#PIL Archives - Prime Legal

24 Aug

PIL In Allahabad High Court Against Development Authority Over Land Held For “New Kanpur City”

Prime Legal

Blog #allahabad, #allahabadhighcourt, #PIL

CASE TITLE: Prantesh Narayan Bajpeyi v. State Of Up And 4 Others [WPIL No. – 1889 of 2023]

DECIDED ON: 21.08.2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Pritinker Diwaker,Chief Justice Hon’ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

INTRODUCTION

On Monday, the Allahabad High Court addressed a public interest litigation concerning the lack of action from the Kanpur Development Authority regarding the land that was acquired through a notification in 1996 for the purpose of establishing the “New Kanpur City” and a residential colony under the development authority.

A total land area of 464.6965 hectares was intended for acquisition from seven villages based on the notification issued on August 9, 1996, for the creation of the “New Kanpur City”. This acquisition was contested by several individuals before the Allahabad High Court, which subsequently invalidated the notifications in 1999.

FACTS

Subsequently, the Supreme Court, in the context of Special Leave Petitions, upheld the validity of the notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. However, it invalidated certain aspects of the Section 6 notifications, directing the need for a fresh evaluation under Section 5A. During the ongoing Special Leave Petition proceedings, multiple requests were made to the Kanpur Development Authority to allocate funds for compensating landowners.

As a result, new declarations under Section 6 of the Act were issued in 2005. The designation of the project changed from “New Kanpur City” to “Residential Colony of Kanpur Development Authority.” These declarations faced legal challenges in the High Court, leading to the annulment of notifications associated with filed petitions. Subsequently, fresh notifications were put forth.

The petitioner presented various records of Authority board meetings to establish that it had been consistently conveyed that the project had lost its effectiveness. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that private individuals had already constructed on their lands and were living peacefully. The Authority’s actions under the guise of the scheme were allegedly infringing upon Article 300A of the Indian Constitution by disturbing the peaceful possession of land.

The petitioner’s counsel asserted that there was a status-quo order in effect during the proceedings in both the High Court and the Apex Court. The scheme initially aimed to acquire land from seven villages for the “New Kanpur City,” but this was purportedly and arbitrarily modified to the “Residential Colony of Kanpur Development Authority.” Allegations are made that the possession of 111.8468 hectares of land, out of the total 464.6965 hectares, was taken unlawfully.

There are concerns about the remaining land, currently in private possession and already built upon, not under the control of the Kanpur Development Authority. Additionally, it was conveyed that the State Government declined the proposal from the Kanpur Development Authority for advancing both the “New Kanpur City” project and the establishment of a residential colony.

While the Kanpur Development Authority acknowledged holding 111.8468 hectares of land, the counsel indicated that due to the scattered nature of the land in their possession, negotiations with the landholders were underway to make the scheme more viable.

CASE ANALYSIS AND DECISION

Ordering the involved parties to uphold the current situation, the bench composed of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava remarked,

“In light of the arguments presented by the learned Senior Counsel representing the Petitioner, and recognizing that the Respondent Development Authority possesses only a portion of the land and the feasibility of the proposed ‘New Kanpur City’ scheme is currently uncertain, it is decreed that the parties shall maintain the existing status-quo. However, the Kanpur Development Authority is permitted to engage in negotiations with the tenure holders.”

The case has been scheduled for hearing on October 16, 2023.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Click to view the Judgement.

Written by- Mansi Malpani

7 Aug

The Conversion of the Ordnance Factory Board Into Corporations Is in the National Interest: Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #delhihighcourt, #dismiss, #HighCourt, #majoor, #majoorunion, #PIL, #union

Title: Bharatiya Pratiraksha Mazdoor Sangh v. Union of India & Anr.

Decided on: 3rd August, 2023

+ W.P.(C) 8056/2022 and C.M. Nos. 24455/2022, 24456/2022 & 13262/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Introduction

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the Centre’s decision to convert the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) into seven corporations. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula opined that the move to corporatize the OFB is in the national interest and does not violate any constitutional rights guaranteed to citizens. The Court’s decision came in response to a PIL filed by the Bharatiya Pratiraksha Mazdoor Sangh (BPMS), a federation of trade unions representing workers in defense installations, including the Ordnance Factory Board.

Facts

The BPMS filed a PIL against a Gazette notification issued by the Government of India on October 1, 2021, which proposed the conversion of the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) into seven major corporations. The petitioner federation raised several grievances in the writ petition, claiming that the workers’ views were ignored, there was an abuse of power by the government, arbitrariness, and a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that the government’s action suppressed the constitutional rights of government servants and silenced their voices. The petitioner sought to quash the Gazette notification, restrain the respondents from implementing it further, and seek appropriate orders in the interest of justice.

