Islam and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39878 of 2023 Petitioner :- Islam And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gautam Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vinayak Nath Singh Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶1Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶2The petitioners have challenged the vires of Sections 9 and 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1976') and have also prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant permission to them to raise constructions with further prayer for a direction to the respondents not to acquire the land of the petitioners in future as it is their 'Abadi' land.

¶3It is not disputed that the subject land bearing Gata No.0.558 area 2.061 hectares and Gata No.130/1 area 2.202 hectares of Village Jhanjhar, Pargana and Tehsil Sikandrabad, District-Bulandshahr was notified as 'Industrial Development Area' under Section 2(d) of the Act, 1976.

¶4Counsel for the petitioner admits that there is typing mistake in 'paragraph 3' of the writ petition wherein he has stated that the subject land is situated in Village Ghaghar. He states that infact the land is situated in 'Village Jhanjhar' and not in 'Village Ghaghar'. According to him, it is an inadvertent typing mistake, therefore, we proceed on the basis that the subject land is situated in Village Jhanjhar.

¶5Indisputably, a notification dated 18.12.2015 was also issued under Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India declaring the land of Village Jhanjhar as 'Industrial Township'.

¶6The case of the petitioners is that Section 9 of the Act, 1976 is for obtaining permission and as per Section 10 of the Act,1976, if any construction is raised without permission of the Authority, the same is illegal, therefore, both the Sections are illegal, arbitrary and violative of the basic feature of the Constitution of India. It is also stated in paragraph 21 of the writ petition that similar controversy was decided by this Court in Writ C No.35545 of 2022 (Amrita Bhati v. State of U.P. And 3 Others) and it was dismissed by order dated 03.04.2023.

¶7Counsel for the petitioners concedes that the controversy involved herein is concluded by judgment dated 03.04.2023 in the aforesaid writ petition though the same is under challenge before the Supreme Court.

¶8Therefore, the instant petition is also dismissed for the reasons stated in the judgment and order dated 03.04.2023 passed in Writ C No.35545 of 2022. Order Date :- 13.12.2023 Jyotsana (Kshitij Shailendra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, A.C.J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad