Allahabad: The Allahabad high court on Friday reserved the judgment in the land acquisition cases filed by farmers of Noida, Greater Noida and Noida extension in Gautambudh Nagar district of UP.
The larger bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice S U Khan and Justice V K Shukla reserved the verdict after hearing the counsels of all the parties for more than a fortnight.
About 500 writ petitions were filed by farmers of about four dozen villages where their lands were acquired by Noida and Greater Noida authorities invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act that dispenses with the hearing required to be given to the land owners under Section 5-A of the Act.
The farmers had challenged the acquisition of 3,000 hectares arguing that the government had taken their valuable land at throwaway prices by invoking the “urgency clause” that even deprived them of an opportunity to raise objections.
Following that, a full bench began hearing the petitions filed by the farmers who had demanded quashing of acquisition proceedings.
The arguments of the petitioners’ counsel, apart from others, was mainly that the government changed the land use and gave their land to private builders. They claimed that their land was acquired for industrial purpose but was utilized otherwise.
The larger bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice S U Khan and Justice V K Shukla reserved the verdict after hearing the counsels of all the parties for more than a fortnight.
About 500 writ petitions were filed by farmers of about four dozen villages where their lands were acquired by Noida and Greater Noida authorities invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act that dispenses with the hearing required to be given to the land owners under Section 5-A of the Act.
The farmers had challenged the acquisition of 3,000 hectares arguing that the government had taken their valuable land at throwaway prices by invoking the “urgency clause” that even deprived them of an opportunity to raise objections.
Following that, a full bench began hearing the petitions filed by the farmers who had demanded quashing of acquisition proceedings.
The arguments of the petitioners’ counsel, apart from others, was mainly that the government changed the land use and gave their land to private builders. They claimed that their land was acquired for industrial purpose but was utilized otherwise.
0 comments:
Post a Comment