Introduction
On August 2, 2024, the Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI) withdrew its Public Interest Litigation (PIL) from the Allahabad High Court. The PIL sought directions to the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) and the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) for measures to ensure public access to their offices, which had been hampered by ongoing farmers' protests.
Background of the PIL
CREDAI filed the PIL in response to the ongoing protests by farmers outside the offices of NOIDA and GNIDA. The farmers were protesting for various demands, including additional compensation for acquired land, job reservations, and allotment of abadi land. These protests often led to the closure of the gates of the development authorities' offices, preventing public access and causing significant inconvenience to both the general public and developers. CREDAI argued that the protests, which lacked official sanction, were causing undue disruption to development projects and public services.
Concerns Raised by CREDAI
As a representative body for developers working on lands acquired by NOIDA and GNIDA, CREDAI expressed concern over the impact of these protests on development projects. They highlighted that the inability of developers to access the offices of the authorities was stalling progress and causing significant financial and operational setbacks. CREDAI's plea included a request for the authorities to allocate a designated area for farmers to protest after obtaining necessary permissions, thereby allowing uninterrupted access to the offices for the public and developers.
Legal Arguments and Relief Sought
CREDAI's petition sought several key directions from the High Court. They requested that NOIDA and GNIDA ensure public ingress and egress to their offices, allocate a designated protest area for farmers, and implement adequate security measures to prevent disruptions. Additionally, CREDAI sought a writ of mandamus against the State of Uttar Pradesh, directing it to provide adequate security around the offices of the development authorities to facilitate smooth functioning.
Hearing and Court's Decision
The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar. During the hearing, the bench listened to the arguments presented by CREDAI's counsel, which included advocates Akshat Sinha, Sanyukta Singh, and Tarun Agrawal. After considering the submissions, the Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, advising CREDAI to pursue an appropriate remedy in accordance with the law.
Implications of the Withdrawal
The withdrawal of the PIL signifies CREDAI's intention to explore alternative legal avenues to address the issues raised. This development underscores the complexities involved in balancing the rights of protesters with the need to ensure uninterrupted public services and development activities. It also highlights the judiciary's role in navigating such conflicts and providing guidance on appropriate legal remedies.
Conclusion
The case of CREDAI's PIL against the farmers' protests outside NOIDA and GNIDA offices reflects broader tensions between development interests and the rights of landowners and farmers. The Allahabad High Court's decision to dismiss the petition as withdrawn indicates the need for a more nuanced approach to resolving such disputes. As CREDAI seeks alternative legal remedies, the outcome of this case will likely have significant implications for future interactions between development authorities, developers, and protest groups. The ongoing dialogue between these stakeholders is crucial for achieving a balance that respects both economic development and the rights of affected communities.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.