Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1167 (ALL)

Gajraj v. State of U. P.

2012-05-14

ASHOK BHUSHAN, S.U.KHAN, V.K.SHUKLA

body2012
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel assisted by Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for NOIDA the applicant in Review petition (Respondent No. 3 in the writ petition). 2. This application has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Chapter 5 Rule 12 of the High Court Rules, on behalf of respondent No. 3 praying that the review application be allowed and judgment dated 21.10.2011 be set aside /modified. 3. Full Bench of this Court after hearing Bunch of writ petitions leading writ petition No. 37443 of 2011 Gajraj and others v. State of U.P., decided all the writ petitions by judgment and order dated 21.10.2011. The bunch of writ petitions were decided after hearing the respondent No. 3 which has filed this review application. The respondent No. 3 in the leading writ petitions and other writ petitions had also filed their counter-affidavits supplementary counter-affidavits and had produced the original records. Considering the submissions of the parties and perusing the pleadings including the records the judgment was delivered. 4. Sri Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant at very out set referred to the direction No. 5 of the judgment which was to the following effect : “5. The Greater NOIDA and its allottees are directed not to carry on development and not to implement the Master Plan 2021 till the observations and directions of the National Capital Regional Planning Board are incorporated in Master Plan 2021 to the satisfaction of the National Capital Regional Planning Board. We make it clear that this direction shall not be applicable in those cases where the development is being carried on in accordance with the earlier Master Plan of the Greater NOIDA duly approved by the National Capital Regional Planning Board.” 5. Sri Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel submits that immediately after judgment of this Court dated 21.10.2011 the respondent No. 3 sent a letter to the State Government on 1.11.2011 for approval of revised master plan 2021 and sending it to the National Capital Regional Planning Board. Learned counsel for the applicant has produced several correspondence before the Court beginning from 1.11.2011. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that National Capital Regional Planning Board has also responded to the correspondence and raised certain objections. Learned counsel for the applicant has produced several correspondence before the Court beginning from 1.11.2011. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that National Capital Regional Planning Board has also responded to the correspondence and raised certain objections. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that several objections raised by the National Capital Regional Planning Board are frivolous objections effect of which is that the respondent No. 3 is unable to carry on the development. It is submitted that this Court did not intend by its judgment dated 21.10.2011 to stop the development except that developments were required to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of National Capital Regional Planning Board Act, 1985. The grievance of the respondent No. 3 is that due to in-action of the National Capital Regional Planning Board, the respondent No. 3 is suffering, it is prohibited to carry on its development which is causing huge loss to it. Insofar as the above submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, it is clear that what is being challenged is action or in-action of the National Capital Regional Planning Board, subsequent to our judgment dated 21.10.2011. The correspondence which have been placed before us, beginning from the letter dated 1.11.2011 is subsequent to our judgment. The fact which is sought to be manifested by Sri Ravindara Kumar is that after the judgment dated 21.10.2011, applicant initiated process so that the clearance could be obtained from National Capital Regional Planning Board to carry on the development. We observe that action or in-action complained of by the respondent No. 3 gives a subsequent cause of action to the applicant-respondent No. 3 and the said ground cannot be basis for review of the judgment dated 21.102011. The respondent No. 3 is free to agitate the aforesaid issues by means of a fresh writ petition. The said ground cannot be said to be sufficient for review of the judgment. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the judgment of this Court dated 21.10.2011 holding that approval of the master plan is required by National Capital Regional planning Board is erroneous. The said ground cannot be said to be sufficient for review of the judgment. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the judgment of this Court dated 21.10.2011 holding that approval of the master plan is required by National Capital Regional planning Board is erroneous. He submits that the said view was based on earlier judgment of this Court in Ravindara Singh and others v. State of U.P., 1997 (1) AWC 54 , which cannot be treated to be a decision correctly interpreting the provisions of the National Capital Regional planning Board, 1985. We had framed issue No. 4 regarding approval of National Capital Regional planning Board, 1985 and after considering all the aspects of the matters the issue was answered. The applicant in essence is asking for re-hearing of the said issue already decided by this Court which is not a ground for review of the judgment. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that after the judgment of the Ravindra Singh’s case an inquiry was conducted by the State Government and master plan which was submitted at the relevant time was re-evaluated and nothing wrong was found. He further submits that direction No. 6 in the judgment directing for an inquiry was therefore not necessary and there was no occasion to conduct the inquiry. The direction No. 6 issued by this Court is to the following effect : “We direct the Chief Secretary of the State to appoint officers not below the level of Principal Secretary (except the officers of Industrial Development Department who have dealt with the relevant files) to conduct a thorough inquiry regarding the acts of Greater Noida (a) in proceeding to implement Master Plan 2021 without approval of N.C.R.P. Board, (b) decisions taken to change the land use, ((c) allotment made to the builders and (d) indiscriminate proposals for acquisition of land, and thereafter the State Government shall take appropriate action in the matter. 8. The above direction had no concern with the direction as was issued in Ravindra Singh’s case. It was a direction issued with regard to the subject-matter noticed therein and we do not find any such error in the said direction so as to review the judgment. 8. The above direction had no concern with the direction as was issued in Ravindra Singh’s case. It was a direction issued with regard to the subject-matter noticed therein and we do not find any such error in the said direction so as to review the judgment. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that at page 172 of the judgment, this Court had observed that about 85.33/% land had been ear marked for residential purposes which is not factually correct. Chart which is mentioned at page 161 and 162 of the judgment was on the basis of the details supplied by the respondent No. 3 in its supplementary-affidavits and original records. The observation of the Court at page 172 was as below : “The residential use of the land as noted above, is 85.33% including all residential uses and the builders alone have been allotted to the extent of 23.30%.” The said observation was made after noticing relevant facts and said observation cannot be a ground for review of judgment. 9. The further submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that this Court while issuing a direction for providing of abadi plots at the rate of 10% of the acquired land made no distinction with regard to Pushtaini and Gair Pushtaini farmers. The issue of Pushtaini or Gair Pushtaini was not raised before the Court and the directions No. 3(b) and 4 are were with regard to farmers whose land was acquired, hence the above is not a ground for review of the judgment. 10. Lastly Sri Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel submitted that there are two different percentages of allotment of the abadi plots with regard to Greater N.O.I.D.A. And N.O.I.D.A. He submitted that the authority itself had made difference in the ratio of the allotment of the abadi plot regarding N.O.I.D.A. and Greater N.O.I.D.A. He submits that ratio with regard to N.O.I.D.A. was 5% and Greater N.O.I.D.A. 6% (which was increased to 8% in case of land of village Patwari). 11. By issuing a direction for allotment of 10% developed plots we have not made any distinction between land of N.O.I.D.A. and Greater N.O.I.D.A. and the reasons for issuing the direction for allotment of abadi plots have already been mentioned in the judgment which are self evident. This ground is also not sufficient for review of the judgment. 12. 11. By issuing a direction for allotment of 10% developed plots we have not made any distinction between land of N.O.I.D.A. and Greater N.O.I.D.A. and the reasons for issuing the direction for allotment of abadi plots have already been mentioned in the judgment which are self evident. This ground is also not sufficient for review of the judgment. 12. We are of the view that no ground has been made out to review the judgment. The review application is rejected, subject to observations as made above. —————