TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 753X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l development cannot be said to be within the bonafide and legitimate purpose of the Act. The development of the residential area, commercial area and other areas have to be developed as subservient to industrial development. It is useful to note that in preamble of the Act two words have been used i.e. industrial and urban township . The words industrial and urban township are conjunctive and not disjunctive. The development of urban township is a corollary and conjunctive to industrial development. We thus are of conclusive opinion that dominant purpose of the Act is industrial development and the authority in its action has not bonafide and truthfully followed the objective of the Act and its several actions do not fall in line with the object of the Act which shall be referred to in this judgment in some detail hereinafter. It was stated in the writ petition that land was no more required for industrial purposes and acquisition has been made subject to Ghaziabad Development Authority. In the aforesaid context, the Division Bench held that when the land was acquired and taken over by the acquiring body for the purposes of industrial development, then it can be public or commerci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fty amount ranging from ₹ 10,000 to 20,000 per square metre. On the aforesaid ground and other grounds as noticed above, petitioners have approached the Court with delay, but the petitioners case is that since the facts elaborated above indicate that the respondents have played fraud and the acquisition was in colourable exercise of power, the delay in approaching the Court may not stand in their way in granting relief to them for which they are entitled in law. It is also relevant to note that in some of the cases in this bunch there are cases where the petitioners have immediately rushed to this Court and there is no delay in filing the writ petition for example with regard to Village Patwari which is under challenge, there are some writ petitions which were filed within the reasonable time and there is no delay in such writ petitions at all. We, however, cannot loose sight of the fact that the above grounds taken are not applicable to those writ petitioners, where the acquisition was finalised decades ago and allotment of private builders and colonisers which were complained of were not applicable in the aforesaid cases. Thus, apart from writ petitions which have been spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in proceeding to implement Plan 2021 without approval of N.C.R.P. Board and decisions taken to change the land use and builders' allotments made as well as indiscriminate proposals for acquisition of land and take an appropriate action in the matter. We are further of the view that Greater Noida Authority cannot proceed to implement Master Plan 2021 till it is permitted by N.C.R.P. Board. Greater Noida Authority shall ensure that no development by it or by its allottees be undertaken as per draft Master Plan 2021 till the same receives clearance by N.C.R.P. Board. We make it clear that it shall be open to carry on developments by Authority and its allottees as per earlier plan approved by N.C.R.P. Board. Invocation of Urgency Clause under Section 17(1) and 17(4): notifications issued u/s 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) - We are of the view that exercise of power by the State Government invoking Section 17(4)of the Act dispensing with inquiry u/s 5A of the Act is vitiated due to following reasons as discussed above:- (i) The original records of the State Government indicate that officers of the State Government did not advert to the issue of dispensation of inquiry u/s 5A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y - The crux of the matter is, whether urgency was such that summary enquiry u/s 5A was necessary to be dispensed with since acquisition could not have waited for few days few weeks. In this bunch of cases, the reason for invocation of urgency has been mechanically given in same words which has already been considered and found not valid. Further there is no proper explanation with regard to inordinate delay caused in issuing notification u/s 6 when section 4 notification was already issued by the State Government invoking urgency. Thus, the submission of the petitioners have substance that in large number of cases pre-notification and post-notification delay caused clearly indicates that the cases were not such so as to invoke sections 17(1) and Section 17(4). Colourable Exercise of Power - Petitioners' case in the writ petition is that the acquisition of agricultural land of the petitioners was in colourable exercise of power and was nothing but fraud on power. We are of the view that no exception can be taken to the power of the Authority to transfer or lease out the property as empowered by Section 7. We are, however, of the view that power under Section 7 has to be utilise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EME COURT] , even if the land is vacant the State authority has to go to the spot and prepare a Panchanama which ordinarily be treated as sufficient to constitute taking of possession. The possession memo filed by the State in the counter affidavit can not be termed to be a Panchanama since signatures of any Panch (independent witness) are absent. Thus the taking of possession by the respondent can not be said to be in accordance with the law. Thus we find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that possession was not taken by the State authorities of land in accordance with law and possession memo which has been filed by the State authorities can not be treated to be valid possession memo evidencing taking of possession. Vesting: T he issue is already concluded by the judgment of the apex Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan [ 2011 (5) TMI 914 - SUPREME COURT] . In writ petition pertaining to village Yakubpur was filed challenging the notification dated 26.9.2006 under section 4 read with Section 17(1) and Section 17(4) and notification under section 6 dated 19.1.2007. After the notification, the State had taken possession on 27.1.2007. The above judgmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a conclusion that merely because the land owners have accepted the compensation under the 1997 Rules, they cannot be said to have waived their right for the same reasons as given above. We are of the view that mere acceptance of compensation under the 1997 Rules, does not amount to acquiescence by the land owners. Third Party Rights and Construction: We, thus conclude that the effect and consequence of third party rights, developments and the constructions made after taking of the possession by the authorities is a relevant factor which shall hereinafter be considered while considering the issue as to what relief the petitioners are entitled. We are of the view that Division Bench Judgment in Harischand case is not to be approved whereas the view taken in the Division Bench Judgement in Har Karan Singh that the invocation of Section 17(4) was not justified is approved. Implementation of Master Plan 2021 - The court directed Greater NOIDA and its allottees not to carry on development or implement the Master Plan 2021 until the observations and directions of the National Capital Regional Planning Board are incorporated to its satisfaction. Allotment of Developed Plots to Landowners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40347, 40350, 40354, 40359, 40361, 40362, 40417, 40418, 40419, 40420, 40421, 40 422, 40423, 40424, 46673, 40338, 46933, 47469, 46501, 46042, 25464, 46501, 46042, 46044, 46045, 46046, 46049, 46395, 46397, 46488, 46491, 46492, 46494, 46495, 46497, 46503, 46563, 46566, 46732, 46733, 46735, 46736, 46737, 46740, 46747, 47451, 47477, 47481, 46050, 46500, 46564, 46489, 46487, 46130, 46364, 42324, 45672, 47502, 45450, 46160, 44181, 45345, 37119, 42455, 46071, 46358, 47119, 46631, 46663, 45328, 39385, 43623, 42196, 39037, 45537, 46638, 46644, 46127, 48209, 45072, 45558, 42548, 43870, 45454, 46026, 46165, 47281, 44695, 46767, 48067, 48068, 46742, 46751, 46755, 46761, 46769, 48071, 46771, 46775, 47068, 46776, 40621, 42098, 42100, 36775, 58310, 6281, 6281, 19985, 19987, 22692, 22693, 27539, 30022, 47406, 46671, 46128, 46481, 46399, 44714, 44715, 44718, 45013, 45014, 45015, 45603, 45605, 45617, 45620, 45631, 45633, 45635, 45637, 45638, 45640, 45641, 45629, 47010, 47015, 47017, 47476, 47479, 46744, 46422, 46669, 44233, 42200, 53365, 46717, 46716, 46720, 46772, 37109, 44388, 45355, 45349, 45353, 45409, 45411, 39819, 11189, 24839, 20505, 32980, 32979, 32976, 37054, 38688, 38689, 41118, 41221, 4130 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act hereinafter referred to as 'Act' and the right of objection under section 5A was wrongly dispensed with hence, the entire acquisition proceedings deserved to be set aside. The petitioners placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 19.7.2011 passed in writ petition No. 17068 of 2009 Harkaran Singh v. State of U.P. and others in which judgment the Division Bench of this Court held that invocation of the provisions of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act was not justified and relying on the judgment of the apex Court in Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P. reported in (2011) 5 scc 533 and judgment of the apex Court dated 6.7.2011 in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Devendra Kumar reported in 2011 (6) ADJ 480 quashed the notification dated 12.3.2008 and 30.6.2008. Learned Counsel for the State refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on another Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 25.11.2008 in writ petition No. 45777 of 2008 Harish Chand and others v. State of U.P. and others in which judgment invocation of Section 17(1) and 17 was upheld and the writ petition was d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pleadment, which have been strongly opposed by the petitioners by saying that they can not be made parties to these writ petitions as in the cases of land acquisition the land owners and the requiring bodies, sometime acquiring bodies, are the necessary parties and not others. On the part of one of the applicants it is submitted before this Court that as per the Rules of this High Court any aggrieved or affected party can be treated to be intervenor in any of the proceedings, therefore, no one can be restrained from getting opportunity of hearing. In these special circumstances, they are required to be heard. However, at this stage we do not propose to entertain such applications. The matters will appear on 17th August, 2011. Let it be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice/ Hon'ble Senior Judge, as per the Rules and practice of this Court, to take an administrative decision about formation of the larger Bench as early as possible, so that the matters can be placed before such larger Bench on the next date itself. 5. Hon'ble the Chief Justice passed following order on 6.8.2011 on the aforesaid reference Hon. R.K. Agrawal, Hon. Ashok Bhushan and Hon'ble V.K. Shu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty at least in one writ petition of each village which may be treated to be leading writ petition of the said village. Although in some other writ petitions, counter affidavits have also been filed by State and Authority. The writ petitions relating to different villages are separately grouped and it shall be suffice to refer to the pleadings of the main writ petition as well as leading writ petitions of each village along with pleadings of some other writ petitions which were referred to by different learned counsel during the course of hearing for deciding this bunch of writ petitions. The facts as brought on record in the main writ petition and the reference to the pleadings in the said writ petition are sufficient to comprehend and decide the various issues which have arisen between the parties in these writ petitions. Hence, facts of the case of the main writ petition and pleadings therein shall be noted in some detail. 9. Writ petition No. 37443 of 2011 Gajraj and others v. State of U.P. and others have been filed by 27 writ petitioners who claim to be Bhumidhar with Transferable right and owner of different plots of land situated in village Patwari, Pargana and Tahsil Dadri, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of urgency, is further pleased under Sub-section (1) of Section 17of the said Act to direct that the Collector of Gautam Budh Nagar, though no award under section 11 has been made, may, on the expiration of fifteen days from the date of publication of the notice mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section-9, take possession of the land mentioned in the schedule for the said purpose. 11. The petitioners plead in the writ petition that dispensation of the inquiry under section 5A can only be an exception where the urgency cannot brook any delay. The respondents without application of mind dispensed the inquiry. The acquisition proceedings have been termed as void, unconstitutional, tainted with malafide, abuse of authority, power and non application of mind. The provisions under section 5A is mandatory and embodied a just and wholesome principle that a person whose property is being or intended to be acquired should have occasion to persuade the authorities that his property be not touched for acquisition. Land use of village Patwari was changed in the Master Plan 2021 after the notification under sections 4 and 6, which is colourable exercise of powers and entire exercise is arbitrary, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther pleaded that in writ petition No. 38758 of 2008 M/s. Crane Bel International Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and other decided on 26.8.2010 and writ petition No. 4577 of 2008 Harish Chand v. State decided on 25.11.2008, the invocation of urgency clause under section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act has already been upheld by this Court and the writ petitions were dismissed. It is pleaded that no Abadi was found at the time of survey and only boundary wall and certain trees and boring in a room was found on some plots. It is pleaded that there was sufficient materials before the State Government for invocation of Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4). Out of 589.188 hectares of land under acquisition, compensation in respect of 488.998511 hectares of land under the provisions of U.P. Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997 has been disbursed and the compensation for the tenure holders who have not accepted compensation shall be paid under award under section 11 which is pending approval. Writ petitions have been filed with delay and laches and the writ petitions are liable to be rejected on the said ground. The land is prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a has already been paid the compensation and out of 1605 persons 1403 have accepted compensation. Development works have been carried out and the area stands demarcated as Sectors 2, 3 Tech Zone IV, Eco Tech 13, Sector 10 and 11. Authority has so far constructed roads, laid down sewer line, electric transmission line. Authority has developed green belts and carried out group housing development works; remaining area of these sectors falls in acquired land of adjoining villages. In Sector 2, individual residential plots have been allotted as well as two group housing plots were allotted on 21.3.2010 and 1.3.2011 under the Scheme Code BRS-01/2010 and BRS-04/2010. In Sector 3 about 2250 individual residential plots were allotted through draw of lots in month of January, 2009 and 625 individual residential plots were allotted through draw of lots in July, 2009 under the scheme XT-01 and BHS. In Sector Tech zone-IV group housing plots were also allotted in March, 2010 and March, 2011. In Tech zone IV some institutional and some information technology plots have also been allotted during the period March, 2008-09. It is pleaded that compensation has been accepted by some of the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bookings, about 65-70% bookings have been financed by banks/financial institutions and amount of ₹ 67.74 crores have been given towards booking amount. Construction at the site was started in September, 2010 and amount of ₹ 99.33 crores have already been invested towards the actual construction activities. A massive development work is being carried out by the answering respondent at the project site. Photographs of construction at the site have been filed as Annexure-3 which indicates that four floor structures have been constructed on the site. 15. There are certain other allottees/builders who have made applications along with affidavit for intervention giving similar details. The applications which has been received for intervening in the main writ petition are of following applicants: i. M/s Amrapali Leisure Valley Pvt. Ltd. which claims allotment of plot GH02 area 419519.20 square meters vide allotment letter dated 6.5.2010 lease deed dated 11.10.2010. ii. M/s Patel Advance JV, which claims allotment of Plot No. GH 03 in Sector Techzone IV Greater Noida area 96,000 sq. meters. Vide allotment letter dated 27.4.2010. iii. M/s Elegant Infracon Pvt. Ltd. which claims ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... illages of Greater NOIDA and Group 42 to 65 relate to villages of NOIDA. 18. There are 14 other writ petitions relating to village Patwari (Group-1) apart from Gajraj, the main writ petition in which notification dated 12.3.2008 issued under section 4 read with sections 17(1) and 17(4) and 6 have been challenged. The pleadings in the aforesaid writ petition are also to the similar effect. However, pleadings in few writ petitions which have been specifically referred by learned counsel need to be noted. 19. Writ Petition No. 62649 of 2008 Savitri Devi v. State of U.P. was filed challenging the notification dated 12.3.2008 and 30.6.2008 in this Court on 2.12.2008 claiming that petitioner is Bhumidhar of plot No. 687 in Khata No. 625 and had constructed pakka dwelling house over the above noted Araji. It is stated that adjoining plot Nos. 695 and 686 have been exempted from acquisition but petitioner's plot has not been exempted. Invocation of urgency clause has been challenged. It stated that land has been acquired for the purpose of raising multi-storied buildings for business purposes. 20. In Writ petition No. 28691 of 2011 Dinesh Kumar Garg and others v. State of U.P. and othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esidential units in NCR. A counter affidavit has also been filed by Supertech Limited reiterating the similar pleadings as made in the main writ petition. 22. The writ petitions in Group-2 are the writ petitions of village Sakipur. Writ petition No. 47157 of 2011 Rajendra Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others relating to village Sakipur has been filed challenging the notifications dated 31.12.2004, issued under section 4 proposing to acquire 311.3140 acres of land of village Sakipur. Declaration under section 6 was issued vide notification dated 5.9.2005. Similar pleadings have been made in the writ petition challenging the notifications. The petitioners have pleaded that petitioners being law abiding citizen were under impression that the State Government has acquired their land for the public purpose hence, they did not come earlier to challenge the notifications. However, latter petitioners came to know that the very purpose of acquiring the land namely; planned industrial development has now been changed by the respondents by carving plots and the land has now been transferred to private builders for the purpose of commercial complexes and residential under the group hou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvention application has also been filed in the writ petition on behalf of M/s Omex Ltd. which claimed allotment of land in village Sakipur. In other writ petitions of the village Sakipur challenge to the same notifications have been made by raising more or less similar grounds of challenge which need no repetition. 23. The writ petitions in Group 3 are the writ petitions relating to village Ghora Bachheri. