The Allahabad High Court on Thursday set aside acquisition of nearly three hectares of land by Greater Noida Authority in Hazratpur village of Greater Noida. The petitioner had approached the court seeking quashing of the acquisition notification of 2009 on the ground that the urgency clause was illegally used.
A division bench, led by Justice Vineet Saran, passed the order, while hearing the petition filed by Udayveer Singh Bhati and four others. The court said the use of urgency clause was not justified in such acquisitions and that there were no third party interests created so far.
A total of nearly 73 had been acquired in Hazratpur and other villages by the Greater Noida Authority through notifications issued in March and November 2009.
- Twitter War Between Congress Leader Amarinder Singh & Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal
- Life Of Actor-Dancer Ashwini Ekbote Who Died During A Performance
- Idea Exchange With Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh
- PM Narendra Modi Bats For Equal Rights : Here What He Said On Triple Talaq
- Uncle Shivpal Targets Akhilesh, Claims CM Told Him He Will Form Another Party
- Pakistan Continues To Violate Ceasefire In RS Pura
- Samajwadi Party’s internal fight divides SP
- Cyrus Mistry Removed As Chairman of Tata Sons: Here’s What Happened
- Wreath Laying Ceremony Of Slain Soldier Sushil Kumar Observed
- Virat Kohli Powers India Home With Unbeaten 154
- Pakistan Resorts To Heavy Mortar Shelling, 1 BSF Jawan Dead, 3 Injured
- Bigg Boss 10 Weekend Ka Vaar: Priyanka Jagga Evicted
- Here’s How Much Army Welfare Fund Has After MNS Demanded Rs 5 Cr To Cast Pak Artistes
- Shiv Sena Chief Uddhav Thackeray Take A Jibe At MNS: Here’s What He Said
- Samajwadi Party Crisis Deepens: Here’s How It Will Impact UP Polls
Bhati and four others had approached the High Court last year alleging that neither had the Greater Noida Authority used the urgency clause (in which the provision for hearing out the owner of the land to be acquired is done away with) in a legal manner, nor had any development been carried out in the area.
“With these two things not happening, all the grounds existed for cancelling the acquisition,” M P Singh, the counsel for the petitioner, said.