E-Paper
HC declines to grant stay
THE ALLAHABAD High Court has declined to grant stay on a writ petition challenging the notification dated August 29, issued by the State government under the Land Acquisition Act in respect to acquisition of land in Ghaziabad for the development of ?High Tech Township?. Advocate General SMA Kazmi, appearing on behalf of the State, assured the court that during the continuance of the hearing, the State government would not be taking any step for dispossession of the petitioners.
Ghaziabad land acquisition notification
THE ALLAHABAD High Court has declined to grant stay on a writ petition challenging the notification dated August 29, issued by the State government under the Land Acquisition Act in respect to acquisition of land in Ghaziabad for the development of ‘High Tech Township’.
Advocate General SMA Kazmi, appearing on behalf of the State, assured the court that during the continuance of the hearing, the State government would not be taking any step for dispossession of the petitioners. Passing this order, a division bench of Allahabad High Court comprising of Justice AK Yog and Justice Sanjay Mishra fixed October 11 as next date for hearing and directed the parties to exchange replies (affidavits) in the meantime. The court passed this order on a writ petition filed by M/s RP Tyagi and sons and several other petitioners.
It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the dispensation of the procedure under section 17 of Land Acquisition Act for the development of High Tech Township was tantamount to violation of the principles of chapter VII of the Land Acquisition Act.
Arguing on behalf of the respondents, Kazmi clarified that the issue was not covered by the provisions of chapter VII of the Land Acquisition Act. On the contrary, since the township was being developed on high-tech basis for public purpose and the scheme was for the benefit of people at large, therefore the action of the State had the protection of the Act.
However, since the argument could not be concluded, the court fixed October 11 for next hearing. The court observed that there was no occasion for granting any interim order in the aforesaid matter and refused to grant the same.
