Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30051 of 2015
Petitioner:- Fateh Singh Chauhan & 4 Others
Respondent :- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority & Another
Counsel for Petitioner :-
Shiv Sagar Singh,Shashi Nandan
Counsel for Respondent :-
Shivam Yadav
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Fateh Singh Chauhan and four others are before this Court with the request to quash the order 13.05.2015 passed by respondent no.2 and to restore the allotment of Plot No.M-131 Section 66 Noida measuring area
491.94 sq. mtrs. approved by the Chief Executive Officer, Noida on 01.05.2009 situated near Village Mamura, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautma Budha Nagar.
Brief background of the case, as is emanating in the present case, is that under U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, NOIDA Authority was constituted under Section 3 by the State Government by means of notification issued in the said direction. After constitution of the aforementioned NOIDA Authority, which is meant for the development and establishment in Gautam Budha Nagar, the Authority had carried out various development activities for the welfare of public at large in respect of Gautam Budh Nagar. It appears that NOIDA Authority in the year 1997 came up with the proposal/scheme to purchase the land belonging to the villagers by mutual consent particularly Village Mamura, which falls in the territorial limits of Gautam Budh Nagar, by providing that the incumbent has to transfer the land through registered sale deed in favour of NOIDA Authority so that the development activities could be expedited with great pace. Petitioners claimed to be owner of land Khasra No.117 M having area 5-0-0 situated in Village Mamura and it was agreed by the parties to
1
2
transfer the same through registered sale deed in favour of Authority and accordingly, the instrument was got registered on 28.06.2002. Under Clause 12 of the sale deed in question, it has been provided that respondents had to allot 10% of under developed acquired land and the 10% of total amount of sale consideration/compensation would be paid by the petitioners to the NOIDA Authority. This much is also reflected that later on it was agreed that the original residents of village, whose names were recorded in the revenue record and their land falls within the territorial limit of NOIDA Authority, are entitled to get benefit of the proposal of the Authority either by providing 10% un-developed land or 5% developed abadi land and the same was to be provided in lieu of transfer of land to the Authority by mutual consent and as such, it is sought to be contended that petitioners were liable to receive 5% of developed land, which comes to 491.94 sq. mtrs. The same was accorded approval by the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA Authority on 01.05.2009. But subsequently the same was cancelled and thereafter petitioner has proceeded to file the Writ Petition No.64733 of 2010 (Fateh Singh Chauhan and others vs. NOIDA and others) and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.10.2010 had passed an interim order in favour of petitioners to the following effect:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioners states that after issuance of such direction by NOIDA on 5.1.2009, the petitioners had acquired valuable right on the said plot. However, by the impugned decision of the respondents dated 24.6.2010 the allotment made in favour of the petitioners is sought to be cancelled on the ground that the land of the petitioners which was acquired was not ancestral agricultural land of the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the impugned decision has been taken without affording any opportunity or issuing show cause notice to the petitioners. It has further been submitted that as per the policy of 1998 as well as Clause-12 of the sale deed by which the respondent-NOIDA authority acquired the land, the petitioners were granted compensation plus 10% of the land which had been acquired. As such the petitioners have vested right over the plot assigned/allotted in their favour on 5.1.2009, which was only 5% of the acquired land.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, the petitioners have made out a prima facie case for grant of interim protection. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondents shall not create any third party right on the land in question being Plot No.M-131, Sector-66, area 491-94 sq. meters."
3
Finally after exchange of the affidavits, the said Writ Petition in question was allowed vide order dated 02.12.2014 on the sole ground that no opportunity of hearing was accorded to the petitioners and as such, the order impugned in the said Writ Petition was unsustainable and the matter was relegated to the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA to take a fresh decision in the matter after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners therein in accordance with law and thereafter the petitioners have proceeded to represent their claim before the Authority and the said claim was rejected by means of order impugned, which has been subjected to challenge by means of present Writ Petition.
