Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 386 (ALL)

Manish Kumar Patel v. State Of U. P.

2024-02-06

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who claims to be the resident of village Wari at district Prayagraj, challenging a notification issued by the State Government dated 25.9.2023, under Section 2(d) of the U.P. Industrial Development Act, 1976, whereby various villages including village Wari has been included within the territorial limits of the U.P. Expressways Industrial Development Authority (UPEIDA). The notification is primarily challenged on the ground that the petitioner, who is agriculturist of the village would now be prevented from undertaking any agricultural activity on his own land. It is also submitted that on account of the notification under challenge the petitioner would be prevented from raising construction of his house etc. It is also submitted that the petitioner's right to live would also be affected. 3. Petition is opposed by the learned State counsel as also Sri J.B. Singh, learned counsel for the second respondent, on the ground that the notification issued by the State is perfectly just and valid and requires no interference. 4. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions contained in the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 (U.P. Act No. 6 of 1976). This Act has been passed by the State Legislature to provide for Constitution of an Authority for the development of certain areas in the State into industrial and urban township and for matters connected therewith. Section 2(d) of the Act contains definition of 'Industrial Development Area' to mean an area declared as such by the State Government by notification. The Authority has been defined under Section 2(b) to mean an Authority constituted under Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 of the Act empowers the State Government to constitute an Industrial Development Authority for any industrial development area notified under Section 2(d). 5. Section 3(1) of the Act reads as under: "The State Government may, by notification, constitute for the purposes of this Act, An authority to be called (Name of the area) Industrial Development Authority, for any industrial development area." 6. By virtue of sub-section 2 of Section 3, the Industrial Development Authority is to be a body corporate. The Constitution of the members of the Authority is then specified in Section 3. The functions of the Industrial Development Authority have been specified in Section 6 of the Act. By virtue of sub-section 2 of Section 3, the Industrial Development Authority is to be a body corporate. The Constitution of the members of the Authority is then specified in Section 3. The functions of the Industrial Development Authority have been specified in Section 6 of the Act. The object of the Authority is to secure the planned development of industrial development area. For the purposes of such planned industrial development of the area, powers are given to the Industrial Development Authority to demarcate and develop sites for industrial, commercial and residential purpose according to the plan; to provide infrastructure for industrial, commercial and residential purposes; to provide amenities and to do other ancillary functions as are specified in Section 6 including to regulate the erection of buildings and setting up of industries. Section 7 confers power upon the Authority to transfer its land or buildings. Powers of the Authority to issue various directions are contained in Section 8. Section 9 of the Act contains an embargo whereby no person is authorised to erect or occupy any building in the industrial development area in contravention of any building regulations made by the Authority. The Authority is conferred jurisdiction to require proper maintenance of site or building or levy tax etc. Various provisions of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 have also been incorporated in the Act of 1976. 7. From the scheme of the Act as has been noticed above, it is apparent that the State Government is competent in law to issue a notification under Section 2(d) of the Act and thereby any area declared by the State Government by notification would be treated as an industrial development area. This industrial development area will have to be for a particular Industrial Development Authority constituted under Section 3 of the Act. The notification herein clearly reveals that the villages specified in the schedule to the notification would be included in the area of UPEIDA. The power of the State to declare an area as industrial development area under the Act of 1976 is not questioned. The notification under challenge is thus shown to have been issued in exercise of valid authority vested in the State by virtue of Section 2(d) of the Act of 1976. 8. The power of the State to declare an area as industrial development area under the Act of 1976 is not questioned. The notification under challenge is thus shown to have been issued in exercise of valid authority vested in the State by virtue of Section 2(d) of the Act of 1976. 8. The first argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that specific reasons have not been disclosed as to why the land earmarked in the schedule to the notification are proposed to be included in the industrial development area. This argument of the petitioner does not appeal to the Court, inasmuch as the law does not require any exhaustive explanation to be given in the notification under Section 2(d) of the Act as to why a particular area is required to be included in the industrial development area of the concerned Industrial Authority. It is always the prerogative of the State to include a particular area within the limits of the Industrial Development Authority. There is nothing stated in the petition which may show the notification to be malafide or arbitrary. The respondent Industrial Development Authority has been constituted essentially for development of industrial areas near-by the expressways. It is undisputed that village Wari situates in close vicinity to National Highway No. 2. There is no allegation in the writ that the land included in the limits of the respondent Industrial Development Authority is included for some oblique purpose or that there is a colourable exercise of power exercised by the State, in that regard. In the absence of any such plea, we are not inclined to accept the petitioner's argument that the land of village Wari cannot be included in the industrial development area only because specific reasons have not been enumerated in that regard. 9. The other contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner would be prohibited from undertaking any agricultural activity on his land. This argument is wholly misconceived. The Act of 1976 empowers the State to constitute Industrial Development Authority for development of certain areas according to the plan for industrial development. The Authority would be empowered to exercise such jurisdiction and functions as are specifically entrusted to it under the Act of 1976. The Authority would be entitled to regulate the development in the notified industrial development area and to ensure that the development in such area is not unplanned. 10. The Authority would be empowered to exercise such jurisdiction and functions as are specifically entrusted to it under the Act of 1976. The Authority would be entitled to regulate the development in the notified industrial development area and to ensure that the development in such area is not unplanned. 10. We find no reason to object to such planned industrial development of the area. The State otherwise has the right to acquire land for valid purpose in accordance with law. Unless the land is acquired for a valid purpose, as per law, the agriculturist would continue to use his land for agricultural purpose. It is not shown in the writ that any of the agricultural activity in the area is proposed to be obstructed merely on inclusion of the land of village Wari in the limits of the Industrial Development Authority. The agricultural activities which are being undertaken by the petitioner would continue unless the petitioner's land itself is acquired in accordance with law. The argument that the petitioner would be deprived of utilising his agricultural land is therefore found misconceived. 11. In view of the deliberations and discussions as above, we find the writ petition to have no force and is accordingly dismissed.