Allahabad High Court sets aside restrictions on transfer of agricultural land in Noida flood plains

The Allahabad High Court recently quashed the Uttar Pradesh government decision to mandate prior permission from district authorities before transfer of agricultural land in the flood plain zone of Hindon and Yamuna rivers in Noida and Greater Noida [Suresh Chand and others vs State of UP and Others]..The decision restricting the registration of sale deeds was taken by the State in exercise of powers under the UP Industrial Area Development Act and the Disaster Management Act to prevent illegal constructions in the area, following a resolution by the District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) and an order of the Gautam Buddh Nagar District Magistrate in 2021.The division bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar said the failure of the authorities to stop the illegal constructions in the area cannot be covered by such a decision to prohibit transfer of agricultural land on which there is no construction.The same would amount to violation of Article 300A of the Constitution, the Court said.“Under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, every citizen has right to acquire, sell and dispose of property. Any restrictions imposed upon a person by the authority in disposing of his own property would amount to violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India," the Court said. However, if the restrictions are reasonable as held by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar vs. Project Uchcha Vidya, Sikshak Sangh, the same can be imposed provided it does not violate the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India, the Court added..But the restrictions in this case are not reasonable since Disaster Management Act does not give any such power to the District Magistrate to put restriction on the transfer of property in the subject area between River Hindon and River Yamuna flood plain zone, the Court underscored.It will be arbitrary and discriminatory to place restrictions on sale and purchase of agricultural land of farmers, the Court added.“Here, in the instant case, the restrictions imposed by the respondents are not reasonable restrictions though it is only of asking for “No Objection Certificate” from the authority before execution of sale deed. The authority is in fact nobody to grant “No Objection Certificate” to the vendor. Even the Statute does not authorize the respondent to impose such kind of condition wherein a vendor is forced to go and take “No Objection Certificate” from NOIDA.”.The Court also observed that illegal constructions do not happen without connivance of the authorities and thus called it surprising that instead of taking action against them, the government was creating impediments for farmers who want to sell their land. “We fail to understand as to how in the presence of the authority and its officers, such illegal constructions in flood plain zone has been coming up. It is even more surprising to see that now the respondents have relegated the vendors to go to the same authority to take “No Objection Certificate”. It is just like asking “fox to guard the henhouse”. The authority which is clearly responsible for mushrooming of illegal colonies in the flood plain zone are now being asked to give “No Objection Certificate”. In our considered view, this amounts to complete mockery of the system,” the Court said..Accordingly, the Court quashed the DDMA resolution, the Officer Memorandum of the District Magistrate and the Government Order passed in July this year. Senior Counsel Navin Sinha and Rahul Sripat along with advocates Raghuvansh Misra, Devansh Misra, Ishir Sripat, Abhay Pratap Singh, Sanjay Kumar, Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Mahendra Singh, Ram Prakash, Sanjay Dwivedi, Ajay Singh Yadav and Nitin Sharma represented the petitioners.Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal and Standing Counsel FA Ansari represented the State.Advocates Kaushalendra Nath Singh and Aditya Bhushan Singhal represented the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA)..[Read Judgment]