From the record in question, this much is reflected that petitioners purchased the land in question from the heirs and legal representatives of Lakhmi Chand s/o Shiv Charan by virtue of registered sale deed dated 07.04.1997, 08.04.1997 and 15.04.1997. Initially, a patta was granted in favour of Lakhmi Chand in the year 1964 and as per the provisions contained in U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, after expiry of 10 years period, Lakhmi Chand claims to be the bhoomidhar of the said land with transferable right and as such, it is claimed that there was no dispute with regard to the ownership and title in respect of the aforesaid land and subsequently, the heirs of Lakhmi Chand had transferred the rights in favour of the petitioners by registered sale deed as indicated above. Thereafter, the land in question was transferred to the NOIDA Authority through registered instrument on 28.06.2002 and the total compensation in respect of land 5- 0-0 @ Rs.344.17 per square yard (determined approximately Rs.52,05,571/-) was paid to the petitioners but at the same time it is relevant to indicate that as per the Clause 12 of the agreement in question, 10% amount which came to the tune of Rs.5,20,557/- was deducted and the petitioners were actually paid with Rs.46,85,014/-. As per record, this much is also reflected that NOIDA Authority, in its General Meeting No.92 dated 07.01.1998, had resolved that the tenure holders who are the original resident of village, which duly fall within territorial limit of the NOIDA Authority prior to its establishment and their names are
4
recorded in revenue record, are entitled to get benefit as per the offer made by the NOIDA Authority to provide 5% developed abadi land or 10% un-developed land in lieu of transfer of land to the Authority by mutual consent.
Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, Advocate, has submitted that the claim of petitioners has been non-suited by the respondents on the ground that their case do not fall in the category of original tenure holders and even they do not fall under the ambit and definition of 'Pushtaini Kastkar' whereas the said rejection is unsustainable on the subsequent board meeting of Noida Board bearing No. 178 dated 11.1.2013 and by the said board meeting the benefit has also been extended to all tenure holders and, accordingly, 5% land was also extended to such category of persons whereas by the impugned order the Executive Officer of NOIDA Authority has placed his reliance on the office order dated 7.10.2014 wherein a policy decision has been taken not to extend any such benefit to the tenure holders, who had subsequently purchased the property from the patta holders and further he submits that once the petitioners have entered into an agreement and the property in question had been transferred to the NOIDA Authority through registered sale-deed in the year 2002 and, as such, the authority have no right to cancel/alter the terms and conditions and, as such, this Court should come to rescue and reprieve of the petitioners.
The claim of petitioners have been resisted by Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate by submitting that as a policy decision, the said benefit could only be extended to the original tenure holders, whose land had been taken away and who were displaced and as such, there is no arbitrariness in the order impugned and the present classification in question had been made strictly just to rehabilitate the incumbents, who have been uprooted from the land in question and their livelihood has also been taken away. He further make submissions that, in the present case, the Gaon Sabha/Land Management Committee had given patta in favour of Lakhmi
5
Chand s/o Shiv Charan at relevant point of time but the said patta specifically was given for agriculture activity but reason best known to the original lessee, who had transferred the property in question in favour of petitioners and consequently the said land in question has again been transferred in favour of the NOIDA Authority at the market rate, prevailing at the relevant point of time. The petitioners were never been the original bhumidhar and the scheme in question had been formulated to extend the benefit to the farmers, who were subjected to compulsory acquisition and as such, just to rehabilitate them the welfare scheme was formulated so that they could not be uprooted from their soil. As such, under the present facts and circumstances, as scope of intervention on the policy decision by the judicial forums is very limited, once the petitioners were not original owners of the land in question and as per policy decision, at this stage, no benefit can be extended to them, in view of this, no interference is required to be made in the matter.