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40356 of 2011, Satish Kumar Versus State of U.P. and others, in which counter affidavit has been filed by the State of U.P. as well as respondent No. 3, the Authority, is treated to be the leading writ petition. The petitioner claims to be bhumidhar of plots Nos. 269, 313 and 1297, which are claimed to be fertile land capable of yielding three crops. On a portion of the said land, there are 200 trees. These plots were recorded in the name of petitioner's late father Chatarveer Singh. Petitioner also claims that on a part of the plots in dispute, he has constructed residential house and has been residing therein. Notification under Section 4 read with Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4)of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 03.10.2005 for acquisition o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and latches. The urgency clause in the notification was invoked on sufficient material. The allegations made in paragraph 11 of the writ petition that land use of the village in question has been shown in the Development Plan as industrial has not been denied except with the statement that the land had been acquired for planned industrial development. Counter affidavit has also been filed by respondent No. 3 making same pleadings as were made in the counter affidavit of the State. Out of 2285 persons 2210 have accepted the compensation under agreement. Development works have been carried out in the village in question and the area has been demarcated in different sectors. In the village 3189 residential flats have been allotted under various schemes and in an area of 3672 sq. meter 976 flats were built by the Authority, which have been allotted. Group housing flats as well as facility flats have been allotted. Under 6% scheme for the villagers whose land has been acquired, allotment of land measuring 1357660 sq. meter has been made. Writ petition is barred by latches. None of the grounds made in the writ petition have any substance. It is denied that the land use has been changed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re entitled to return of their land. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating therein that the petitioners have not explained the inordinate delay in challenging the notification. Possession of the land in dispute was transferred to the Authority on 01.11.2007 and 10.04.2008. Compensation has been distributed amongst the farmers to the tune of 93.49%. Award under Section 11 of the Act has been declared on 10.08.2011. Possession memo has been filed as Annexure-C.A.-4. Relevant certificates were sent by the Collector with justification to the State Government. Copy of the award has also been brought on record along with the counter affidavit. Counter affidavit has also been filed by respondent No. 3 reiterating the pleadings of the State Government. It has also been stated that after taking over possession area has been demarcated as Sector Kappa-II. The authority has constructed roads, laid sewer lines and electricity transmission lines. The area has to be used as Transportation Hubb. Affidavit on behalf of M/S Paramount Vilas Private Limited has been filed along with Intervention Application. It has been stated that there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disbursed. Award under Section 11 of the Act has also been declared on 09.09.2009. 85% of the land owners have accepted compensation under agreement. There is delay in filing writ petition. The petitioners are not in possession of the land. Section 11A of the Act is not attracted since possession was taken after invoking the power under Section 17 of the Act. Counter affidavit has also filed on behalf of the Authority. Land use under the development plan was shown as residential. Construction of flats by the builders has been made. It has been denied that the petitioners were forced to accept the compensation. 28. In writ petition No. 46747 of 2011, Kashi Ram v. State of U.P. and others, it has been stated that no industry has come up in the area and only some builders have come up. It is stated that no possession has been taken from the petitioners in accordance with law. In other writ petitions relating to village Biraundi Chakrasenpur, grounds of challenge to the notification, more or less, are similar. 29. Writ petition No. 46130 of 2011, Roshan v. State of U. P. And others has been filed challenging the notification dated 31.07.2007 issued under Section 4 of the Act proposing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion only those persons who have filed writ petition in the High Court. Award under Section 11 of the Act has been issued on 27.04.2010. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Authority stating that possession was taken on two different dates, i.e. 02.02.2007 and 25.03.2008. It is further stated that out of 379.001 Hectares of land, compensation in respect of an area of 260.854 hectare has been disbursed and accepted by the land owners. Out of 970 tenure holders 787 have accepted compensation. Development work has been done in the area and the area has been demarcated as Sector KP-5 and Ecotech-3. The Authority has constructed roads, laid down sewer lines and electricity transmission lines, and made allotment of group housing work. I.T. and Institutional plots have also been allotted between 2007 and 2011. The petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavit, stating that the area acquired in the year 2006 remains vacant. Allotment to certain builders was made in the year 2009 and 2011. It is further pleaded that the petitioners were given assurance that the industries would be set up in their land, under which assumption, the petitioners never approached the court of law and had taken c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs Nos. 18 and 24 have not received compensation so far. The others have received compensation at the rate of ₹ 850/- per sq. yard. It is further alleged that the acquisition proceedings have resulted in pocketing of huge profit limited in few by depriving the bulk of population of their residential abadi and their source of livelihood in the name of development, which is a form of camouflage and false prospective of development. 32. Writ petitions of Group 7 relates to village Dabra. Writ petition No. 45450 of 2011, Phundan Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, has been filed challenging the notification dated 31.10.2005 issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Act. By means of the aforesaid notification land measuring 121.8506 hectares was proposed to be acquired. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 01.09.2006. Writ petition has been filed by 49 tenure holders. Petitioners' case in the writ petition is that when their land was acquired, there was no demand for establishing industry in the area. Further the respondents had also no approved scheme or project to establish industry and develop the area as industrial area. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. State of U.P. and others has been made, in which writ petition same notification was under challenge, and the Division Bench vide its order dated 19.09.2005 had directed the parties to maintain status-quo. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State, stating therein that the writ petition has been filed with delay of 6 years; as such it deserves to be dismissed. Possession of land was taken on 28.12.2005. Award had been given on 15.05.2009 Compensation has been received by all the tenure holders. It is stated that there was sufficient material before the State Government to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. Relevant proposals were submitted by the Collector. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the Authority. Apart from reiterating the pleadings as made by the State, it has been stated that under the residential scheme669 plots have been allotted. I.T. and Institutional plots have been allotted between 2006 and 2011. Residential plots under 6% scheme have also been allotted. 34. In writ petition No. 44181 of 2011, Dharam Pal and others v. State of U.P. and others, same Notifications have been challenged. Writ petition has been filed by 27 persons. It h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2008. Petitioners' case in the writ petition is that the land of the petitioner sought to be acquired as per the notification for planned development is in fact camouflage. It is stated that in fact the land has been acquired for the purposes of transferring the same to the private builders. Entire exercise has been termed to be colourable exercise of power. It is pleaded that there is no project on the part of the respondent Authority for planned industrial development over the said land. By lease deed dated 28.07.2010 an area of 106196 sq. meter being flat No.GH-01, Tech Zone-4 has been transferred to M/s Amrapali Leisure Valley Developers Private Limited for group housing. Similarly by lease deed dated 25.02.2001 an area of 354288 sq. meter of plot No.GH-09, Sector Tech Zone-4 has been transferred to M/S Amrapali Dream Valley Private Limited. By another lease deed dated 17.02.2011 an area of 272916 sq. meter land of plot NO. GH-05, Sector Tech Zone-4 has been transferred to M/S Amrapali Centurion Park Private Limited. Likewise by lease deed dated 11.10.2010 an area of 85202 sq. meter of land has been transferred to M/S Supertech Limited and by lease deed dated 02.04.2011 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 37. In the writ petition Intervention applications have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 4, 6,8 and 9. Intervention application has also been filed on behalf of M/S Prem Industries and M/S Unicure India Private Limited as well as on behalf of M/S Ajnara Realtech Limited and M/S S.G.S. Udyog Private Limited. Private respondents seeking intervention have given details of allotment of various plots to them between 2008 and 2011, details of delivery of possession to them and the lease land, details of payments made by them and the developments being carried out by them. Certain photographs depicting developments have also been annexed along with the counter affidavit. Impleadment application on behalf of Indrani Merchandise Private Limited, apart from 15 other applications along with affidavit has also been filed through Adersh Agrawal and Sri Piyush Shukla, Advocates. The applicants claim handing over of possession in the year 2008 and thereafter copies of the lease deeds granted to the aforesaid applicants have been annexed, which indicate that most of the aforesaid applicants were allotted 2100 sq. meters to 5000 sq. meters of land except one Sushil Dung, who was allotted 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 5A of the Act. The petitioner, having accepted compensation, could have no grievance regarding acquisition of land. After taking possession, area has been demarcated as Sector-I and Section KP-5. Roads etc. have already been constructed by the Authority. I.T. plots and Group Housing plots have been allotted in the village. 40. Writ petitions in Group 12 relate to village Khanpur. Writ petition No. 39037 of 2011, Mahipal Sharma and others v. State of U.P. and others, in which pleadings are complete, is being treated as leading writ petition. By means of this writ petition notification issued under Section 4of the Act dated 31.01.2008 read with Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire and area of 187.325 hectares of land, has been challenged. Notification under Section 6 of the Act had been issued on 30.06.2008. Petitioners' case is that plot No. 357 is abadi land where the house of the petitioners situate. Petitioners approached respondent No. 4 along with relevant khasra, khatuani and photographs of the house praying for exemption of the plot. Petitioners' case is that in pursuance of the direction of respondent No. 4 notary affida ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... industrial development, the land has been allotted to big builders like Green Wood Edico and NLF. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State, in which it has been stated that the writ petition is highly barred by time and it deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. Possession of land was taken on 28.07.2000 and 11.10.2002 of an area of 55.210 and 3.777 hectares of land respectively. 97% of the compensation has already been disbursed. Award was made on 09.01.2009. The Authority has also filed short counter affidavit stating that Sector PI-I and II and R-Green were developed and the land was allotted way back in the years 2001-2006. Amusement Park had been constructed in the year 2003 and Institutional plot in the year 2003. 42. The writ petitions in Group-14 relate to village Chuharpur Khadar. In Writ Petition No. 46127 of 2011 (Bjendra v. State of U.P. and others) pleadings are complete and the said writ petition is being treated as leading writ petition of the aforesaid village. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notification dated 21st June, 2003 issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act proposing to acquire 214. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allenged. By subsequent declaration dated 7th August, 2003 the land to the extent of 214.596 hectares was sought to be acquired. 44. Writ Petition No. 45072 of 2011 (Kartar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others) has been filed by 50 tenure holders challenging the notifications dated 2nd May, 2003 and 21st June, 2003 issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act as well as the notifications dated 5th June, 2003 and 7th August, 2003. An intervention application has been filed in the said writ petition by Mr. Manmohan Bansal stating similar facts as has been stated in Writ Petition No. 46127 of 2011. 45. The writ petitions in Group-15 relate to village Badalpur. In Writ Petition No. 42548 of 2011 (Mangat Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others) pleadings are complete and the said writ petition is treated to be leading writ petition of village Badalpur. This writ petition has been filed by 50 tenure holders of village Badalpur challenging the notification dated 20th June, 2007 issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act proposing to acquire 230.554 hectares land of village Badalpur. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the land was not needed for any industrial purpose and the same is being acquired illegally for establishing colonies to give benefit to certain local leaders of ruling party. It has been stated that certain persons have been permitted to lease back and they were also permitted to sell the land. Details regarding said fact has been mentioned in Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit. The petitioners' case further is that they are being pressurised to accept the amount of compensation under the 1997 Rules. It is pleaded that when the petitioners did not accept the compensation, they were tortured by the local police and their signatures were forcibly obtained on the agreement. They were also taken away by the police and proceedings under Section 107/116 of Cr.P.C. were initiated against the petitioners on 13th September, 2007. It is pleaded that petitioners and other tenure holders have received compensation under compulsion and pressure. The petitioners have also amended the writ petition by amending paragraphs 30, 31, 31A, 31B and 31C. It is stated by the petitioners that notifications in question have been challenged earlier in Writ Petition No. 35509 of 2008 which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foresaid notifications of village Badalpur have been challenged. The petitioner's grievance is that her Plot No. 744 area 150 square yard has not been exempted whereas the respondents have exempted plots of others in the same Plot No. 744. In Writ Petition No. 43870 of 2011 (Madhuri Saxena and others v. State of U.P. and others), petitioners' case is that petitioners intended to open an Old Age Day Care Centre on the plot which was purchased by the petitioners on 30th October, 2006. It is submitted that petitioners made representations on 4th August, 2008, 2nd June, 2009 and 27th April, 2011 for exemption of their plot which have not yet been accepted. It is further stated that the respondents have adopted pick and choose policy insofar as petitioners' land has not been exempted and land of similarly situated persons have been exempted from acquisition in the same plot. In Writ Petition No. 45454 of 2011 (Likhkhi and others v. State of U.P. and others) more or less similar grounds have been taken for challenging the acquisition. 47. The writ petitions in Group-16 relate to village Sadopur. In Writ Petition No. 46026 of 2011 (Umesh Chaudhary and others v. State of U.P. a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd and transferred the same to private builders for business purpose. One of the lease deed dated 21st July, 2006 executed in favour of M/s R.C. Info System Private Limited has been brought on the record by which lease of 1,08,057 square meters has been executed for setting up I.T. industry. An application for intervention has been filed on behalf of M/s Paramount Towers Limited along with an affidavit which claim to have been allotted a plot vide letter dated 12th March, 2010 being Plot No. GH-06 area 51000 square meters under Group Housing Scheme. The applicant claims that on 11th May, 2010 lease has been executed. The applicant further claims that constructions have been started on the plot. The applicant in the affidavit has also referred to settlement between the GNOIDA and the farmers of village Patwari after the order of this Court dated 26th July, 2011 in the main writ petition. The applicant has also annexed the newspaper report indicating that farmers of village Patwari shall get ₹ 550/- per square yard as additional compensation and 8% abadi land. 49. In Writ Petition No. 46742 of 2011 (Brahm Singh v. State of U.P. and others) apart from other grounds it has been s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd. According to paragraph 24 of the counter affidavit, the land use of part of Sector Tech Zone was changed from institutional to residential and similarly land use of part of Sector Echotech-13 was changed from industrial to institutional which changes were approved by the Board on 11th February, 2010 and also the same were approved by the Government on 30th March, 2010. The compensation has been disbursed to the extent of 76%. An application for intervention has been filed on behalf of M/s Marion Biotech Private Limited which claim allotment of land by allotment letter dated 31st March, 2011 of an area of 10,000 square meters as an industrial plot in Echotech-16. The applicant claims that 200-300 persons shall be employed in the project. 51. In Writ Petition No. 47068 of 2011 (Permanand and others v. State of U.P. and others), the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 18th September, 2000 issued under Section 4 of the Act proposing to acquire 56.4984 acres land of village Chhapraula for planned industrial development. The petitioners claim to be owner and in possession of the plots mentioned in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. It is pleaded that although urgency cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioners, who are 27 in number, have challenged the notification dated 29th September, 2005 issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1)and 17(4) of the Act proposing to acquire 37.3080 hectares land of village Ajayabpur. The declaration under Section 6of the Act was issued on 20th December, 2005. The petitioners claim to be bhumidhar and in possession of the plots as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the writ petition. The petitioners' case is that abadi exists on the petitioners' plots and they have been discriminated insofar as their plots have not been left from acquisition. There was no urgency for invoking Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act. The award having not been made within two years, the acquisition has lapsed. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State stating that possession of the land was taken on 1st June, 2006 and about 95% tenure holders have accepted compensation under agreement. The award has also been declared on 25th August, 2009. There was sufficient material before the State for invoking urgency clause. The petitioners having come with delay, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The petitioners are not continuing in possession ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the aforesaid land could not be taken due to various interim orders passed by this Court in various pending writ petitions. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the land under acquisition was a land which was effected by ceiling proceedings. The land of adjoining villages has already been acquired and possession has also been taken. The part of land of village Namauli has already been acquired and certain plots were directly purchased from tenure holders. An application for intervention has been filed by M/s Wegmans Industries Private Limited claiming lease deed dated 14th February, 2005 for an area of 40,011 square meters for I.T. Industry and I.T. Enabled Services. An order was passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) on 20th January, 2006 that the land shall vest in the State free from all encumbrances. