Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES THRU CHAIRMAN Y.M.GUPTA&OT versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Association Of Management Studies Thru Chairman Y.M.Gupta&Ot v. State Of U.P. And Another - WRIT - C No. 47606 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 5498 (10 November 2005)

 

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

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Saroj Bala, J.

The delay in filing the counter affidavit is condoned and the counter affidavit is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K.Gupta learned counsel for the Development Authority.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the lay out plan submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the Development authority vide order dated 18.8.2004 only on the ground that the land is covered under the proposed acquisition of Taj Nagri Yojna Phase-III. Similar controversy had arisen in Writ Petition No. 65627 of 2005 decided on 20.10.2005 in which it has been held that construction/lay out plan cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the land is proposed to be acquired, and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act has still not be issued.

Following the said decision, this petition is allowed. The order dated 18.8.2004 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) is quashed. The respondent authority is directed to reconsider the layout plan of the petitioner by a fresh reasoned order within one month from the date on which certified copy of the order is presented before the Development Authority. It is made clear that the sanction of the plan cannot be refused on the ground that the land is proposed to be acquired.

However, if such plan is sanctioned and construction is made, the petitioner will not be entitled to any compensation for construction made after the date of Section 4 Notification and further the petitioner will not also be entitled to resist the acquisition on the ground that the petitioner has made constructions on the land.

The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations.

10.11.05

samz 47606/04


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.