After respective arguments have been advanced, the factual situation that is so emerging is that NOIDA Authority has been in the process of acquiring land and the said acquisition of land certainly had the impact of uprooting various tenure holders, who were the original tenure holders and in order to see and ensure that the original tenure holders, whose land has been acquired, qua them decision was taken by the Authority to make provision for allotment of land equivalent to 10% of their acquired holding subject to minimum of 40 sq. mts and maximum of 2500 sq. mts. so that such original residents of the area could be provided with alternative site as also for future expansion for their living etc. Similarly, additional 15% compensation in the name of rehabilitation bonus was also decided to be paid to them so that they could make provisions for their alternative livelihood. Additional 15% amount of compensation known as rehabilitation bonus is provided to those farmers whose name was recorded in revenue records as on 17.04.1976 i.e. the date of constitution of NOIDA Authority and this amount did not form part of compensation. The original residents whose land got acquired form
6
separate category and class of persons altogether and the decision of the Board to provide 10% alternative land and 15% rehabilitation amount was meant only for such original residents i.e. sons of soil of the area, and tiller of the land, and such benefit was not applicable to other persons whose land situated in Noida area but were not the original residents of it. The policy of the respondent NOIDA Authority to provide alternative land to the original residents is based on reasonable classification and has direct nexus with the object sought to be achieved i.e. proper rehabilitation of original residents-sons of soil of the area who are likely to become landless due to acquisition of their land. The aforesaid policy of the respondent NOIDA cannot be made applicable to those who are not original residents of the area, as they are not to suffer similar hardships as would be cause to the original residents and, therefore, such non-original residents are not entitled to the benefits available to the original residents. The Authority in its 92nd Authority meeting held on 07.01.1998 decided to provide 15% rehabilitation bonus and 10% abadi land (undeveloped) to the tenure holders whose name were recorded in revenue records and were residing in the village, they were called the original tenure holder (pushtaini). In the meeting it was further decided those tenure holders who purchased the land after the constitution of the authority and were residing in the village before the constitution of the authority will also be entitled for the benefit. The extract of the Authority 92nd Meeting is being quoted below:
** Lakpkyd e.My }kjk lE;d~ fopkj foe'kZ ds dze esa fuEukuqlkj fu.kZ; fy;k x;k %&
¼1½ uks,Mk izkf/kdj.k esa Hkh xzsVj uks,Mk ekMy viuk;k tk;sA ¼2½ ,e eq'r izfrdkj ds fu/kkZj.k esa dk'rdkjksa }kjk vU; xzkeksa esa izkIr okLrfod izfrdj dks ǹf"Vxr j[krsa gq, uks,Mk ds :0 225-00 izfr oxZ xt ,d eq'r izfrdj nj dks vuqeksfnr fd;k x;k gSA mDr nj esa izfro"kZ miHkksDrk ewY; lwpdkad dh okLrfod nj dks tksM+rs gq, vkxkeh o"kZ esa izfrdj nj fu/kkZfjr dh tkrh jgsxhA bl izdkj ,d eq'r nj vifjofrZr gksxhA