Analysis

The respondents, representing the Government of India, justified the policy decision, stating that it aimed to enhance functional autonomy, efficiency, and production in the interest of the nation. They assured that the service conditions and retiral benefits of existing OFB employees would be safeguarded as Central Government employees, and their pension liabilities would continue to be borne by the government. However, despite the government’s efforts to explain the benefits and protect the interests of the employees, the BPMS expressed its intention to go on an indefinite strike. In response, the government enacted the Essential Defence Services Act to ensure an uninterrupted supply of ordnance items to the armed forces and maintain essential defence services.

Held

The Delhi High Court, after a thorough consideration of the arguments, held that the government’s policy decision to convert OFB into seven corporate entities was in the national interest and aimed to enhance functional autonomy, efficiency, and innovation in Ordnance Factories. The Court emphasized that the power of policy-making lies solely with the executive, and the Courts cannot bind the government to its policy decisions taken in public and national interest. Moreover, the Court observed that the decision does not violate any constitutional rights guaranteed to citizens. It is well-established that Courts should not interfere with policy decisions made in the national interest. Therefore, the PIL was dismissed as the interests of the employees had been adequately protected by the government.

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to view Judgement

1 Jun

Andhra Pradesh High court disposed a PIL by directing the respondents to undertake the identification of unauthorized encroachments over subject land and take steps for removal of such.

Prime Legal

Blog #andhrapradeshhighcourt, #PIL, #primelegal, #writ

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

LINGIREDDY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

BENCH – HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 67 OF 2023

DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 11 MAY 2023

INTRODUCTION –

This case is about the writ petition direct the respondents concerned to undertake and complete the exercise of identification of unauthorized occupations/constructions/encroachments over the subject land and taking steps for removal of such encroachments/unauthorized constructions by following the relevant rules and the principles of natural justice.

The relevant provision followed in this case are as follows –

The Constitution of India 1949

Article 226 Power of High Courts to issue certain writs –

Any High Court may issue directions, orders, or writs, including those in the nature of writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto, and certiorari, or any of them, to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories, regardless of what Article 32 says. These writs may be used to enforce any of the rights granted by Part III and for other purposes.

ARTICLE 14 RIGHT TO EQUALITY

All people residing on Indian territory have a right to equality before the law and equal protection under the law, according to Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. According to this clause, no one shall be denied equality before the law or national legal protection. This implies that everyone has a right to equal treatment under the law regardless of caste, religion, gender, race, or place of birth. Article 14 forbids discrimination and encourages justice and impartiality in the administration of the law.

Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty

The fundamental rights to life and individual freedom are guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It declares that no one may be robbed of their life or personal liberty until doing so in accordance with the legal process. The protection provided by this article prevents the state or any other authority from arbitrarily denying people their right to live in dignity and freedom. The judiciary has construed it to cover a wide range of rights, such as the right to privacy, the right to a healthy environment, the right to life, and the right to livelihood.

FACTS

This writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation has been preferred seeking to issue a Writ (Writ of Mandamus), declaring the inaction of the Respondents particularly the 2nd respondent(The District Collector) in not taking any action on complaint of the petitioner’s Society by way of Spandana request as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the Respondents particularly the 2nd respondent to remove the illegally and unauthorized compound wall or any other structures allotted to the burial ground in lands of situated at Peddaorampadu revenue village, Lingareddypalli village Obulavaripalli Mandal YSR Kadapa District (now in Annamayya District) and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice.

No steps were taken by the Government and its authorities in protecting the government lands. As the public authorities are failing in their duties in protecting the government lands, which are meant for the common use of general public, despite bringing to their notice, public spirited persons are approaching this Court to intervene and direct the public authorities to protect the government lands from encroachments.

JUDGEMENT

In view of the allegation that illegal and unauthorized constructions are made in burial ground situated in the land in at Peddaorampadu revenue village, Lingareddypalli village, Obulavaripalli Mandal, YSR Kadapa District (now in Annamayya District), this hon’ble court direct the respondents concerned to undertake and complete the exercise of identification of unauthorized occupations/constructions/encroachments over the subject land, within a period of two months from today, and thereafter, take steps for removal of such encroachments/unauthorized constructions by following the relevant rules and the principles of natural justice, i.e., issuing notice and providing opportunity of hearing to the unauthorized occupants/ encroachers, within a further period of four months. So, this hon’ble court has disposed of this Writ Petition (PIL).

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN

Click here to view judgement