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the GNOIDA. 55. The writ petitions of Group-22 relates to village Jaitpur Vaishpur. In Writ Petition No. 46399 of 2011 (Mange Ram and others v. State of U.P. and others) pleadings are complete which is being treated as leading writ petition of this village. By this writ petition notification dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken on 27.10.2006 and the award has been made on 25.9.2009. The recommendation of the Collector for acquisition of land was received by letter dated 15.2.2005. Sufficient justification was given for invoking urgency clause. Relevant certificates were send alongwith recommendation which has been annexed alongwith counter affidavit. Possession memo dated 27.10.2006 has also been filed alongwith counter affidavit. Out of 436 tenure holders 425 tenure holders have accepted the compensation after executing the agreement. The inquiry under Section 5-Aof the Act has been dispensed with. Petitioner has filed the writ petition with delay. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the authority repeating the same averments as has been made by the State Government. After taking possession development work was carried out and the area has been demarcated by omicron 1, 2 and 3 the authorities have developed green belts and carried out group housing development work. Under the individual residential norm 1708 plots have been allotted and under group housing scheme three plots were allotted. Two institutional plots were also allotted and under 6% scheme allotment has also been made. Other two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttlement so that their land may be released. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating therein that after publication of notification the possession was taken on 30th October, 2006 for an area of 299.655 hectares. Out of 952 tenure holders 782 has received compensation under 1997 Rules. Award has been declared on 2nd August, 2011. Recommendation was received for acquisition of land having relevant document from the Collector. The writ petition is barred by latches since petitioner has filed it without properly explaining the delay the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Petitioners themselves having entered into an agreement for receiving compensation, they have no right to challenge the acquisition. The inquiry under Section- 5-A was dispensed with on relevant material. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the Authority. It is stated that after taking possession the authority has carried out the development work and the area is demarcated as Sector 10,11,12 and Sector K.P.-5. Development work in the form of roads, sewerage, drainage water supply, electricity transmission etc have been done at the cost of ₹ 35.75 crores. In Sector 10 and 12 two groups ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated that 968 land owners being involved hearing and disposing objection would have taken years together due to which inquiry was dispensed with. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the authority repeating the same allegations as has been made in the counter affidavit by the State. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that the area has been demarcated as Sectortech Zone and Night Safari. An area of 42,75,520 sq. meter has been demarcated as Night Safari. 61. Other writ petitions raise more or less similar grounds which need no repetition. 62. In possession memo dated 20.1.2005 annexed as Annexure- C.A.-1 along with counter affidavit it has been stated that possession of plot no. 28-M area 1.708, plot no. 29-M area 2.263 and plot no. 77 area 9.448, total area 13.419 is not being taken which shall be subsequently taken. In paragraph-14 of the counter affidavit filed by the authority it has been stated that possession was taken on 31.1.2007 whereas petitioners' case is that no possession has yet been taken since the land is acquired for Night Safari. No sufficient materials were placed for invoking urgency clause under Sections 17 (1) and 17(4) of the Act. Petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the State Government on 30th March, 2010. The writ petition has been filed with delay which deserves to be dismissed. 64. In writ petition no. 37109 of 2011 - Jaipal and others v. State of U.P. both the above notifications dated 16th July, 2008 and 23rd March, 2007 have been challenged on the similar grounds as have been raised in the leading writ petition. It is further pleaded by the petitioners that before the land use was changed the land was allotted to M/s Gaursons. M/s Gaursons was allotted about 50 hectares of land. 65. In this group writ petition no. 40436 of 2009 was a writ petition which was filed on 4th August, 2009 challenging the notification dated 16th July, 2008 and 23rd March, 2009. This court while entertaining the writ petition passed following interim order on 7th August, 2009: Until further orders of this court parties are directed to maintain status quo. 66. Another ground has been taken in the writ petition that no plan has been got approved by National Capital Regional Planning Board under National Capital Planning Regional Board Act 1985. Reliance of interim order passed in writ petition no. 17068 of 2009 dated 7th August, 2009 was placed which writ petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner. There was no sufficient material to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5-A. Neither any need nor any material has been shown by the respondents for acquisition. Purpose for acquisition has subsequently been changed. In the counter affidavit only proforma has been annexed without any material. Counter affidavits have been filed both by the State as well as by the authority. It has been stated in the counter affidavit of the authority that possession was taken on 9.3.2009. Authority has carried out development work in the area spending more than ₹ 14 crores over the land of village Chipyana Khurd. Two groups of plots have been allotted. Residential plots have been allotted under 6% scheme. About 48% of land owner have accepted compensation. An application for intervention has been filed by one M/s Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd who claims allotment of housing plot by lease deed dated 24th November 2010 for an area of 2,49,907 sq. meter. M/s Mahagun claims to have made allotment to various other applicants and invested substantial amount. Another application for intervention has been filed on behalf of M/s Gaursons Parameters Pvt. Ltd claiming lease dated 22nd September, 2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orwarded by the Collector by letter dated 15.9.2005 alongwith relevant certificates. Allotment of residential plot under 6% scheme has already been made and sector has been developed by the authority as per development plan. 74. Writ petitions of Group no. 30 relate to village Ithara. In writ petition no. 46021 of 2011 the pleading s are complete which writ petition is being treated as leading petition. By the said writ petition notification dated 31st August, 2007 under Section 4 read with Section 17 (1) and 17 (4) proposes to acquire 320.256 hectare of land has been challenged. Declaration under Section-6was issued on 4th July, 2008. Petitioners claim to be bhoomidhar of plot no. 509, 511, 512 and 550 which according to they is only source of their livelihood. In fact the land is sought to be acquired for the purposes of transferring the same to private builders for construction of residential colonies. In-fact there was no intention on the part of authority for any planned industrial development. Leases have been executed in favour of several private builders. There is no application of mind while dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A. The document which have been filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on behalf of M/s Panchsheel Built Tech. Pvt. Limited and M/s A.P.V. Reality Limited and M/s R.M.A. Software Park Pvt. Ltd who have been heard. 76. Another writ petition of this group which need to be mentioned is writ petition no. 38184 of 2011 Padam Singh and others v. State of U.P. challenging the same notifications. It is pleaded that the Khasra no. 6 is being used for residential and agricultural purposes and the said land was entitled to be exempted from the acquisition. The notification under Section-4 was issued with delay. No award having been made within two years, the acquisition shall lapse. Land use has been changed. It has further been stated that there is no justification for dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A. Acquisition proceedings are void and suffers from malafide and non-application of mind. The respondents have changed the purpose of acquisition and the land is being used for residential colonies by allotting the same to private builders. Applications for intervention has been filed by NOIDA Flats Buyers Association as well as by M/s R.N.A. Software Park Private Limited and M/s Super Tech Limited. M/s Advance Compusfost Pvt. Limited has also filed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e it dispensed the inquiry under Section 5 A and payment of compensation was made in accordance with 1997 Rules. Writ petitions were filed with delay. Counter affidavit has also been filed by respondent no. 3 reiterating the pleas taken by the State in its counter affidavit. It has further been stated that development works were carried out in the area and on area of 3436.40 hectares has been allotted to P.A.C., District Jail under 6% scheme the villagers have also been allotted. Petitioners having accepted the compensation, they cannot challenge acquisition. Section 11 A is not applicable in the present case. Other writ petitions of the aforesaid village raises more or less same grounds which need no repetition. 78. The writ petitions in Group-32 relates to village Badpura. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36047 of 2010 (Ramesh Chandra v. State of U.P. and others), pleadings are complete, as such aforesaid writ petition is being treated as leading writ petition for this Group. Aforesaid writ petition has been filed challenging the Notification dated 20.10.2001 issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act of plat no. 102 M area 0.7500 acre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of land of village Raipur Bangar, declaration under Section 6 was made on 16.01.2007. Petitioners case in the writ petition is that the land was acquired for Planned Industrial Development whereas land has been given to the private builders who are making residential houses and flats. Compensation has been given at the rate of 711/- per square yard but the land has been leased out at the rate of ₹ 20,000/- per square yard. Petitioners claim that all those facility given to the villagers and land holders of village patwari should also be given to the petitioners. Petitioners claim to be entitled for additional compensation alongwith 16% land. Petitioner no. 169 to 171 are entitled to get residential house plot nos. 284 and 285. There was no occasion to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5A. In the counter affidavit filed by the State it has been stated that after publication of Notification under Section 6, possession of land was taken on 15.03.2007 and out of 680 tenure holders, 630 tenure holders have already received their compensation. Award has been declared on 25.05.2011. There was sufficient material available for invocation of the urgency clause. There is delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh v. State of U.P. and others) and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24654 of 2003 (Harpal Sing and others v. State of U.P. others) vide judgement and order dated 08.12.2008. 83. The writ petitions in Group-35 relates to village Maicha. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44611 of 2011 (Rajendra and others and others v. State of U.P. and others), pleadings are complete, as such aforesaid writ petition is being treated as leading writ petition for this Group. Aforesaid writ petition has been filed by petitioners, who are four in number, challenging the Notification dated 17.04.2006 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire 343.5881 hectare of land of village Maicha for Planned Industrial Development. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 09.02.2007. Petitioners case is that State Government has not applied its mind while dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A. No notice under Section 9 was issued to the petitioners and act of taking of possession is the case of clear cut fraud and 80% of the compensation has not yet been paid. There is violation of Section 17(3A). Petitioners are still in actual possession of land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation and reminder. Petitioners further claim that land of several other persons were exempted. Petitioners have also filed supplementary affidavit stating therein that land has been acquired in colourable exercise of power, after issuance of notification by respondent no. 2 has transferred huge portion of acquired land to M/s Amrapali Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. by transfer deed dated 28.06.2011 and allotment of area one lac sqm. Copy of the allotment dated 31.03.2011 has been filed as Annexure-SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State, stating that after publication of Notification under Section 6 of the Act, possession was taken on 11.04.2007 and about 85%of the tenure holders have accepted compensation under the agreement. Authority has filed counter affidavit reiterating the same pleas as has been taken by the State. It has further been stated that development works were carried out in the area for the amount of ₹ 30.05 crores. Industrial and institutional plots have been allotted in the year between 2007-08. It has further been stated that there is delay in filing writ petition and writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 85. Civil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingh v. State of U.P. and others) has been filed challenging the Notification dated 31.12.2004 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. Another prayer was made for quashing the Notification dated 28.03.2005 describing it under Section 6. The Notification under Section 4 dated 31.12.2004 is the same Notification which has been challenged in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45193 of 2011 and the Notification dated 28.03.2005 which have been challenged in the writ petition filed by Kishan Singh, was only munadi of Notification dated 31.12.2004. The declaration under Section 6 in continuance of Notification dated 31.12.2004 was issued on 01.07.2005. 91. In writ petition filed by Kishan Singh, petitioner states that petitioner is bhumidhar of Gata No. 637 in which there are 33 shops for last 20 years. Petitioner case is that Authorities have left out plots of various influential persons and land of various persons but has taken the land of the petitioner over which valuable Pucca constructions have been standing. Shop of one Harish Chandra Bhati was regularized vide order dated 11.02.2003. There was no reason for dispensing with the inquiry unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich needs no repetition. 93. The writ petition in Group-38 relates to village Yusufpur (Chak Sahberi). In this group there is only one petition i.e. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17725 of 2010 (Omveer and others v. State of U.P. and others). In the said writ petition pleadings are complete. In the aforesaid writ petition, petitioners who are five in number have challenged Notification dated 10.04.2006 issued under Section 4read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) proposing to acquire 55.146 heaters of land of village Yusufpur (Chak Sahberi) and declaration under Section 6 was issued on 06.09.2007. It is pleaded that some of plots of aforesaid village was not acquired due to reason of Abadi existing in the aforesaid plots. Petitioners have been discriminated in the matter of acquisition and without application of mind, State Government has dispensed with inquiry and proposal lapsed since no award has been made within two years. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State, stating therein that after publication of Notification under Section 6, possession was taken on 29.11.2007 and award has also been issued on 14.09.2011 and there was sufficient material for invoking urgency clause. Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hers and others v. State of U.P. and others), counter affidavit has been filed, as such aforesaid writ petition is being treated as leading writ petition for this Group. Aforesaid writ petition filed by the petitioners who are six in number challenging the Notification dated 26.05.2009 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire 107.0512 hectare of land of village Devla. Declaration under Section 6 was made on 22.06.2009. Petitioners claim to be bhumidhar of plot mentioned in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. Some of the plots of village in question have not been acquired because there is abadi existing whereas petitioners have been discriminated There was no urgency in the matter to invoke Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is mandatory on the part of the State Government to afford opportunity of hearing to the persons whose land has been sought to be acquired, plots in question are used for abadi and for other purpose and their plots in question are liable to be excluded from acquisition. Petitioners are living there and abadi in the plots as mentioned above. Affidavit has been filed by petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Notification dated 26.05.2009 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, and the declaration under Section 6 has been made on 22.06.2009. Interim order was passed in the aforesaid writ petition directing to maintain status quo which is continuing. The petitioners case is that after purchase of the property by petitioner no. 1 Company was registered and application was moved under Section 143 of U.P. Z.A. L.R. Act, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dadri vide order dated 21.01.1991 declared the land to be non-agricultural. Petitioner no. 1 started manufacturing picture tube since year 1990. Petitioner no. 1 is running industrial unit after having obtained necessary licences. Petitioner claim to have initiated proceedings for declaration of entire land as SEZ and petitioners application for grant of SEZ status is pending consideration in accordance with Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. Further, Government of India has already issued letter on 17.01.2006 to the petitioner requiring incorporation of commitments by the State Government with regard to the matters mentioned therein. State Government has also held meeting dated 20.12.2006 and the matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indicates that petitioners factory was over plot Nos. 563, 564, 573 and 574 which was reported closed. Petitioners claims that factory is in existence since 1993 and reiterated that license has been granted by the Director Industries. It is further pleaded that the land sought to be acquired by impugned Notification is part of National Capital Region and the authority responsible for approval of the master plan is National Capital Region Planning Board, New Delhi and there is no approval of NCRP Board. In the counter affidavit of the authority it has been pleaded that there is no provision in 1985 Act which required approval of NCRP Board before acquisition of land. Section 19 of the Act, 1985 clearly shows that same is regarding the observation and suggestions. In the rejoinder affidavit it is asserted that prior approval of NCRP Board having not been taken. Authority can not implement any project affecting land use. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government in which possession is claim to have been taken on 14.09.2009. It was admitted that factory was established at plot no. 563, 564, 573 and 574. Copy of the survey report has been attached to the counter affidavi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en filed by the State in this writ petition also stating therein that possession was taken on 21.11.2008 and the letter dated 14.02.2009 was written by the Authority alongwith justification for invoking Section 17 and enquiry under Section 5A was dispensed with on the basis of relevant materials available on record. Land is agricultural land and no abadi was there at the time of constructions. 