¼3½ uks,Mk izkf/kdj.k dh LFkkiuk ls iwoZ jkTkLo vfHkys[kksa esa ntZ [kkrsnkjksa dks 15 izfr'kr vfrfjDr iquokZl cksul ns; gksxkA uks,Mk izkf/kdj.k dh LFkkiuk ds ckn ftUgkasus Hkwfe [kjhnh gS] mUgsa ;g izfrdj ns; ugha gksxk exj ,sls [kkrsnkj ftUgsa caVokjs ds vk/kkj ij ckn esa [kkrsnkj ntZ fd;k gS] dks Hkh iquokZl cksul
7
ns; gksxkA ¼4½ xzke dh vkcknh dh lhek ls yxh Hkwfe esa dqN LFkku vkcknh ds fodkl ds fy;s vkjf{kr dh tk;sA vkcknh ds fy;s vkjf{kr dh tkus okyh Hkwfe vf/kxzfgr dh x;h dqy Hkwfe dk 10 izfr'kr vfodflr {ks=Qy gksxkA dsoy ijEijkxr d`f"k ij vk/kkfjr ifjokj] tks uks,Mk dh LFkkiuk ds iwoZ xkao ds fuoklh Fks] gh Hkwfe ikus ds fy;s vgZ ekus tk;sxsaA
¼5½ fnukad 1 vizSy] 1997 dks vk/kkj ekurs gq, fjQjsUl Lrj ij le>kSrk nkf[ky ij ykxw fd;k tk;sA eqvkotk fu/kkZj.k dk fl)kUr mlh Hkwfe ij ykxs gksxk ftldk vfHkfu.kZ; fnukad 1-4-1997 dks ;k mlds ckn fd;k x;k gSA vkilh lgefr ds vk/kkj ij vfHkfu.kZ; ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa jktLo vuqHkkx }kjk tkjh vf/klwpuk la0 2382@10Hkh&2&4¼3½@85&24&jSosU;w 13 fnukad 16-9-1997 mRrj izns'k Hkwfe vtZu fu;e 1997 ds vuqlkj yfEcr izLrkoksa esa ftykf/kdkjh ds le{k Hkh izkf/kdj.k ,oa dk'rdkjksa }kjk le>kSrk fd;k tk ldsxkA **
The Authority in its 96th Meeting held on 08.03.1999 further decided that the maximum allotment area of the acquired land will be 2500 sq. mt. And minimum will be 40 sq. mt. and the other benefits would be the same as per 92nd Authority Meeting qua the tenure holders whose livelihood was based on agriculture and were the resident of the village and their names were recorded in the revenue records before the authority was constituted i.e. on 17.04.1976.
** la[;k&8 vkolh; Hkou@¶ySV ds fujLrhdj.k ds mijkUr iquZLFkkiu dh n'kk esa fy, tkus okys iquZLFkkiu 'kqYd ds lEcU/k esaA
lapkyd e.My }kjk fopkjksijkUr vkolh; Hkou@¶ySV ds fujLrhdj.k mijkUr iquZ LFkkiu dh n'kk esa fy, tkus okys iquZLFkkiu 'kqYd esa ,d :irka ykus ds fy, fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; fy;k x;k &
;fn Hkou@¶ySV dk fujLrhdj.k iw.kZ Hkqxrku u djus ij iV~Vk izys[k fu"ikfnr dj dCtk xzg.k u djus ij rFkk fdlh vU; dkj.kksa ds QyLo:i fd;k tkrk gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa Hkou@¶ySV dk iquZLFkkiu fd, tkus ij] iquZLFkkiu 'kqYd Hkou@¶ySV dh dqy vkaofVr dher dk -5 izfr'kr /kujkf'k ¼iV~Vk izys[k fu"ikfnr u djus dh vFkZn.M ------- gq,½ fy;k tk,A
la[;k&9 lk¶Vos;j VSDuksyksth ikdZ ¼Hkkjr ljdkj dk laLFkku½ dks fuxZr _.k ij ns; n~.MkRed C;kt :i;s 2]65]974@& dh ------ ds lEcU/k esaA fopkjksijkUr lapkyd e.My }kjk ;g er O;Dr fd;k x;k fd lk¶Vos;j VSDuksyksth ikdZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds bYkDVª¨fud foHkkx dk laLFkku gS rFkk bldh LFkkiuk ls uks,Mk {ks= ds fodkl ,oa xkSjo esa òf) gqbZ gSA laLFkk }kjk _.k dh vkxkeh fd'rksa dks C;kt ds lkFk le; ij Hkqxrku Hkh fd;k gSA vr% lapkyd e.My }kjk laLFkk dks ------ _.k ij fnukad 10-10-94 ls 12-1-96 dh vof/k esa ns; n.MkRed C;kt ----- 2]65]974@& dks ekQ fd;s tkus dh Lohd`fr iznku dh xbZA la[;k&10 uks,Mk {ks= ds xkaoks dh vkoknh ds foLrkj ds fy, fodz; ;ksX; {ks=Qy dh vkoafVr fd;s tkus fOk"k;dA
