Noida forgot objective after acquiring land: HC

The court said the Authority was formed under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Development Area Act (UPIADA) of 1976 with the main objective of developing it as an “industrial urban township”. However,it did not even seem to be allotting land for commercial ventures. The court also took note of excessive acquisition of fertile land by the Authority.

In its judgment delivered on Friday,through which it quashed land acquisition proceedings in three villages and allowed enhanced compensation in 56 villages,the special bench — comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan,S U Khan and V K Shukla — said: “We are of conclusive opinion that the dominant purpose of the Act is industrial development and the Authority,in its action,has not truthfully followed the objective of the Act. Several actions taken by it do not fall in line with the object of the Act.”

Following the receipt of petitions from several persons,stating that the main objective of the Authority was to develop an industrial town and not acquire land for the purpose of selling them to builders,the court had asked it to file counter-affidavits in that regard.

In its counter-affidavit,the Authority referred to the land use percentages that were fixed as per Master Plan-2021,which said that 23.2 per cent of the land would be used for residential purposes and 19.6 per cent for industrial. In supplementary affidavits,the Authority argued that out of the total acquired land,only 55 per cent of the area was saleable,and the rest was to be used for infrastructural purposes.

Going by details of acquisitions and allotments made by the Authority in at least 40 villages,the court came to the conclusion that after taking out the 45 per cent of the acquired area for infrastructural purposes,the actual area left for residential use was 85.3 per cent. “Out of this,23.3 per cent had been allotted to builders,” the court noted.

It further observed that the figures clearly supported the submission of petitioners that the Authority proceeded to allocate maximum land for residential use “going against its own Master Plan-2021”.

The court also said the Master Plan,in itself,was not approved by the National Capital Region Planning Board — which was mandatory.

Dealing with the purposes of the 1976 Act,the court said: “The state was conscious that industries cannot be developed in entire areas (of the state),and certain substantial pockets have to be identified and consciously developed.”

It added that any activity that went against the same “cannot be said to be within the bonafide and legitimate purpose of the Act”.

Referring to the “indiscriminate” acquisition of land,the court said that the Authority was under the misconception that it will have to necessarily acquire land for “planned development”. It said that instead of acquiring land under the Land Acquisition Act,it should have also looked at other options prescribed in the UPIADA – comprising “agreement” with land owners.