SC restrains DLF from creating 3rd party rights in Noida land

The Supreme Court has restrained reality major DLF from creating any third party rights on a portion of land where it has constructed the 'Mall of India' in Noida area of Uttar Pradesh.

The court's interim order came on an appeal filed by several land owners against the Allahabad High Court verdict dismissing their petition on the ground of delay.

"Post the special leave petition for hearing on January 25, 2017. Till the disposal of the special leave petition, there shall be no creation of further third party rights in respect of the property belonging to the petitioners/ applicants," a bench of justices Kurian Joseph and R F Nariman said.
 

The appeal filed by several land owners said the act of the UP government, Department of Industries, the district magistrate and New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) in allotting the land which is in dispute with DLF Universal Ltd, and executing the land's lease deed in its favour prior to its acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, is "totally illegal, malafide and smells of favoritism".

Senior advocate Sanjeev Sen and advocate Kamal Mohan Gupta, who appeared for the land owners, argued that the acquisition was completely illegal and bad in the eyes of law.

"The lease of the land was executed by NOIDA authority much prior to its acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. Also mandatory conditions laid down under the Act were not followed. Notice under section 9 was not given.

"The urgency clause under the Act was invoked in malafide and there was no urgency to invoke the said clause under section 17 of the Act. The land was acquired for industrial development of the area but was illegal allotted to DLF for constructing a mall," Sen argued .

The counsel said DLF had constructed the 'Mall of India' building at sector 18, NOIDA, on the land, a part of which belonged to the petitioners.

The appeal also sought stay of the high court's February 2014 judgement saying the delay, if any, in approaching the high court was not deliberate as they had no knowledge about various notifications and the award.

The plea alleged "this case is a glaring example of how the officials of the State and Authority connive with big builders and deprive poor villagers of their land.