103. The writ petition in Group 1 to 41 relates to different villages of Greator Noida and Group-42 to 65 relates to different villages of Noida, which shall now be noted. Writ petition of Group 42 relates to Village Asdullapur. There is only one writ petition of this group, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47486 of 2011 (Rajee and others v. State of U.P. and others). By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged notification dated 27.1.2010 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring 39.561 hectares of land, as published in the daily newspaper Dainik Jagaran dated 4.2.2010, situated in village Asdullapur, District Gautambudh Nagar. Declaration under Section 6 was issued vide notification 13.7.2010, which has filed as Annexure-5A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rein that in pursuance to the notifications under Section 4and 6 of the Act, possession was taken on 26.8.1983 and award was also issued on 28.11.1984. Writ petition is highly barred by laches and deserves to be dismissed, on this ground alone. Land having been acquired Kalu could have sold the property in favour of the petitioner. Original tenure holder has already received compensation and got alternative site under scheme. Authority has also filed counter affidavit reiterating the pleadings as taken in the counter affidavit of the State Government. Original tenure holder Kalu had accepted the compensation and has also got residential plot No. C-22 in Sector-49 in the year 1997. Writ petition being highly barred by time, deserves to be dismissed. 106. The writ petition in Group-44 relates Village Asgarpurjagir. In Writ Petition No. 46919 of 2011 (Girish Bansal and another v. State of U.P. and others), counter affidavit has been filed by the state Government as well as authority, which is being treated as leading writ petition. By the writ petition, petitioners has prayed for quashing of Notification dated 24.8.2007 issued under Section 4 Read with Section 17(1) 17(4) of the Act f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivisional Officer for declaring the land as non agricultural. Petitioner has filed objection before the Additional District Magistrate praying that petitioner's plot No. 183 in which he is owner 1/7th share be kept out of the acquisition. Petitioner's case is that Revenue Officer has written letter dated 24.11.2008 to the Additional District Magistrate for transfer of possession of 17.415 Hectares of land of Village Asgarpur Jagir except the land which was mentioned in the schedule. Petitioner's case is that area of 0.69A hectares was mentioned in the scheduled, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-18 to the writ petition. Petitioner has stated that urgency clause has been wrongly invoked by the State Government. In the supplementary affidavit, petitioner has brought on record, the lease for development of form house. Counter affidavit has been filed by the authority stating that writ petition is barred by the laches. Possession of the land has been taken on 16.1.2009. It has been stated that since there were 155 tenure holders, hearing their objection would have taken much time, hence urgency clause was invoked. It has been stated that possession of Plot No. 183 ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Brahauddin Nagar, Pargana Dadri, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44492 of 2011 (Manoj Yadav and others v. State of U.P. and others) counter affidavit has been filed both by the State and the authority, which writ petition is being treated as leading writ petition. By this writ petition, petitioners have prayed for quashing the notification dated 12.4.2005 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring 145.849 hectares of land situated in village Basi Brahauddin Nagar. Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made vide notification dated 6.10.2005. Petitioners' case is that possession of petitioners is there on part of Khasra No. 373. Petitioners plead that some of the plot of village in question have not been acquired on account of existence of abadi whereas petitioners has been discriminated since their plot having the abadi, have not been released. There was no urgency for invoking Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. Petitioners claim that no notice has been served under Section 9 of the Act, the acquisition have lapsed under Section 11-A of the Act. Counter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9.2011. It has been stated that compensation have been accepted by the petitioners. Petitioners having remains silent for such long time, cannot be allowed to challenge the acquisition. Authority has also filed counter affidavit reiterating the plea taken by the State Government. It has been further stated that authority has spend huge amount of ₹ 25 Crores on the development of infrastructure of the village. Petitioners have received compensation at the rate of 378 per sq. Yard. 112. The writ petition in Group-48 relates to village Chaura Sadatpur, Pargana Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar. There is only one writ petition of this group being Civil Writ Petition No. 46407 of 2011 (Liley Ram v. State of U.P. and others). Petitioner has challenged the notification dated 16.9.1976 issued under Section 6of the Act in continuation of Section 4 of the Act issued earlier for acquiring 1008.40 Acres of land situated in Village Chaura Sadatpur, Pargana Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar. Petitioner claims to be the owner of the Plot No. 760M and 788. Petitioner's case is that now the land has been sold to private builders at the rate of ₹ 1,00,000.00 per sq. yard., whereas peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 5 of the writ petition. Petitioners claim that purpose of acquisition shown as Planned Industrial Development is not correct, since the respondent no. 4 is transferring the aforesaid land to builders. Possession have not been taken from the petitioners. Petitioners are peacefully residing on the aforesaid plot and there was no urgency for invoking Section 17(1) 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. Under Section 11-A, the acquisition have lapsed. Petitioners have stated that State Government and the authority instead of playing role of facilitator in acquiring the land, has proceeded to colourable exercise of power. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government stating that possession has been taken on 10.7.2006 and out of 165 tenure holders, 122 tenure holders have received compensation. Award under Section 11(1)of the Act has been declared on 10.2.2010. There was sufficient material with the State Government to invoke Section 17(4) of the Act. Survey report as well as copy of the award has been filed along with counter affidavit. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the authority reiterating the same pleadings as has been made by the State Government. It has been st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ession of Bhoomidhar of plot as mentioned in paragraph no. 3 of the writ petition. Petitioners allege that invocation of the urgency was not justified. Respondents have illegally changed the purpose of acquisition. Respondent No. 3 is making huge profit. Acquisition have lapsed under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents- authority wherein it has been stated that award was declared on 1.2.1991 and against the award, petitioners have already filed an application for reference being LAR No. 563 of 1998 for enhancement of compensation. It is stated that writ petition is filed in-ordinate delay, and same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Other writ petitions of this group challenges same notification on more or less similar grounds. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45224 (Preetam and others v. State of U.P. and others) challenges the Notification dated 12.2.1988, issued under Section 4 as well as Notification dated 27.3.1990 under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents-authority in which it has been stated that award has been declared on 1.2.1991. It is further stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of one year, which shows that there was no urgency and urgency has wrongly been invoked. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government in which it has been stated that Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 8.9.2008 was published in two local news paper Amar Ujala on 15.8.2009 and notice for general information was issued on 21.8.2009 and thereafter declaration under Section 6 was issued on 16.9.2009. Award has been made on 14.9.2011 and to the similar effect counter affidavit has been filed by the authority. 118. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59121 of 2009 (Ajeet Singh Versus State of U.P. and others) was filed on 4.11.2009 challenging the aforesaid notification dated 15.8.2009 and 16.9.2009 and interim order was passed on 6.11.2009 directing that if the petitioner has not been dispensed with, there shall be status-quo with regard to the petitioner. Interim order was continued by subsequent order passed by this court. only 9.12.2009, if the petitioner has not been dispensed with, status-quo shall be maintained with regard to the petitioner. Interim order was continuing by subsequent order passed by this court. Apart from Civil Misc. Writ Petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioners, who are 16 in number claim to be Bhoomidhar of plot in possession as mentioned in paragraph nos. 2 and 3 of the writ petition. Petitioners claim that they have old abadi and in spite of their representation land was not exempted. Petitioners have further alleged that respondents with malfide intention has initiated acquisition proceeding, there was no ground for dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Declaration under Section 6 was issued after more than one year which shows that there was no urgency at all. Petitioners has preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27366 of 2010 in which interim order was granted on 14.5.2010. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government stating therein that possession was taken on 13.7.2010 and out of 82 tenure holders, 20 tenure holders have accepted the compensation. Award relating to the land has not yet been declared. Authority has filed counter affidavit reiterating same submission. 120. The writ petition in Group-54 relates to village Nithari, Noida. There are two writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition No. 45933 of 2011 (Ravindra Sharma and others v. State of U.P. and others) and Writ Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y which is treated as leading writ petition. Writ Petitions have been filed praying for quashing of Notification dated 30.3.2002 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act for acquiring 779.55 Acres of land situated in village Sadarpur, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. Declaration under section 6 of Land Acquisition Act was issued on 28.6.2003 and award has been made on 29.1.2010, which have been sought to be quashed. Petitioners who are 14 in number claim to be owner of plots as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, which is being used for agricultural purposes as claimed by them. Petitioners' case is that possession has not been taken and they are residing in their plot. Petitioners case is that they were issued printed notice to appear before the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Gautambudh Nagar, who intended to pay compensation @ 378.92 per sq. yard. Petitioners were told that land has vested with the State Government and petitioners shall be deprived from receiving the compensation for long time, hence there is no option except to accept the compensation. Petitioners have accepted 90% compens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the respondents-authority stating therein that possession of the land was taken on 3.9.2003 and 3.3.2005. It is stated that plots have been developed. Writ Petition is barred by laches, it having been filed after long lapse of time. 124. The writ petition in Group-56 relates to village Salarpur Khadar, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar. In Writ Petition No. 46682 of 2011 (Begram @ Began v. State of U.P. and others), counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents-authority as well as State Government, which is being treated as leading writ petition. Petitioner has challenged the Notification dated 11.9.2008 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act for acquiring 227.077 Hectares of land situated in village Salarpur khadar. Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act made vide notification dated 30.9.2009. Petitioner's case is that he is Bhoomidhar of plot, as mentioned in paragraph no. 4 of the writ petition. Respondents have failed to pay compensation in accordance with law. It has been stated that there was no urgency in the acquisition to dispense with the inquiry. Against the same Notification Civil Misc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5, and 6 to this writ petition. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government as well as authority. In the counter affidavit of the State Government, it has been stated that possession of land was taken on 14.7.2008 and out of 560 tenure holders, 316 tenure holders have already received their compensation under agreement. Award has also been declared on 14.9.2011. There was sufficient material before the State Government for dispensing with the inquiry. Petitioner having accepted compensation, cannot be allowed to challenge the acquisition. In the counter affidavit filed by the Authority it has been stated that petitioners have received compensation to the tune of ₹ 91 Lacs and 17 thousand. Notification impugned was upheld in the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29575 of 2008, against which Special Leave Petition has also been dismissed. 126. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46037 of 2011( Rishipal Singh Versus State of U.P. and others) raises similar ground to challenge the aforesaid notification which needs no repetition. 127. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46405 of 2011 (Sri Pal Singh Versus State of U.P. and others) has been filed for challenging the Notification date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -11 plots have been sought to be allotted to various private builders. In paragraph 19 to 25 of the writ petition details of various plots allotted to the builders of different area have been indicated. M/s Unitech Limited has been transferred an area of 288500.00 sq. meter of Plot No. 001 by lease deed dated 3.3.2008. M/s Ajnara India Limited vide lease deed dated 1.10.2010 has been transferred an area of 49410.00 sq. Meter of Plot No. GH-01/B -Sector 74, Noida. By another lease deed dated 1.9.2010 an area of 20000.00 Sq. Meter of land has been transferred in favour of M/s Express Builders and Promoters Private Limited. Another lease dated 17.6.2010 an area of 2000.00 Sq. meter of Plot No. GH-01/C -Sector 78 has been transferred in favour of M/s G.S. Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Again vide lease dated 31.8.2010 an area of 20500.00 sq. Meter of Plot No. GH-02/C-Sector-77, Noida has been transferred in favour of M/s Civitech Developers Pvt. Ltd. Further vide lease deed dated 28.5.2010 an area of 21393.83 Sq. Meter of Plot No. GH-05/B-Sector 78, Noida has been transferred in favour of M/s Sunshine Infrawell Pvt. Ltd. Further vide lease deed dated 7.10.2010 an area of 200000.00 Sq. Meter of Pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 4 read with Section 17 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land situated in village Sultanpur, Pargana Tehsil Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 18.7.1994. Petitioners claimed to be Bhoomidhar of the land which has been shown in the Map 11-A (Annexure-1) to the writ petition. Petitioner claims to have received compensation under agreement. Petitioners case is that there was no urgency for invoking urgency clause and in the year 2010-11 land has been transferred to private builders. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government stating that possession of the land was taken on 24.8.1995 and award was declared on 9.5.1997. After such long lapse of period, writ petition cannot be entertained, it is highly barred by laches and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. 132. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46766 of 2011 (Jeet Ram and others v. state of U.P. and others) challenges the notification dated 2.5.2003 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 29.5.2003. Petitioner case is that they are Bhoomid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, they were left with no option but to accept the compensation under Rules 1997. The petitioners later on came to know that the very purpose of acquisition i.e. Planned Industrial Development had been changed by playing fraud and the land had been transferred to the private builders to construct commercial complexes. The petitioners are now challenging the acquisition. Petitioners entered into agreement under compulsion. No award had been made. The acquisition has lapsed under Section 11-A. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government stating that possession of land was taken on 13.12.2006 and out of 464 tenure-holders, 378 have accepted the compensation, the award has been declared on 05.07.2010, the writ petition filed by the petitioners has been filed with delay and there was sufficient ground for invoking urgency clause. In the counter affidavit filed by the Authority, it has been stated that village Suthiyana has now been developed in Sector No. 90, which is industrial sector, Sector No. 91 as park and play ground, Sector No. 136 as an institutional sector in which 187 plots have been allotted and Section No. 137 as residential and institutional, Sector No. 140-A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eated. Allotments were made in the year 2005-06 and details of allotment has been filed as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit of the Authority. 137. Writ petition of Group No. 62 relates to village Achcheja. Only one writ petition is in this group being Writ Petition No. 44985 of 2011, Tejpal Singh v. State of U.P. and others. The petitioner has challenged the notification dated 09.05.2011 issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17 and 17 of the Act. As no notification under Section 6 has been referred to the writ petition, hence it appears to be premature. 138. Writ petitions of Group No. 63 relate to village Yakubpur. There are two writ petitions being Writ Petition No. 5670 of 2007, Keshari Singh and others v. Government of U.P. and others and Writ Petition No. 6726 of 2007, Hargyan Singh v. State of U.P. and others. Writ Petition No. 5670 of 2007 has been filed challenging the notification dated 26.09.2006 issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act proposing to acquire 74.848 hectares land of village Yakubpur. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 09.01.2007. This writ petition was filed on 13.01.2007. The writ petition was dismissed by Divis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Petition No. 6726 of 2007, Hargyan Singh v. State of U.P. and others has been filed challenging the aforesaid notifications dated 26.09.2006 and 06.01.2007. Petitioner claims that Plot No. 70 is agricultural property of him, which is adjacent to old abadi of the village. Petitioner has purchased 100 square yard by sale deed dated 24.02.2006. Inquiry under Section 5A has wrongly been dispensed with. 142. Writ petitions of Group No. 64 relate to village Shafipur. Writ Petition No. 46011 of 2011, Hari Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others has been filed challenging the notification dated 02.05.2003 issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) 17(4) of the Act proposing to acquire 86.0427 acres land of village Shafipur. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 16.06.2003. Petitioners' case in this writ petition is that petitioners are pushtaini bhoomidhars of Plots No. 164, 166 167. Petitioners submit that for the village Shafipur the rate notified was ₹ 78.92p per square yard for the relevant period. Petitioners were paid compensation at the rate of ₹ 204.50p per square yard. Petitioners accepted compensation under some mis-conception. Inquiry u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the petitioners have not received compensation and only few have accepted the same under protest. There is no urgency in the acquisition and without application of mind, the State has invoked Sections 17(1) 17(4). Although the plot in dispute was acquired for Planned Industrial Development but the same has been allotted to different builders at the rate of ₹ 10,000/- per square meter. No notice under Section 9 has been received by the petitioner till date. Same notification was challenged in this Court through Writ Petition No. 31611 of 2011, Smt. Neelam v. State of U.P. and others in which this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo. Entire acquisition proceedings were tainted with mala fide. Petitioners claim to be in actual physical possession of the land in dispute. The counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating that possession of land was taken on 14.09.2009 of an area of 201.7386 hectares. Out of 679 tenure-holders, 518 have accepted the compensation. There is no mention of declaration of award. In the counter affidavit there is substantial material on record to invoke urgency clause by the State government. Compensation having accepted under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land has been acquired. Learned Counsel for the Authority has also placed the original record of the Authority for perusal of the Court. By our order dated 21.9.2011, we directed learned counsel for the Greater Noida to file supplementary affidavit indicating certain details as enumerated in the order. The Greater Noida Authority has filed four supplementary affidavits. Along with 4th supplementary affidavit, the authority has filed chart showing the details of the acquisition and the development of the acquired land and other relevant information in separate folders of each villages which were taken on record. 147. We have heard Sri H.R. Misra, Sri V.M. Zaidi, Sri W.H. Khan, Sri U.N. Sharma and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocates, Sri Pankaj Dube, Sri B.B. Paul, Sri A.P. Paul, Sri Anil Sharma, Sri Dhiraj Singh Bohra, Sri C.K. Parekh, Sri K.K. Arora, Sri Saurabh Basu, Sri Shiva Kant Misra, Sri N.P. Singh, Sri Vinod Sinha, Sri S.K. Tyagi, Sri Kamal Singh Yadav, Sri Ram Surat Saroj, Sri J.J. Munir, Sri Pavan Bhardwaj, Sri Chandan Sharma, Sri Siddharth Srivastava, Sri A. Prasad, Sri Lal Singh Thakur, Sri Anoop Trivedi, Sri Sunil Rai, Sri J.J. Muneer, Sri Manish Goyal, Sri Suneel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re or less common, we proceed to note the various submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State authority and learned Counsel for the allottees/interveners. SUBMISSIONS 149. The substance of the submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is as follows: (1) The Greater Noida/Noida authority (hereinafter referred to as authority) was constituted for the development of certain areas in the State into industrial and urban township. The dominant object of the constitution of the authority was industrial development of the area. The authority having been established under the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as '1976 Act), the primary and basic purpose for which the respondent authority has been established is planned development of the area into industrial area. The intention of the Act in establishing the Authority was to promote the industrial development in the area and earmarking the land use as industrial, commercial, residential has only been given to facilitate the Authority in achieving the primary object of industrial development. The Authority instead of promoting the obj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with or not. There was not even specific recommendation by the Authority and the Collector for dispensation of inquiry under section 5A. The State Government without adverting to the relevant materials dispensed with the inquiry under section 5A which again vitiates the whole acquisition process. Dispensation of inquiry under section 5Abeing invalid, the entire acquisition proceedings and consequential actions taken thereon fall on the ground and be quashed with consequential reliefs. (7) The acquisition of fertile agricultural land of the petitioners in the name of planned industrial development of Gautam Buddha Nagar is in colourable exercise of power to achieve a different purpose and object i.e. to benefit the private persons, builders, colonizers which vitiates the entire acquisition. (8) The authority has malafide exercised its power to proceed for acquisition of agricultural land which is nothing but fraud on power and to mention a planned industrial development is nothing but was a camouflage. (9) The possession of the land of the petitioners which was subject matter of acquisition was not taken by the State in accordance with law. Neither actual, physical possession was t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial development is being transferred to the builders/colonizers in huge area permitting them to construct multistoried complexes towards huge profit, the petitioners then realized that the entire acquisition was in colourable exercise of powers and a fraud has been played by the authority in acquiring their land. Although some of the petitioners have already filed writ petitions challenging the notifications in question in this Court which writ petitions are still pending and in some of the writ petitions which were filed immediately after the notification, there was no objection of any kind of delay. (15) The petitioners belong to agriculturist class and are not much familiar to legal proceedings. Further they being in possession of their land and there being no development for years together, they did not rush to the Court immediately. The petitioners never waived their right nor acquiesced to the acquisition but being helpless agriculturist they did not know what to do in such circumstances. (16) The petitioners land were taken on payment of compensation under Agreement Rules as well as in some cases award given under section 11 for few hundred rupees per square yard which land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opment as alleged by the interveners of some of the areas of land is on their own risk and cost and cannot be taken as shield to protect the illegal arbitrary actions of the respondents. (19) After order dated 26.7.2011 in writ petition No. 37443 of 2011, the authority themselves called the land owners of village Patwari and a settlement was entered between them by which additional compensation of ₹ 550/- per square meter was paid by the Authority. The Authority however, has not called the land owners of other villages for any such settlement which is discriminatory and arbitrary. (20) The authority having not obtained approval of Greater Noida Master Plan 2021 from National Capital Regional Planning Board constituted under National Capital Regional Planning Board Act, 1995, cannot proceed with any development or to allot the land to builders/colonizers as per Plan 2021. 150. Arguments on behalf of the State were lead by Sri L. Nageswar Rao, Senior Advocate and Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate. 151. Learned Counsel appearing for the State respondent refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners contended that most of the writ petitions filed by the petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s latter judgment to the Division Bench judgment in the case of Harish Chand v. State of U.P. is per in curium. In Harkaran Singh's case, the Division Bench after perusing the records of the State Government returned the finding that invocation of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) was in accordance with law. The subsequent Division Bench in Harkaran Singh's case could not have taken the contrary view and only course open for the subsequent Division Bench was to make a reference for consideration by larger Bench which having not been done, the judgment of Harkaran Singh's case has to be ignored. Several notifications which are under challenge in these writ petitions have already been upheld by different Division Benches of this Court, in view of which decisions, the impugned notifications have also to be upheld. In some cases against the Division Bench judgment upholding the notifications under sections 4 and 6, Special Leave Petition have already been dismissed by the apex court. Following the judgment of Harish Chand's case, all the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. After taking possession of land by the Authority, the same was dealt with by the authority in accordanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apex Court. He submits that equitable approach has been applied in cases in which notifications under section 4 and 6have been found to be illegal. He submits that petitioners were never interested in the land and their grievance is only with regard to quantum of compensation. It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the State that factum of allotment made much subsequent to the acquisition is wholly irrelevant for judging the validity of the acquisition proceedings and validity of the notifications under section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) and 6. The correctness of notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 have to be judged according to the materials available at the relevant time and any subsequent action of the Authority in making the allotment cannot be made the basis for challenging the notifications which can neither be looked into nor is relevant. 152. Sri S.K. Patwaliya, learned Senior Advocate (who appeared only on first day of hearing), Sri Ravindra Kumar and Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh have appeared on behalf of the Authority. Learned Counsel for the Authority has adopted the submissions raised by learned Counsel for the State. It is further submitted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ooked their flats by taking bank finance. At this stage, the petitioners cannot be allowed to challenge the acquisition nor at their instance acquisition deserves to be quashed. Most of the writ petitions have been filed after judgment of the apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam and Devendra Kumar (supra) which judgments cannot give any cause of action to the petitioners to challenge the proceedings. Several writ petitions have been filed even after decade of completion of acquisition proceedings. The petitioners are only interested in obtaining more and more compensation from the respondents out of their greed. Substantial compensation has already been received by the land owners. Land owners whose land has been acquired has been provided Abadi plots to the extent of 6% minimum of 120 square meters and maximums of 25000 square meters as per the policy of the respondents and they having accepted the Abadi plots which means taking benefit of the acquisition, they cannot be allowed to challenge the acquisition. It is further submitted that several persons who have allotted Abadi plots have sold their plots to third party after taking handsome money. There is no foundation or ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel for the developers association has also referred to and given details of allotment made to various allottees, the extent of developments carried out by them. 154. Learned Counsel for the parties have placed reliance on various judgments of the apex Court and this Court which have been extensively read by them in support of their respective submissions which shall be referred to hereinafter, while considering the respective submissions of the parties. 155. From the pleadings of the parties and submissions of learned counsel for the parties as noticed above, following issues fell for consideration in this bunch of writ petitions:- ISSUES 1. Object and Purpose of the 1976 Act: Whether the development of industries is the dominant purpose and object of U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976? 2. Whether Acquisition Compulsory: Whether for carrying out the development of industrial area under 1976 Act, it is compulsory and necessary to acquire the land by the Authority? 3. Delay and Laches: Whether the delay and laches in the facts of the present case can bar the invocation of Constitutional remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 4. National Capital Regional P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the petitioners are not entitled for the relief of quashing the notifications under Sections 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) and Section 6 of the Act? 15. Effect of Upholding of some of the notifications in some writ petitions earlier decided: What are the consequences and effect of earlier Division Bench judgment upholding several notifications which are subject matter of challenge in some of these writ petitions? 16. Conflicts in views of Division Benches: Which of the Division Bench decisions i.e. Harkaran Singh's case holding that invocation of Section 17(1) and 17(4) was invalid or earlier Division Bench judgment in Harish Chand's case holding that invocation of section 17(1) and 17(4) was in accordance with law, has to be approved? 17. Relief: To what relief, if any, the petitioners are entitled in these writ petitions? 1. Object and Purpose of the 1976 Act: 156. Under Constitutional scheme, distribution of legislative powers is provided in Chapter I Part XI of the Constitution of India. According to Article 246 (3) subject to clauses (1) and (2), the Legislature of any State has exclusive power to make laws for such State or any part thereof with respect to an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and object as indicated into the preamble. The object of the Act was for the development of certain areas in the State into industrial and urban township. The object of the Act is further delineated from the Statement of Object and Reasons as published in the gazette which is to the following effect: With a view to stepping up the industrial development of the State, it is essential to develop suitable areas in the State into industrial township and to constitute an Authority for that purpose. The Authority shall be a body corporate and will have statutory powers similar to those of an Improvement Trust in regard to the development of sites, construction of buildings etc. In the first instance Government's intention is to create such an industrial complex in district Bulandshahr near Okhla and in future to develop similar other areas. This Bill is, accordingly, being introduced for carrying out the above purposes. 158. The statement of object and reasons as above clearly spells out the purpose for enactment i.e. to step up industrial development of the State which was possible only when suitable areas in the State were developed into industrial township and to constitute an Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment of Finance, ex-officio; (e) the Chief Town and Country Planner, Uttar Pradesh, ex-officio; (f) the Managing Director of the Jal Nigam, established under the Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975. ex-officio; (g) the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, ex-officio: (h) the District Magistrate of every district any part of which is included in the development area ex-officio; (i) four members to be elected by Sabhasads of the Nagar Mahapalika for the said city from amongst themselves; Provided that any such member shall cease to hold office as such as soon as he ceases to be Sabhasad of the Nagar Mahapalika; (j) such other members not exceeding three as may be nominated by the State Government. 160. There is a marked differences in the constitution of the Authority under 1976 Act and 1973 Act. Constitution of Authority as provided under section 3 (3) of the 1976 Act provides that Secretary to the Government of U.P. Industries Department or his nominee be the member chairman. Managing Director of the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation is also an ex officio member. The object being industrial development of the State, the heading of the authority by Secretary to the Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kubpur. It is useful to note the specific pleadings in this regard made in the writ petition. Paragraphs 5, 6, 8, 11, 24 of the writ petition are quoted below: 5. That as set out in Section 6 of UPIADA, the object of respondent Authority was to be to secure 'The Planned Development of the Industrial Development Area'. It is apparent that the primary purpose for which the respondent no. 1 was established, was t develop the area industrially and without prejudice to the generality of the said object, the powers have been vested in the respondent no. 1 to perform certain function sin Section 6 (ii) of UPIADA. It is submitted that the powers to demarcate and develop sites for industrial, commercial and residential purposes according to the plan hae been bestowed upon the respondent Authority under the said Act only for the purpose of facilitating the Authority to achieve the main object of 'Industrial Development'. It is submitted that it is apparent from the whole scheme of the said Act that the very purpose of the establishment, the respondent authority is the 'Planned Development' of the 'Industrial Development Area'. 6. That the petitioners submit th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the 'industry', it would be ultra virus the Act and the Constitution of India. 24. That Noida was established as mentioned above for the purpose of 'Industrial Development' of the said area. Admittedly, the land in the above mentioned scheme is being sold by the Authority without developing the said land. Also, such a big area of land is being sold for developing residential units having no nexus with the 'industrial Development'. It is submitted that the Residential Units proposed to be developed, are not going to help the promotion of industry in any manner. The entrepreneur or the industrial worker who may be working or are interested in the industry, will only be discouraged by such unbridled planning off of the property because this single action of the respondent Authority will result in escalation of rates of the residential property taking it totally beyond the capacity of the entrepreneur or the industrial worker. In fact, in place of augmenting the industrial growth, such people unfriendly schemes are only resulting in discouraging the industry. The industry to be viable needs cheaper land, cheaper infrastructure and cheaper labour. The increa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion that purpose of the Act is not only industrial development. It is true that development of the industrial township also contemplate development of residential, commercial, institutional sites for wholesome developments of an area and to provide all necessary facilities to the persons residing in the said area, but other developments have to be in aid of industrial development. 