fopkjksijkUr lapkyd e.My }kjk uks,Mk {ks= ds xkaoks dh vkoknh ds foLrkj ds fy, fodz; ;ksX; {ks=Qy dks vkoafVr fd, tkus okys fo"k; dh Lohd`fr xszVj uks,Mk ds iSVªu (Pattern) ij iznku dh xbZ rFkk funsZ'k fn, fd bl izdj.k
8
dks 'kklu dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr fd;k tk,A la[;k&11 ,E;wtesaV ikdZ dh LFkkiuk ds lEcU/k esaA lapkyd e.My }kjk mDr izjZrko o fopkj foe'kZ fd;k x;k rFkk uks,Mk {ks= esa lSDVj 38 esa 140 ,dM Hkwfe ij ,E;wtesaV ikdZ dh LFkkiuk gsrq ifj;kstuk [;kfr izkIr QeZ@dEiuh izkf/kdj.k ds lkFk la;qDr midze ds :i esa --------------uks,Mk izkf/kdj.k }kjk viuh 92oha cksMZ cSBd esa fnukad 7-1-98 dks ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd **xzke dh vkcknh dh lhek ls yxh Hkwfe esa dqN LFkku vkcknh ds fodkl ds fy, vkjf{kr dh tkosA vkcknh ds fy, vkoafVr dh tkus okyh Hkwfe vf/kxzfgr dh x;h dqy Hkwfe dk 10% vfodflr Js=Qy gksxkA dsoy ijEijkxr d̀f"k ij vk/kkfjr xzkeoklh tks fd uks,Mk dh LFkkiuk iwoZ xkao ds fuoklh Fks gh Hkwfe ikus ds fy, vgZ ekus tk;xsaA bl fcUnq ds laca/k esa izfdz;k vyx ls fd;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k FkkA blh dze esa izLrko izLrqr fd;k tk jgk gSA xzkeoklh o tu izfrfuf/k;ksa ls vke lgefr ds i'pkr ;fn blesa ifjorZu dh dksbZ vko';drk iM+rh gS rks cksMZ voxr djk;k tk;sxkA
¿dÀ xkao dh vkoknh ds lfUudV fLFkr Hkwfe dks fodkl ds fy, vf/kxzg.k ds mijkar fpfUgr fd;k tk;sxk RkFkk ,slh Hkwfe dk {ks=Qy vf/kxzfgr dh x;h Hkwfe ds fodz; ;ksX; {ks=Qy dk 10% gksxkA bl Hkwfe ij fodkl dk;Z djkdj ml ij gksus okys okLrfod O;; dks tksM+dj fcuk ykHk gkfu ds vk/kkj ij vkoaVu nj fu/kkZfjr dh tk;sxh rFkk dsoy ewy dk'rdkjksa dks gh bl Js.kh esa j[kk tk;sxkA ,slh Hkwfe dks fpfUgr fd;s tkus dk dk;Z fu;kstu foHkkx }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA
¿[kÀ xzke dh ewy vkcknh tks izkf/kdj.k dh LFkkiuk fnukad 17-4-76 ls iwoZ dh gS vkSj vkcknh esa ntZ gksrs gq, bldk iz;ksx vkcknh gsrq fd;k tk jgk gS rFkk og vkcknh tks vf/kxzghr dh tk jgh Hkwfe dh /kkjk 4@17 ds iwoZ dh gS vkSj ewy vkcknh ls nwj gS] mls mlh vuqikr esa fodkl {ks= esa O;o/kku vkus ij mls gVkdj xzke dh vkcknh ds gh fudV izLrkfor vkcknh ds lkFk lek;kstu fd;k tkuk izLrkfor gSA
¿xÀ vkcknh ds fy, Hkwfe vkoaVu dh U;wure lhek 40 oxZ ehVj rFkk vf/kdre lhek ,d [kkrsnkj ds ikl 12-5 ,dM Hkwfe ds vk/kkj ij 2500 oxZ ehVj izLrkfor gSA
¿?kÀ xzke dh ;g vkcknh tks /kkjk 4@17 dh vf/kxzg.k ds iwoZ dh gS fodkl {ks= es vkus ds dkj.k gVk;s tkus dh n'kk esa rFkk vU;= Hkwfe vkoaVu djus ij iwoZ vkcknh ds fy, d`"kd }kjk fuekZ.k esa fd;s x;s O;; dks fu;ekuqlkj Depriciation djrs gq, ifjlEifRr;ksa ds izfrdj ds :i esa Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk izLrkfor gSA
vkcknh d foLrkj -------------------fu/kkZfjr nj ds vfrfjDr voLFkkiuk lqfo/kk;sa O;;] iz'kklfud O;;] xzke fodkl nj izfr oxZ ehVj [kpsZ dh nj dks lfEefyr djrs gq, vkoaVu ds fy, ewY; fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkuk izLrkfor gSA
¿NÀ izLrkfor vkoknh ds fy, vkjf{kr Hkwfe es Hkou fuekZ.k ds fy, ljy fcfYMax ekbZykt ykxw fd;k tkuk izLrkfor gSA
