purpose, and since it was to relieve  the traffic congestion in the walled city it became the matter of urgency and  exercise of the power under Section 17(4) cannot be said to be unwarranted.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon  another  decision of  the Apex Court in the case of 'Union of India  and others Vs. Mukesh Hans etc.' AIR 2004 SC 4307 and  an unreported  decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 25.8.2006 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 72063 of 2005 ( Kashama Sahakari Avas Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others).  We  find that these  judgments do not render  any help to the petitioners  in any way and particularly in view of the fact that categorical pleadings on vital issues  are absent in the writ petition. The argument has been that the  government  has acted arbitrarily  in saying that Transport Nagar  is urgently required. In this context reference  is made to paragraph  12 of the writ petition. We find  no co-relation between the arguments of the  learned counsel and the pleadings contained in the said paragraph of the writ petition. Paragraph 12  of the writ petition refers to the language  used in the notification. As discussed above, we do not find  any infirmity  in the impugned notifications  in view of the  Division bench judgment of this Court in the  case of Kashama Sahakari Avas Samiti Ltd. ( supra . The petitioners should have categorically pleaded  that the government had no material  or information  with it or that  an inquiry was not done  to find out as to whether  Transport Nagar  was urgently required. In the absence of  such pleadings the above arguments cannot be allowed  in the writ petition.

No other point was pressed before us.

We find no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Dated: 6.12.2006

RPP.                                                                                  


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.