164. The contention of the petitioners is that Authority has forgotten its main object for which it was constituted i.e. industrial development. The Authority has proceeded with large scale acquisition of agricultural land without any plan and project for industrial development rather with only object to give benefit to private persons including the builders. The Authority in reply had submitted that allocation of land out of the acquired land has been undertaken as per Master Plan 2021, which prescribes percentage of land uses and allotment to different purposes i.e. residential, industrial, commercial etc. Master Plan 2021 has been brought on record as Annexure-3 to the supplementary affidavit. According to Master Plan, land uses have been prescribed per following percentage: Residential 23.2% Industri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Residential plots/flats Abadi and 6% settlement Facility Area (residential land use) Total Badalpur 2305540 272400 272400 Sadopur 1421600 247200 247200 Gharbara 595610 349040 349040 Chhapraula 909935 177457.8 KhairpurGurjar 3333062 23780 313505 941927.84 8500 1287712.84 Ajayabpur 373080 162006 162006 Nimauli 973170 281480.40 281480.40 878298.85 JaitpurVaishpur 3045154 395693.5 720 424110 820523.5 Mathurapur 1222699 239527 184853 247784.23 52955.95 725120.18 Saini 3048830 982690.94 770070.01 89980 1842740.95 Murshadpur 3088220 186110 186110 Haibatpur 2404810 781949 317947 36073.49 1135969.49 ChhipyanaKhurd 1055600 441470.26 186333.69 627803.95 Bisrakh-Jalalpur 6082590 1053612 232000 2207601.75 49008 3542221.75 Rithori 148539 991739 991739 598757 Itehra 3202560 1097586.91 609653.72 1707240.63 Luskar 1813000 353869 353869 1016192.29 Badpura 3036 Raipur Bangar 1808114 Malakpur 1547791 384890 384890 775007.6 Maicha 3435881 1552712 1552712 440514 Kasna 2308880 131717.3 489936 301100 128046.1 1050799.4 2275375.7 RasulpurRai 1192116 97532 569860 6220 128717 802329 YusufpurChaksaberi 551460 KheraChauganpur 946923 333330 333330 011109.26 Devla 1006214 Junpat 1218829 123700 Total 87071292 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing scheme for the purpose of marketing the Authority shall earn big profit. The said resolution has been brought on record as Annexure to the rejoinder affidavit and has also been placed by the authority along with its supplementary affidavit. The apex Court in (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 593 M/S Popcorn Entertainment Anr v City Industrial Development Corporation and others laid down following in paragraph 48 It has been held by several decisions of this Court that while developing a new township the objective of the planning authorities is not to earn money but to provide for systematic and all-round development of the area so that the purpose of setting up the township is achieved. From the materials brought on the record by the Authority it appears that in several villages, the land use of the acquired land was subsequently changed into industrial. Details of those villages in which the land use was admittedly changed by the authority are as follows: i. Patwari ii. Junpath iii. Ghori Bachera iv. Chapraula v. Pali vi. Yusufpur Chak Saberi vii. Kasana viii.Haibatpur ix. Chipiyana Khurd x. Itehra xi. Roja Yakubpur xii. Bisrakh Jalalpur 169. It has not even been tried to explain i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made subject to Ghaziabad Development Authority. In the aforesaid context, the Division Bench held that when the land was acquired and taken over by the acquiring body for the purposes of industrial development, then it can be public or commercial and residential accommodation connected with the said industrial development but it cannot be enter into simple housing development scheme performing the job of the development authorities and Nagar Nigams. Following was laid down in paragraph 30 of the said judgment:- 13. We are of the view that once the land was acquired and taken over by the requiring body for the purposes of industrial development, then it can be public or commercial and residential accommodation connected with the said industrial development but it cannot enter into simple housing development scheme performing the job of the development authorities and Nagar Nigams etc., which are authorised under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and other similar Acts. 2. Whether Acquisition Compulsory: 171. The next issue to be considered is as to whether it is compulsory and necessary for the Authority to acquire the land for carrying out the development as contem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent it is necessary to acquire land and it is only after acquisition of the land that development as contemplated by 1976 Act is possible. Learned Counsel for the Authority has referred to Section 6(2)(a) as well as Section 7. Section 7 of the Act provides as follows: 7. Power to the Authority in respect of transfer of land.-The authority may sell, lease or otherwise transfer whether by auction, allotment or otherwise any land or building belonging to the Authority in the industrial development area on such terms and conditions as it may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act think fit to impose. 174. Section 2(e) defines occupier and Section 2(f) defines transferee . Section 2(e) and 2(f) which have been used in subsequent sections are quoted below: 2.(e) 'Occupier' means a person (including a firm or body of individuals whether incorporated or not) who occupies a site or building with the industrial development area and includes his successors and assigns; 2.(f) 'Transferee' means a person (including a firm or other body of individuals whether incorporated or not to whom any land or building is transferred in any manner whatsoever, under this act an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in accord with the object and purpose of the Act. The object and purpose of the Act is much more than only to acquire the land and thereafter carry on developments. The Legislature intended that authority may be constituted to step up the industrial development of the State. Appropriate measures and planning in that regard is contemplated. The Authority under misconception that industrial developments could be done by it only when it acquires the land has proceeded with the acquisition of land in routine manner. 177. One more aspect in this regard is necessary to be noticed Section 12A was inserted under the 1976 Act by U.P. Act No. 4 of 2001 which provides that there shall be no Panchayat for industrial township. Section 12A is quoted below: 12-A. No Panchayat for industrial township.- Notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in any Uttar Pradesh Act, where an industrial development area or any part thereof is specified to be an industrial township under the proviso to clause (1) of Article 243-Q of the Constitution, such industrial development area or part thereof, if included in a Panchayat area, shall, with effect from the date of notification made under the said prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose and object. The purpose and object being that industrial establishment in an area, which is looking after the area should be left free to carry on its activities unhindered by constitution of any Municipality or Panchayat, which may adopt their own regulatory measures to hamper the industrial development. This scheme goes to indicate that purpose and object for giving such exemption to the Authority is again to be industrial development. Article 243Q(1) proviso came for consideration before the apex Court in (1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 366 Saij Gram Panchayat v The State Of Gujarat Ors. In the State of Gujrat, under Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962 notified industrial area were converted by notification into industrial township. Saij Gram Panchayat filed a writ petition challenging the notifications issued under Gujrat Industrial Development Act. Further notification was issued excluding the notified area from Saij Gram Panchayat under section 9(2) of the Gujrat Gram Panchayat Act, 1961. The Gram Panchayat challenged the notifications on the ground that Gujrat Industrial Development Act is contrary to part IX and Part IXA of the Constitution of India. The above argumen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Development Corporation. Once such an area is a deemed notified area under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1964, it is equated with an industrial township under Part IXA of the Constitution, where municipal services may be provided by industries. We do not see any violation of a constitutional provision in this scheme. 181. From the above discussions, it is clear that the stand of the Authority that unless the land is acquired by the Authority, it cannot carry any developmental works under 1976 Act is misconceived and incorrect. It is not far to seek that Authority labouring under above misconception has concentrated only on acquisition of land without taking care of other modes and means of industrial development and excessive acquisition of fertile agricultural land is due to above mindset of the Authority. 3. Delay and Laches: 182. Whether delay and laches, in the facts of the present cases can bar invocation of constitutional remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the question to be considered. 183. From the facts of different cases, as noted above, it is clear that the delay has occasioned on the part of the petitioners in invocation of jurisdiction of thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the copy of the lease deed by which M/s Supertech Ltd was allotted Builders Residential/Large Group Housing Plot No.GH08, area 204000 Sq meter has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. It is useful to quote paragraph 14 of the writ petition which is to the following effect: 14.That, the respondents acquired the land for the public purpose, namely for the Planned Industrial Development in District Gautam Budh Nagar through Greater Noida and on another hand they transferred the some acquired area to the private builders for construction and sale and in the May, 2011 the employee of the Respondents and Private Builders are trying to dispossess the petitioner from his Abadi Land. 187. In the writ petition, notifications issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) as well as Section 6 have been termed as fraud and in colourable exercise of power. As per the averments made in paragraph 24 of the counter affidavit, it is clear that the petitioners did not accept the compensation under the 1997 Rules. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that some of the petitioners have accepted the additional compensation which was offered to the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 75.80% 81% 27.7.2011 Khanpur 31.1.2008 30.6.2008 10.10.2008 September 2008 to September 2009 89.6% 90.51% 10.8.2011 Biraunda 15.12.1999 22.4.2000 28.7.2000and11.10.2002 February 2002 to March, 2009 51/80 tenure holders 97% 9.1.2009 ChuharpurKhadar 21.6.2003 7.8.2003 4.9.2004 October, 2003 to December, 2008 100% 100% 18.3.2005 Badalpur 20.6.2007 18.6.2008 18.7.2008 July 2008 toNovember2008 86% 80.86% 19.8.2011 Sadopur 31.8.2007 30.6.2008 16.2.2009 May 2009 to February2011 74% 13.7.2010 Gharbara 3.10.2005 20.12.2005 1.6.2006 July, 2006 to May 2008 and two inFebruary2009 88% 95% 6.9.2011 Chhapraula W.P. No. 47068/11 18.9.2000 31.10.2000 23.12.2000 15.6.2002 80.5% - 14.6.2002 Chhapraulaw.p. 46775/11 12.3.2008 3.2.2009 9.3.2009 June 2009 to March, 2010 82% 76% 21.3.2011 KhairpurGujar 8.11.2007 7.7.2008 11.10.2008 - 78.50% 82.50% 25.7.2011 Ajayabpur 29.9.2005 20.12.2005 1.6.2006 August 2006 to September, 2009 95% About 95% 25.8.2009 Namoli 11.3.2008 12.6.2008 Due to interim order possession not taken - - - - JaitpurVaishpur 29.1.2003 28.2.2003 7.5.2003 May, 2003 to July, 2009 93% - 23.7.2009 Mathurapur 3.10.2005 31.7.2006 27.10.2006 December 2006 to February 2007 94.48% 99.31% 25.9.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... larpurKhadar 11.9.2008 30.9.2009 3.2.2010, 25.9.2010 - 19% 19% 14.9.2011 Sadarpurw.p. 45379/11 30.2.2002 26.6.2003 3.9.2003, 3.3.2005 February 2003 to September 2008 75% 91% 29.1.2009 Sadarpurw.p. 47523/11 28.1.1994 10.11.1995 28.6.1999 September 2002 to Nov. 2003 139/200 tenure holders 69.5% 23.10.2009 Wazidpur 4.7.2003, 19.7.2003 22.8.2003 - 85.06% 96.30% 8.1.2010 Jhattaw.P. 47257/11 12.4.2005 28.10.2005 10.7.2006 30.12.2006 74% 77% 10.2.2010 Jhattaw.p. 47267/11 17.6.2003 21.7.2003 10.9.2003 March 2003 to Nov. 2003. 96% 97% 17.12.2007 ChhaprauliBangar 4.7.2003 21.7.2003 11.1.2005 September 2003 to Dec.2006 34/40 tenure holders 85% 19.9.2011 Name of village Dates of Notifications under Sections 4 6 Dates on Which possession claimed to be taken Period During which compensate on received Percentage of tenure holders receiving compensate on Percentage of total compensate on disbursed Status of Award Khoda 17.3.1988 11.7.1988 1.6.1989, 1.9.1995, 12.7.1995, 15.3.1995 March 19919 to Nov. 1997 715/870 tenure holders - 1.12.1991 Shahdaraw.p.44493 of 2011 16.4.2008 16.6.2008 14.7.2008 July 2008 to October 2008 316/560 tenure holders 65% Award has Been proposed. Shahdaraw.p.46248 of 2011 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the allotment and have changed their position which is an additional factor for not entertaining the writ petition. It is contended that the equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 can be exercised in favour of only those persons who have been vigilant of their rights and for not those who were indolent. Furthermore, the mere fact that in cases of some vigilant persons, judgments were given by this Court or the Apex Court cannot be a ground for permitting the petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. It is contended that most of the petitioners have filed the writ petition only after the judgment given by the Apex Court in Greater Noida Industrial Development, Authority v. Devendra Kumar Ors, 2011 (6) ADJ 480, decided on 06/7/2011. 191. Shri L. Nageshwar Rao, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State suggested that a cut off date be fixed taking the date of judgment of the above case i.e. 06/7/2011 and all the petitions filed after 06/7/2011 who have got impetus of filing the writ petition should be dismissed as barred by time. 192. Learned counsel appearing for the intervenors have also vehemently argued that the petitioners who have been sleeping over their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o various construction companies, Builders and Colonizers. A reference of 9 such builders and colonizers has been mentioned in the allotment letter dated 14.8.2007. The fact of allotment letter made through letter dated 14.8.2007 has come to the knowledge of the petitioners on the 3rd week of July 2001 which they also made an enquiry and as to which was the fate of their land specially in view of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in Shah berries Case (Ref. Devendra Kumar Versus State of U.P.). they obtained a copy of letter dated 14.8.2007 which was made available to them on 8th August, 2011 and are ow filing the present writ petition. 8. That, at the time when the land in dispute was acquired the petitioners were given to understand that on account of acquisition of the land there would be Industrial Development in the area which would accommodate youths of the village who would all be getting employment therein and that taking away of their agricultural lands, would not financially effect them. The petitioners were further informed that on such acquisition being finalized the land belonging to the petitioners would be allotted to the Industrial entrepreneurs on understanding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vate builders by respondent no. 3 for developing residential colonies. The petitioners submit that the action of respondent no. 3 in treating the petitioners differently is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. A photocopy of the news item dated 7.8.2011 is being filed and marked as Annexure no. 4 to this writ petition. 196. In Writ Petition No. 37119/2011, Dal Chand Ors. v. The State of U.P. Ors, the petitioners have also come up with the case that the acquisition of land was made for Planned Industrial Development through the Authority, but the authority has transferred the land to private builders by various lease deeds executed in the year 2010 and 2011. Details of various lease deeds granted by the Authority in favour of private builders have been made in paragraphs 12 to 17. Petitioners have further submitted that the lease deeds clearly reveal that the land of the petitioners in Village Roja Yakubpur is not to be used for Planned Industrial Development, hence the land be restored back to the petitioners. More pleadings have been made in paragraph 27. It was further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transferred the land of petitioners to private builders. The land acquired for Planned Industrial Development, will be used by respondent No. 3 to 8 for illegal gain. 32. That when petitioners came to know in the last week of May, 2011 that their land of village Roja Yakubpur will not be used for Planned Industrial Development, they made frantic efforts to know the details and then they came across lease deeds (Annexure- 4 to 9) in favour of respondents No. 3 to 8 the land acquired for Planned Industrial Development was transferred to respondents No. 3 to 8 for construction of residential flats and respondent no. 2 realized huge consideration from respondents no. 3 to 8. Thus a little delay has been caused in filing instant writ petition which is neither intentional nor deliberate and as such delay in challenging the notifications U/s. 4 and 6 of the Act is liable to be ignored. 197. In Writ Petition No. 40356/2011, Satish Kumar v. State of U.P. Ors, petitioner who belongs to Village Ghoribachera has challenged the notifications issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Act,1894 dated 03/10/2005 and 05/1/2006. Petitioner in the writ petition has pleaded that although the land was acquir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the belief that the land is being acquired for Planned Industrial Development which shall serve the public purpose and provide employment to their children due to establishment of several industries in the area. The land owners accepted the same as their fate and did not immediately rush to the court. The reason given by most of the petitioners for coming to the Court is that subsequently when the land was started being transferred to private builders and colonisers it transpired that the land is not being utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired and instead of industries coming in the area only builders have come up. Petitioners have also pleaded that the authority has given meagre some of few hundred rupees per square yard to the land owners, but they have been transferring the land to the builders for hefty amount ranging from ₹ 10,000 to 20,000 per square metre. On the aforesaid ground and other grounds as noticed above, petitioners have approached the Court with delay, but the petitioners case is that since the facts elaborated above indicate that the respondents have played fraud and the acquisition was in colourable exercise of power, the delay in approaching ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scence on the part of the appellant as to disentitle it to a grant of a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It is true that the issue of a writ of certiorari is largely a matter of sound discretion. It is also true that the writ will not be granted if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as, taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the adverse party. The principle is to a great extent, though not identical with, similar to the exercise of discretion in the Court of Chancery. The principle has been clearly stated by Sir Barnes Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd, Abram Farewell, and John Kemp, (1874) 5 PC 221 at p. 239, as follows:- Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to place ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f others by reason of the delay in filing the petition. The promotions being provisional, they have not conferred any rights on those promoted and they are by their very nature liable to be set at naught, if the correct legal position, as finally determined, so requires. We were also told by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and that was not controverted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Government, that even if the petition were allowed and the reliefs claimed by the petitioners granted to them, that would not result in the reversion of any Deputy Collector or officiating Deputy Collector to the post of Mamlatdar/Tehsildar; the only effect would be merely to disturb their inter se seniority as officiating Deputy Collectors or as Deputy Collectors. Moreover it may be noticed that the claim for enforcement of the fundamental right of equal opportunity under Art. 16 is itself a fundamental right guaranteed under. Art. 32 and this Court which has been assigned the role of a sentinel on the qui vive for protection of the fundamental rights cannot easily allow itself to be persuaded to refuse relief solely on the jejune ground of laches, delay or the like. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and Others v. H. B. Munshi and Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India). 12. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government, it is clear that the Government have allotted a large portion of the land after the acquisition proceedings were finalised to Cooperative housing societies. To quash the notification at this stage would disturb the rights of third parties who are not before the Court. 13. As regards the second contention that there was inordinate delay in finalizing the acquisition proceedings and that the appellants and writ petitioners were deprived of the appreciation in value of the land in which they were interested, it may be noted that about 6,000 objections were filed under Section 5A by persons interested in the property. Several writ petitions were also filed in 1966 and 1967 challenging the validity of the acquisition proceedings. The Government had necessarily to wait for the disposal of the objections and petitions before proceeding further in the matter. Both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court were of the view that there was no inordinate delay on the part of the Government in completing the acquisition proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. Therefore, the ratio is clearly inapplicable to the facts of these appeals. 207. Another judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents is the judgment of the Apex Court in Senjeevanagar Medical Health Employees' Co-operative Housing Society v. Mohd. Abdul Wahab Ors, (1996) 3 SCC 600. 