¿tÀ izLrkfor vkcknh esa Hkw[k.M vkoaVu dh izfdz;k esa ykVjh Mªk dh i)fr viukbZ tk;sxhA
¿>À vkcknh ds fy, Hkwfe vkoaVu eas iV~Vk izys[ku esa gksus okyk O;; iV~Vk /kkjd }kjk ogu fd;k tk;sxkA
mDr izLrko cksMZ ds fopkjkFkZ izLrqr gSA**
The Authority in its 101st, 102nd and 130th Meeting held on
9
13.07.2000, 30.09.2000 and 19.12.2005 retained the same decision. The Authority in its 146th Meeting held on 10.09.2007, Meeting 154th held on 18.09.2008 and the Meeting 159th held on 20.02.2009 once again retained the same benefits as decided by the authority in its 92nd 96th and 101st authority meeting. The decision was modified to the extent that only those tenure holders (original resident) will be entitled for 5% develop abadi land in which the possession or the award was passed after 01.04.1997. There is no issue on this fact that the NOIDA Authority has framed and formulated rehabilitation scheme and for the welfare of the villagers, resolution had also been passed by the NOIDA Authority to extend the benefits so that displaced persons could be rehabilitated. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that displacement and rehabilitation has always been the matter of concern and in order to answer this issue we will have to examine as to what is the purport and object of rehabilitation. Displacement/Rehabilitation has always been a matter of concern whenever the matter has travelled before the Court and such a concern has been expressed in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan Case 2010 (10) SCC 664, wherein Apex Court has proceeded to make a mention that rehabilitation is not only about providing food, clothes or shelter, it is also about extending support to re-root livelihood by ensuring necessary amenities of life and and rehabilitation of the oustees is a logical corollary of Article 21. The oustees should be in a better position to live a decent life and earn livelihood in the rehabilitated locations. The rehabilitation creates a sense of confidence amongst the oustees and they will be in a better position to start their life by accommodating themselves with the new environment. The said view in question has been reiterated in the case of N.D. Jayal vs. Union of India 2004 (9) SCC 362 giving emphasis on rehabilitation in reference of the oustees. In the present matter, as indicated above, the NOIDA Authority in its 178th Meeting dated 11.01.2013 has held that those tenure holders, who have become agricultural allottee/leaseholders after establishment of
10
NOIDA Authority and who were Pustaini Kastakars of the village from before 17.04.1976 i.e. the date of establishment of Noida, having their names recorded in the revenue records as Bhoomidhar with transferable rights on the date of notification of Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shall be given the benefit of 5% abadi land; provided that no suit is pending in any Court of law seeking cancellation of the acquisition in respect of the lease land in question acquired from any Bhoomidhar having transferable rights.
