Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Chahatram & Others v. State Of U.P.& Others - WRIT - C No. 21507 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 8191 (24 April 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).


Court No.34

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21507 of 2006

Chahatram & Ors.


State of U.P. & Ors.


Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This Writ Petition has been filed raising the grievance that a large area of land was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act') vide notification dated 28th October, 2005 and while issuing notification under Section 4 powers under sub-section 4 of Section 17 was also resorted to. The declaration under Section 6 was published on 20th December, 2005 making it clear that in exercise of power under Section 17(1) of the Act, possession of the land notified under Section 4 could be taken within two weeks from the issue of notice under Section 9(1) of the Act. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2829 of 2006 which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 18th January, 2006 asking the authority to consider the application of the petitioner purported to have been filed under Section 48 of the Act for releasing of the land. However, the said application has not yet been decided.

Sri K.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the petitioners are being dispossessed from their residential accommodation to provide the residential accommodation to some body else after developing the land as it is not a case of acquiring open piece of land. In support of his contention reliance was placed by Sri Chauhan upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. Vs. Bal Ram Singh & Anr., 1992 Supp (2) SCC 136; State of T.N. & Anr. Vs. Mahalakshmi Ammal & Ors., (1196) 7 SCC 269 and Sube Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., JT 2001 (6) SC 578, wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that in case the land is being acquired for a particular purpose i.e. residential and there is already exists a residential house of the person then in case he makes an application under Section 48 to release that house from acquisition, his application should be considered keeping in mind whether the release of the house would create any kind of hindrance in the planned development for which the land is sought to be acquired and in case with certain modification, the exemption is permissible then the application should be allowed after issuing directions to the persons concerned to make modification in the constructions already raised by him. Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however has submitted that the application under Section 48 of the Act shall be considered by the Principal Secretary (Industries) as the planned development in NOIDA and Greater Noida is to be made under the Industrial Development Act, 1976 but no application has been filed before the said authority.

We have perused the earlier order passed by this Court. It appears that inadvertently directions have been issued to the Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida to consider the application but no attempts were made by the parties to get the said order rectified.

We, accordingly, dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction that in case a fresh application is filed by the petitioners within a period of one week from today annexing the certified copy of this order before the Principal Secretary (Industries) and the nature of the constructions are pointed out then if it is permissible to adjust within the planned development then the application shall be considered strictly in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within three weeks from the date of filing the order before the Principal Secretary provided the possession has not already been taken.

Let a copy of this order be made available to the parties by tomorrow on payment of usual charges.

Date - 24.4.2006



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


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 |

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