208. In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court held that the property under acquisition having vested in the State, exercise of power to quash notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act would lead to incongruity. Therefore, the High Court should not have interfered with the acquisition and quashed the notification and declaration under Sections 4 and 6 respectively. Following was laid down in paragraph 12 which is quoted below:- 12. That apart, as facts disclose, the award was made on November 24, 1980 and the writ petition was filed on August 9, 1982. It is not in dispute that compensation was deposited in the court of the Subordinate Judge. lt is asserted by the appellant- Society that possession of the land was delivered to it and the land had been divided and allotted to its members for construction of houses and that construction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that once the land was vested in the State, the Court was not justified in interfering with the notification published under appropriate provisions of the Act. Delay in challenging the notification was fatal and writ petition entails with dismissal on grounds of latches. It is thus, well settled law that when there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final, the Court should be loathe to quash the notifications. The High Court has, no doubt, discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6. But it should be exercised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic consideration. When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that no third party rights were created in the case, is hardly a ground for interference. The Division Bench of the High Court was not right in interfering with the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion Bench are affirmed to the extent of dismissal f the writ petition and the special appeal without going into the merits thereof. This appeal also deserves to be dismissed without going into the merits of the case and is dismissed as such. No costs. 212. The Apex Court again had an occasion to consider the question of delay and laches in Sawaran Lata Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2010) 4 SCC 532. Considering the earlier judgments the Apex court laid down following in paragraph 11 which is quoted below: 11. Reference in this case may be made to the decision of the National Commission rendered in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gian Singh. In the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) it has been held that in a case of violation of condition of the policy as to the nature of use of the vehicle, the claim ought to be settled on a non-standard basis. The said decision of the National Commission has been referred to by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nitin Khandelwal. 213. Another judgment of the Apex Court relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents is Sulochana Chandrakant Galande v. Pune Municipal Transport Ors, (2010) 8 SCC 46 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lied by the learned counsel for the respondents. In the aforesaid case, there was a delay of 6 years between the passing the award and filing of the writ petition. Following principles were laid down in paragraphs 16,17,18,19 and 26 which are quoted below:- 16. In our view, even if the objection of delay and laches had not been raised in the affidavits filed on behalf of the BDA and the State Government, the High Court was duty bound to take cognizance of the long time gap of 9 years between the issue of declaration under Section 6(1) and filing of the writ petition and declined relief to respondent No. 1 on the ground that he was guilty of laches because the acquired land had been utilized for implementing the residential scheme and third party rights had been created. The unexplained delay of about six years between the passing of award and filing of writ petition was also sufficient for refusing to entertain the prayer made in the writ petition. 17. It is true that no limitation has been prescribed for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but one of the several rules of self imposed restraint evolved by the superior courts is that the High Court will not enter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e public purpose. 26. In this case, the acquired land was utilized for implementing Tulsi Nagar Residential Scheme inasmuch as after carrying out necessary development i.e. construction of roads, laying electricity, water and sewer lines etc. the BDA carved out plots, constructed flats for economically weaker sections and lower income group, invited applications for allotment of the plots and flats from general as well as reserved categories and allotted the same to eligible persons. In the process, the BDA not only incurred huge expenditure but also created third party rights. In this scenario, the delay of nine years from the date of publication of the declaration issued under Section 6(1)and almost six years from the date of passing of award should have been treated by the High Court as more than sufficient for denying equitable relief to respondent No. 1. 215. Another recent judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents of the Apex Court is State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639. In the aforesaid case, writ petition was filed in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the year 2007, for issuing directions in terms of the Rehabilitation and Resettl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 5-A and have received substantial amount from the appellant society pursuant to the agreement executed in their favour. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and on the ground that the petitioners have participated in the proceedings and they shall be treated to have acquiesced. Appeal was filed by the respondents which was allowed by the Division Bench. The Court held that acquisition was colourable exercise of the power therefore, the delay cannot be a good ground to dismiss the writ petition. Against the Division Bench judgment, the society filed Civil Appeals challenging the Division Bench judgment. The Apex Court upheld the judgment of the Karnataka High Court and dismissed the appeal. The Apex Court laid down that when the acquisition was totally malafide and not for bonafide purpose, the ground of delay and acquiescence had no substance. It is useful to quote the relevant observations of the apex Court made in paragraphs 3, 4 and 9 which are quoted below: 3. This writ petition was contested by the appellant-society as respondent and it was alleged that it was hopelessly barred by time being delayed by 14 years and it was also s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... na fide housing scheme but is substantially for the purpose of enabling the concerned office bearers of respondent- societies and their agents to indulge in sale of sites in the guise of allotment of sites to the Members/ Associate members of the society to make money as alleged by the petitioners and therefore it is a clear case of colourable exercise of power. Thus the decision of the Government to acquire the lands suffers from legal mala fides and therefore the impugned Notifications are liable to be struck down. 4. In view of aforesaid observation, their Lordships of Division Bench held that since the acquisition was colourable exercise of the power, therefore, delay cannot be a good ground to dismiss the writ petition. The said judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka was affirmed by this Court in Special Leave Petition Nos. (c)..CC 525-532 of 1999 and Special Leave Petition Nos. (c)..CC 504-522 of 1999 decided on 14.7.1999 and it was held that the appellant-society is a bogus house building society and accordingly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside by Division Bench. Against the order of the Division Bench passed in Writ Appeal N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that as the amount in question has been accepted by the respondents, it is not open for them now to wriggle out from that agreement. It may be that the appellant might have tried to settle out the acquisition but when the whole acquisition emanates from the aforesaid tainted notification any settlement on the basis of that notification cannot be validated. The fact remains that when the basic notification under which the present land is sought to be acquired stood vitiated then whatever money that the appellant has paid, is at its own risk. Once the notification goes, no benefit could be derived by the appellant . The Apex Court in the above case (Vyalikaval House building Coop. Society v. V. Chandrappa) approved the view of the Division Bench of the High Court that since the acquisition was in colourable exercise of the power, delay cannot be a good ground to dismiss the writ petition. 219. Allegations of the petitioners are that the action of the Authority in sending the recommendation for acquisition of land was fraud on power and the acquisition is in colourable exercise of power which are to be thoroughly examined. 220. Shri Dhruv Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in interfering with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches. Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan Ors. v. D.R. Laxmi Ors. [(1996) 6 SCC 445] following the decision of this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (supra) it was held : ... When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that no third party rights were created in the case, is hardly a ground for interference. The Division Bench of the High Court was not right in interfering with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches..... Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan Ors. v. D.R. Laxmi Ors. [(1996) 6 SCC 445] following the decision of this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (supra) it was held: .....When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have have exercised its power to quash the award which is a material factor to be t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lourable exercise of power. The application was made by the company after depositing part of the compensation and no part of the compensation was to be paid by the State Government when the application had been moved by the company or till the agreement was executed by the Company and State under Section 41 of the Act. Acquisition by the State as an acquisition for public purpose by invoking section 17 was a colourable exercise of power. The acquisition being acquisition for a company, part VII of the Act and Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 were required to be adhered to. The State with an intention to bye pass the statutory provisions and to unduly help the respondent no. 2 had proceeded to acquire the land as acquisition for public purposes. 52. The acquisition in question was acquisition proceedings initiated by State by dispensing inquiry under Section 5-A denying opportunity of filing objections. It is true that petitioners have signed Kararnama and taken whatever compensation was given by the respondents but it is clear that petitioners have been raising their protests and continued their agitations. Agitation was started being noticed since May, 2006. The compulsory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd praying for a mandamus directing the respondents to redeliver the possession of the said land. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge as barred by time, against which writ appeal was filed by the respondents which was allowed. Against the said judgment, the appellants who were private transferee of acquired land had filed civil appeal before the Apex Court. Submission was made by the appellants that the writ petitions being highly barred by laches was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench committed error in allowing the writ appeal. The question of delay was considered by the Apex Court in the said case. Following was laid down in paragraphs 16, 17, 21 and 22 which are quoted below:- 16. The first question which needs consideration is whether the High Court committed an error by granting relief to respondent No. 1 despite the fact that he filed writ petition after long lapse of time and the explanation given by him was found unsatisfactory by the learned Single Judge, who decided the writ petition after remand by the Division Bench. 17. Although, framers of the Constitution have not prescribed any period of limitation for filin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld naturally like to give relief to him; but even in such a case, if the petitioner has been guilty of laches, and there are other relevant circumstances which indicate that it would be inappropriate for the High Court to exercise its high prerogative jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner, ends of justice may require that the High Court should refuse to issue a writ. There can be little doubt that if it is shown that a party moving the High Court under Article 226 for a writ is, in substance, claiming a relief which under the law of limitation was barred at the time when the writ petition was filed, the High Court would refuse to grant any relief in its writ jurisdiction. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. That is a matter which must be left to the discretion of the High Court and like all matters left to the discretion of the Court, in this matter too discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. (Emphasis Supplied) 22. In the light of the above, it is to be seen whether the discretion exercised by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Village Nithari namely; Writ Petition No. 45933/2011, Ravindra Sharma Anr v. State of U.P. ors, Writ Petition No. 47545/2011, Babu Ram Ors v. State of U.P. Ors. These two writ petitions have been filed in the year 2011, where as the notification under Section 4 was issued on 01/6/1976 and declaration under Section 6 was issued on 16/9/1976. The possession was taken by the respondents on 28/10/1976 and the award was also declared on 15/7/1978. The writ petitions have been filed after more than 2 decades. There are no grounds in the writ petitions to entertain such highly barred writ petitions in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Both these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on the ground of laches alone. 225. The next writ petition challenging the notification of 1976 is relating to Village Chaura Sadatpur being Writ Petition No. 46407/2011, i.e. Liley Ram v. State of U.P. Ors. The writ petition was filed challenging the notifications dated 01/6/1976 under Section 4 and 16/9/1976 under Section 6. Possession was taken on 28/10/1976 and the award was also declared on 25/9/1978. The writ petition having been filed after more than 2 decades deserves to be dismissed on the ground of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... co-ordinating and monitoring the implemention of plan for development of National Capital Region and for evolving harmonised policies for the control of land uses and development of infrastructure in the National Capital Region, Parliament enacted an Act namely, National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985 hereinafter referred to as NCRPB Act, 1985 . The NCRPB Act, 1985 was enacted by the Parliament on the resolutions passed by the legislature of State of Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh under Article 252 of the Constitution of India. 231. The NCRPB Act, 1985 is on the subject which is included in the State list of VIIth schedule of the Constitution of India. The Act, 1976 was enacted for industrial development and urban township of the area and the NCRPB Act, 1985 was also enacted for co-ordinating and monitoring the control of land uses and development of infrastructure, hence it is very necessary to examine the effect and consequence of NCRPB Act, 1985 on the ambit and scope of Act, 1976 and the actions of the Authority have to be tested on the aforesaid basis. 232. The statement of objects and reasons of the NCRPB Act, 1985 as published in the Gazette of India on 27/8/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he statutory Planning Board would be the preparation, modification, revision and review of a regional plan for the development of the National Capital Region and also for the preparation of functional plans for the proper guidance of the participating States and the Union territory of Delhi, the power to prezare sub-regional plan and project plan shall remain with the participating States and the Union territory of Delhi. The functions of the Planning Board would also include the power to co-ordinate and monitor the implementation of the regional plan and the power to evolve harmonised policy for the control of land-users and development of infrastructure in the National Capital Region so as to avoid any haphazard development of the region. With a view to enabling the Planning Board to discharge its functions, the Bill provides for the establishment of Planning Committee consisting of the officers and town planners of the participating States and the Union Territory of Delhi, to assist the Planning Board to discharge its functions. The Bill also contains the provisions which are necessary to give effect to the aforesaid objects. NCRPB Act, 1985 contains following preamble which als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through the participating States and the Union territory; (d) to ensure proper and systematic programming by the participating States and the Union territory in regard to project formulation, determination of priorities in the National Capital Region or sub-regions and phasing of development of the National Capital Region in accordance with stages indicated in the Regional Plan; (e) to arrange for, and oversee, the financing of selected development projects. In the National Capital Region through Central and State Plan funds and other sources of revenue. 8. Powers of the Board.- The powers of the Board shall include the powers to - (a) call for reports and information from the participating States and the Union territory with regard to preparation, enforcement and implementation of Functional Plans and Sub-regional Plans; (b) ensure that the preparation, enforcement and implementation of Functional Plan or Sub-Regional Plan, as the case may be, is in conformity with the Regional Plan; (c) indicate the stages for the implementation of the Regional Plan; (d) review the implementation of the Regional Plan, Functional Plan, Sub-Regional Plan and Project Plan; (e) select and approve com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in relation to land-use and the allocation of land for different uses; (b) the proposals for major urban settlement pattern; (c) the proposals for providing suitable economic base for future growth; (d) the proposals regarding transport and communications including railways and arterial roads serving the NCR; (e) the proposals for the supply of drinking water and for drainage; (f) indication of the areas which require immediate development as priority areas ; and (g) such other matters as may be included by the Board with the concurrence of the participating States and the Union territory for the proper planning of the growth and balanced development of the National Capital Region. 237. Section 16 of the NCRPB Act, 1985 provides for Preparation of Functional Plans as may be necessary for the proper guidance of the participating States and of the Union Territory and Section 17 of the NCRPB Act, 1985 provides for Preparation of Sub-Regional Plans. Each participating State shall prepare a Sub-Regional Plan for the sub-region within the State. Sections 16and 17 are quoted below: 16. Preparation of Functional Plans.- After the Regional Plan has come into operation, the Board may prepar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Plan to the participating State or the Union territory by which such Plan was referred to it. (3) The participating State, or, as the case may be, the Union territory, shall, after due consideration of the observations made by the Board, finalize the Sub-Regional Plan after ensuring that it is in conformity with the Regional Plan. 20.Implementation of Sub-Regional Plans, etc.-Each participating State, or, as the case may be, the Union territory shall be responsible for the implementation of the Sub-Regional Plan, as finalized by it under subsection (3) of section 19, and Project Plans prepared by it. 239. Section 27 of the NCRPB Act, 1985 provides for an Act to have overriding effect and Section 29 of the NCRPB Act, 1985 deals with violation of Regional Plan. Sections 27 and 29 are quoted below: 27.Act to have overriding effect.