It is relevant to indicate that there is a great distinction in between Pustaini Kastakar and Non-Putaini Kastakar and the Authority, as per their own wisdom, keeping in mind that on account of development of Industrial Area the original residents of area which form part of NOIDA Authority are facing hardship on account of acquisition of their land resulting in taking up of their existing place of living and agriculture land and they were likely to be rendered landless, had formulated the beneficiary provisions which had been extended to Pustaini Kastakars.
No doubt certain alterations have also been made in the subsequent Board resolutions, but in the present matter what we find from the record in question is that Gaon Sabha/Land Management Committee had granted patta in favour of Lakhmi Chand s/o of Shiv Charan in the year 1964 and thereafter the heirs and legal representatives of Lakhmi Chand eventually claimed that they were declared as Bhoomidhar with transferable rights and thereafter on the said declaration being made, the property in question was subsequently transferred to the petitioners through registered sale deeds dated 07.04.1997, 08.04.1997 and 15.04.1997 and thereafter, the petitioners have also entered into registered sale deed dated 28.06.2002 with NOIDA Authority. It is also apparent from record that the land of petitioners situated in Village Mamura, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautma Budha Nagar in Gata No.155/Khasra No.117-M measuring 5 bighas equivalent to 9838.89 sq. mts. and as such, the entire claim has been set up on the basis of Board resolution dated 07.01.1998
11
whereby as a policy decision 5% of developed land had been claimed by the petitioners, which comes to 491.94 sq. mts. This much is accepted position that the same was approved by the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA Authority on 01.05.2009, but subsequently the same was cancelled and subjected to litigation and initially the claim has been non-suited by the Chief Executive Officer of the NOIDA Board on the ground that as per the 178th Meeting dated 11.01.2013, wherein it was resolved that the said benefit could not be extended to those incumbents, who were not original tenure holders. It is relevant to indicate, at this stage, that on the basis of said Board Meeting, Office Order dated 07.10.2014 had also been issued and the same has been brought on record as CA-I by which it had been taken as a policy decision not to accord 5% abadi land to persons, who have purchased the land from the original tenure holders, who had obtained lease/patta from the Gaon Sabha. The relevant extract of order dated 07.10.2014 is extracted below:
"orZeku esa 5 izfr'kr vkcknh Hkw[k.M vkcaVu ds laca/k esa ukS,Mk dh uhfr ds vuqlkj ukS,Mk dh LFkkiuk o"kZ 1976 ds i'pkr ds d̀f"k iV~Vsnkjksa dks 5 izfr'kr vkcknh Hkw[k.M ns; ugha gS D;ksafd jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa lacaf/kr xkVs] iV~Vsnkjh dh ugha cju xzke lekt dh Hkwfe ds :i esa vafdr gSA ,sls Hkwfe ghu vFkok lhekar d̀"kd ftUgas 'kklu dh uhfr ds vuqlkj rFkk m0iz0 tehnkjh fouk'k vf/kfu;e ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vUrxZr muesa lkekftd o vkfFkZd mUu;u gsrq ukS,Mk dh LFkkiuk ds i'pkr d̀f"k Hkwfe dk vkcaVu fd;k x;k Fkk] dh ekax ij lgkuHkwfr iwoZd fopkj djrs gq, iq'rSuh d"̀kdkas dks vuqeU; ykHk mUgsa Hkh fn;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA
ukS,Mk ds LFkkiuk ds ckn ds d`f"k iV~Vsnkj tks ukS,Mk dh LFkkiuk frfFk 17-04-1976 ds iwoZ ls xzke ds iq'rSuh fuoklh gks rFkk tks jktLo vfHkys[kksa eas Hkwfe&v/;kfIr vf/kfu;e 1894 dh /kkjk 6 dh vf/klwpuk dh frfFk dks ladze.kh; Hkwfe/kj gks rFkk ftUgs iq'rSuh nj ls izfrdj Hkh izkIr gqvk gks] dks 5 izfr'kr vkcknh Hkw[k.M fn;s tkus ds laca/k esa fuEu O;oLFkk dh tkrh gSA ukS,Mk dh LFkkiuk ds ckn ds d̀f"k vkcaVh@iV~Vhnkj] tks ukS,Mk dh LFkkiuk frfFk 17-04-1976 ds iwoZ ls xzke ds iq'rSuh fuoklh gks rFkk tks jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa Hkw&vtZu vf/kfu;e 1894 dh /kkjk 6 dh vf/klwpuk dh frfFk dks ladze.kh; Hkwfe/kj ntZ gks x;s gksa rFkk ftUgsa iq'rSuh izfrdj Hkh fn;k x;k gks dks 5 izfr'kr vkcknh Hkw[k.M vkcaVu dk ykHk bl 'krZ ds lkFk fn;k tk;sxk dh iz'uxr iV~Vs dh Hkwfe] tks ladze.kh; Hkwfe/kjh gksus ds ifj.kke Lo:i vftZr dj yh x;h gks] ds fujLrhdj.k dk okn fdlh Hkh U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu u gksA ;g yk'k dsoy ewy d`f"k vkcaVh vFkok mlds okfjlksa dk gh ns; gksxk rFkk d̀f"k iV~Vs ds ifj.kke Lo:i ladze.kh; vf/kdkj okyh Hkwfe dh dzrk dks] pkgs og fdlh Hkh xzke dk fuoklh gks] ;g ykHk ns; ugh gksxkA vtZu ,oa dz; Hkwfe ds lkis{k ns; izfrdj ,oa 5 izfr'kr vkcknh Hkwfe vkcaVu ds laca/k esa iwoZ ls ykxw vU; fu;e o 'krsZ ;Fkkor jgsxhA mDr vkns'k ,sls d̀f"k vkcafV;ksa ij izHkkoh ugha jgsxk ftUgsa iwoZ esa xSj iq'rSuh nj ls izfrdj izkIr gks pqdk gS vkSj u gh mUgsa vc
12
iq'rSuh izfrdj fn;s tkus ij fopkj fd;k tk;sxkA mijksDr vkns'k rRdky izHkko ls ykxw gksxsA"
Once, the Authority has taken a prudent decision, not to extend such benefit to such category of persons and at no point of time petitioners have challenged the said policy, we are of the considered opinion that no interference in the policy matter is required as it is settled legal proposition that the policy decision taken by the State or its authorities/ instrumentalities is beyond the purview of judicial review unless the same is found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or in contravention of the statutory provisions or violates the rights of the individuals guaranteed under the statute.
In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, AIR 1984 SC 1543, Hon'ble the Apex Court considered the scope of judicial review in a case of policy decision and held that the Court cannot sit in judgement over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the Legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be the policy evolved by the legislature and sub-ordinate regulation making body. It may be wise policy, which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy.
In Tamil Nadu Education Deptt., Ministerial and General Sub-ordinate Services Association v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1980 SC 379, the Supreme Court while examining the scope of interference by the Court in public policy held that the Court cannot strike down a circular/ Government Order or a policy merely because there is variation or contradiction. What is important is to know whether malafide vitiates or irrationality and extraneous factor fouls. The Court held as under:-
13
"Once the principal is found to be rational, the fact that a few freak instances of hardship may arise on either side cannot be a ground to invalidate the order or the policy. Every cause claims a martyr and however unhappy we be to see the seniors of yesterdays becoming the juniors of today, this is an area where, absent arbitrariness and irrationality, the Court has to adopt a hands-off policy."
Once the claim of the petitioners is non-suited on the basis of 178 th Board Meeting dated 11.01.2013, which was clarified through Officer Order dated 07.10.2014 as has been indicated above, then we are of the considered opinion that in the policy matter, which is not arbitrary, unreasonable or in contravention of Statutory provisions, no interference is required in the matter.
With this, present Writ Petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :-14.09.2016 A. Pandey