-The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act; or in any decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority. 29. Violation of Regional Plan.-(1) On and from the coming into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 5. To the best knowledge of the petitioner company there is no approval of the Master Plan of respondent No. 4 from respondent No. 5. As such, acquisition of land for industrial development without due approval of respondent No. 5 is impermissible. This is sufficient to quash the impugned notifications. 243. However, in Writ Petition No. 41339/2011, Ramesh Kumar Bhagchandka @ Ramesh Chand Bhagchandka v. State Of U.P. Others, a detail Supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioners on 08/9/2011, in which specific pleadings were made with regard to NCRPB Act, 1985. Following pleadings are made in paragraphs 41 to 45 which are quoted below: 41. That a master plan prepared by NOIDA does not have any approval of the National Capital Regional Planning Board which is a statutory body constituted under the Act, 1985. The development proposed by the respondents is, therefore, contrary to the law and there is no approval by the National Capital Regional Planning Board. 42. That there is no permission accorded under Section 25 and 27 of the said Act and hence the entire development conceived by the respondents is illegal and no township can come into existence without concurren ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bachhera and village Sakipur hearing has also been completed. One of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there has been no approval of the plan by the National Capital Regional Planning Board as required by National Capital Regional Planning Board Act, 1985. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 67 of 2007, Jai Prakash Tyagi and others v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 23.08.2011. Learned counsel appearing for Greater Noida Authority may file supplementary counter affidavit explaining the position. Hearing in rest of the cases will continue tomorrow at 10 A.M. 245. In pursuance of the order of the Court dated 14/9/2011, supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by Vijay Shankar Mishra sworn on 20/9/2011. 246. Learned counsel appearing for the Authority Shri Ravindra Kumar has pleaded that there is no requirement in getting the master plan of the authority approved by the National Capital Regional Planning Board. Referring to para 17.5.1 of the Regional Plan 2021, prepared by National Capital Region Planning Board, it is submitted that it is a local authority which is empowered to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appropriate directions which are required to be implemented. It is clear that unless the directions of the Board are implemented in Sub-Regional Plan, the Sub-Regional Plans cannot be implemented. The provisions of the NCRPB Act, 1985 thus has to be interpreted to mean that there is complete control over the Sub-Regional Plans prepared by the participating State and the mechanism provided is such that unless the Sub-Regional Plan is completely cleared by the Board, the said plan can neither be implemented nor can be said to be enforceable. 252. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the Division Bench judgement of this Court in Writ Petition No. 26737/1993, Ravindra Singh Ors. v. State of U.P. Ors., (1997) 1 AWC 54 decided on 01/10/1996. 253. In the said writ petition land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Greater Noida Authority under the 1976 Act were challenged. One of the issue which arose for consideration was as to whether under the NCRPB Act, 1985, the plans prepared by the Greater Noida Authority are required to be approved. 254. The Division Bench in the said case has held that unless the National Capital Region Planning Board gives a green signal nothing can g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese plans which have yet to be sent to the Board. In these circumstances and on the statement which has now come from the National Capital Region Planning Board the doubts of the Court have not been unfounded. The issues which remain in the petition are, to the effect, that a possibility cannot be ruled out that of the acquisition of land which have been made, it may be a subject of scrutiny by the National Capital Region Planning Board and possible the merits and the purpose of the acquisition may need a revision. The claim of some of the Petitioners that they have a certificate of an appropriate authority Under Section 143 of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 may not be of much help because if the conforming use of the area is agriculture, and the Regional Plan 2001 respects agricultural areas any diversion from the conforming use to urbanisation may violate the spirit of Regional Planning 2001. The question is the scope of these proceeding on a writ of certiorari by the High Court. One authority whose business it is to go into these matters has yet to engage its attention to it. This is the N.C.R.P., an authority specially vested with functions to discharge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Chairman of the Greater Noida that plans were submitted and the process under the Act, 1985 was complete. The Division Bench further held following in paragraphs 13 and 14 and ultimately issued direction in paragraph 21 which are quoted below: 13. A very pertinent question arises whether taking recourse to Section 5A would have been a composite exercise where the matter would have been examined on whatever the Petitioners contend as objections not in acquisition proceedings, but in these writ petitions. There are still many aspects which need to be sorted out and this cannot be done as a fact-finding spree in the jurisdiction of prerogative writs. Not going into this question will also leave a void and encourage further litigations and bog planned development. Seeing the totality of the circumstances, in generality, the Court Is of the view that where planned development has been undertaken as part of an exercise as a statutory obligation, the dominant purpose of this planned development is the National Capital Region. The Petitioners would like to resist this and prevent their property from being wrested out of their hands. The Greater Noida does not desire to see anything b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P., to enquire and ensure certain aspects of: (a) Conforming uses as are part of the National Capital Region, the plans having been approved by the National Capital Region Planning Board are given their due sanctity and respect without compromising on them notwithstanding that industry is being developed. The aforesaid Division Bench judgment clearly indicates that the Greater Noida Authority was well aware that the master plan prepared by it is required to be submitted and approved by the Board. Thus, the submission of Shri Ravindra Kumar appearing for the Authority that no approval is required from the Board does not appear to be correct. In the Supplementary Counter Affidavit which has been filed by the Authority on 20/9/2011, it has been stated that the master plan 2021 was approved by the Authority on 09/11/2001 and was submitted to the National Capital Regional Planning Board. It was also stated in the affidavit that minor suggestions of the Board which do not at all relate to the land uses were also incorporated. Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Supplementary Counter Affidavit are quoted below: 6. That, without prejudice to what is submitted in para 5 above, it is further submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 22/9/2011 following order was passed: Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that although the original records of the State Government have been directed to be produced but since no orders have been passed for producing the original records of the authority, hence an appropriate order may be passed so that original records may be available for perusal of the Court. In view of the aforesaid,we direct that Greater NOIDA authority/ NOIDA authority shall also produce original records pertaining to the decisions taken by the authority, preparation of plan as per 1991 Regulations and the various allotments made in different villages with regard to which land has been acquired. Authority in pursuance of the aforesaid directions has submitted original records being File No.M-II,V and VI Planning and Architecture. The Booklet of Regional Plan-2021 (Published in September 2005 of National Capital Regional Planning Board) has also been submitted by Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Authority. Before we refer to the original files of Planning and Architecture submitted by Noida Authority, it is useful to refer to certain features of Regional Plan-2021. Part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stage in reference to the plans, aforesaid, constituent State a part of the National Capital Region Plan has to keep a close consultation with, the federal agency which is the Board... ..Thus, to permit aspects, in context, to be examined by the Board, the Court adjourns these proceedings for a period of two months to enable the Board to approve, review, consult, affirm or confirm the plans which are the subject-matters of these writ petitions in total freedom notwithstanding that a notification has been issued for acquisition of land by the State of Uttar Pradesh or for that matter that these proceedings are pending before the High Court. The only guidance which this Court gives to the Board is to give effect to the intentions of the Act co-coordinating, monitoring and scrutinising the implementation of the plans and for harmoniously building urban planning with excellence without disturbing the ecological balance of nature and by respecting the green cover, agriculture and not abdicating either in favour of urbanisation but with a dedicated effort to respect the forests and strive to retain the balance of nature and ecology and at every given occasion not loosing the perspective ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n referred to by Shri Ravindra Kumar, cannot be read to mean that with regard to land uses in the area the Authority/State Government is free to fix land use, the land uses have to be in accordance with the Regional Plan and Sub-Regional Plan. Thus, the submission of Shri Ravindra Kumar, that the authority is free to determine and change the land uses within the development area cannot be accepted. 255. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Apex court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Delhi Auto General Finance Private Ltd, (1994) 4 SCC 42. In the aforesaid case, the master plan was prepared by the GDA under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 in which land uses of the area in question was recreational. The said land uses was changed by the GDA as 'residential' at the instance of the State Government. Subsequently, within a short span of time it was again changed as recreational. The respondents Delhi Auto and General Finance Ltd, had submitted a plan which was rejected by the GDA. Writ petitions were filed in the High Court claiming that the rejection was arbitrary. The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m 'recreational' to 'residential' be valid, so also is the next amendment reverting to the original land use, i.e., recreational'. Intervening facts relating to the private colonisers described as planning commitments, investments, and legitimate expectations do not have the effect of inhibiting the exercise of statutory power under the U.P. Act which is in consonance with the provisions of the NCR Act, which also has overriding effect and lays down the obligation to each participating State to prepare a Sub-Regional Plan to elaborate the Regional Plan at the Sub-Regional level and holds the concerned State responsible for the implementation of the Sub-Regional Plan. The original land use of the area shown as 'recreational' at the time of approval and publication of the Regional Plan under the NCR Act having remained unaltered thereafter, that alone is sufficient to negative the claim of Delhi Auto and Maha Maya for permission to make an inconsistent land user within that area. As noticed above, in the Supplementary Affidavit which was filed by the Authority in pursuance of the direction of this Court to explain its stand under the 1985, Act in which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Manager (Planning) Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, 169,Chitvan Estate, Sector Gamma, Greator Noida City, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar-201308. Madam, Please refer to your letter No.Niyojan/MI(iv)/2007/479 dated 2.2.2007 regarding the draft Greater Noida Master Plan 2021. the point wise replies on the observations and suggestions of Planning Committee have been examined. It is observed that certain suggestions of NCRPB have not been incorporated which is enclosed. It is requested that the suggestions of NCRPB may be incorporated in the draft Greater Noida Master Plan-2021 and revised Plan document may be sent to the Board at the earliest for consideration of Planning Committee. Yours faithfully 9/5/07 (Rajeev Malhotra) Chief Regional Planner270. The proceeding of 54th meeting of the Planning Committee of NCR Planning Board held on 04/9/2006, was forwarded to Greater Noida containing several observations and directions of Planning Board. In the counter affidavit letter dated 02/2/2007 has been brought on record by which a request was made on behalf of the Greater Noida Authority that observations have been incorporated and on the basis of the amendment as approved on 21/1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er plan for Greater Noida-2021 and incorporation of the observations of the Planning Committee may be intimated to the NCR Planning board. 26/5/2011-The State Government wrote to Chief Co-ordinate Planner NCR Planning Board, Ghaziabad forwarding the letter dated 08/4/2011, to incorporate the proposed amendment in the Master Plan 2021 which may be included in the Master Plan of the Greater Noida-2021. 09/6/2011-The Board wrote to the State Government referring to its earlier letter dated 11/8/2010, to take further steps towards incorporation of observations of Board dated 04/9/2006. 17/6/2011-The State Government wrote to Greater Noida to take appropriate action as per letter dated 09/6/2011 of N.C.R.P. Board. From the aforesaid facts, as is revealed from the original records submitted by the Authority it is clear that the draft Master Plan 2021 of the Greater Noida has not yet received clearance from the board. 256. We, however, are constraint to observe that in spite of our order to the Authority passed on 14/9/2011, to file affidavit giving details pertaining to NCRPB Act, 1985, in the Supplementary Affidavit dated 20/9/2011, all above mentioned facts were concealed from the Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Authority is not acting bonafide and has been acting to achieve certain ulterior motives and objects which are not far to seek. 260. We have already noticed that the Division Bench of this Court in Ravindra Singh's case (supra) has already directed the State Government to appoint an Officer of the rank of Secretary to the Government to inquire and ensure conforming uses of the National Capital Region and they are given their due sanctity. 261. There does not appear to have any serious deliberation at the State Level to find out whether the changes in the land uses as proposed by the Authority are in conformity with the NCRPB Act, 1985. 262. The State as well as the Authority and interveners have made much emphasis on the submission that the change of land use was subsequent to acquisition, the allotment to various private parties/companies were much after acquisition which shall have no effect on the acquisition of land and the relevant time is the date of issue of notification under Section Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) and Section 6 of the Act, 1894. We are of the view that since the allegations of the petitioners are that the Authority is proceeding with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in order to ensure that it is in conformity with the regional plan. Once the NCRPB affirms the conformity of the said plan with regional plan, only then the State government can finalize it. Thereafter, the State Government is entitled to implement the Sub- regional plan by virtue of Section 20 of the NCRPB Act. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India : (2004) 6 SCC 588, this Court has discussed the purpose and overriding effect of the NRCPB Act thus: 27. The National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985 (for short the NCR Act ) was enacted to provide for the constitution of a Planning Board for the preparation of a plan for the development of the National Capital Region and for coordinating and monitoring the implementation of such plan and for evolving harmonised policies for the control of land uses and development of infrastructure in the National Capital Region so as to avoid any haphazard development of that region and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The areas within the National Capital Region are specified in the Schedule to the NCR Act. The National Capital Region comprises the area of entire Delhi, certain districts of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Section 27 of the LA Act renders the entire acquisition proceedings illegal and hence vitiated. 264. Shri Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Authority sought to distinguish the above judgment stating that the Authority in the said case had passed a resolution authorising the NCRP Board to prepare the Sub-Regional Plan for construction of Leather Project at Hapur, hence the said case is distinguishable since in the present case Greater Noida Authority has not passed any such resolution. The above submission is misconceived. The preparation of Sub-Regional Plan and approval by the NCRP Board is not at the option of the Authority, rather it is the obligation under the Statute. More so, from the facts as noticed above, it is clear that the Authority vide its resolution approving the various amendment in the draft Master Plan-2021 and the State Government through its letters as noted above had requested the NCRP Board to grant approval to draft Master Plan-2021 as amended and the State Government after approving proposed amendments had forwarded the draft Master Plan 2021 sent by Greater Noida Authority to the N.C.R.P. Board for its inclusion in the Master Plan 2021, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 1999, the land under agriculture shrank by 8.12% i.e., from 87.64% to 79.52%. This drop of 8.12% is considerable when compared with the proposed drop of only 3.8% (87.64% to 83.84%) stated in Regional Plan-2001. This has resulted not only into over-conversion of agriculture into non-agriculture land but also non-conformity with the proposed settlement pattern of the Regional Plan-2001. 267. Section 40 of the NCRPB Act, 1985 as noticed above has to be given some meaning and purpose. Section 40 of the Act, 1985 has to be read as a precondition for participating State to acquire the land, condition being that acquisition be made in NCR only to give effect to any regional, functional plan, sub-regional plan or project plan framed under the 1985 Act. 268. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that according to the judgments of the Apex Court in Aflatoon Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi Ors., (1975) 4 SCC 285 and Bhagat Singh v. State of U.P. Ors, (1999) 2 SCC 384, even if there is no plan prepared or the land use as per the existing plan is different there is no restraint on the Authority to acquire the land. It is useful to quote paragraph 23 of the judgment in the case Aflato ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the permitted use was modified and the land is now shown as 'green belt'. On the other hand, it is submitted for the respondents that if the land is proved to have been acquired for a valid public purpose, then the beneficiary of the land acquisition can later on move the authority concerned for change of land use. 20. An analogous issue arose in the case Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi. In that case a notification was issued Under Section 4(1) of the Act for acquisition of a vast extent of land for the planned development of Delhi. The said acquisition was questioned. On of the contentions was that for such a purpose, development, action had to be taken only under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and that too by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi under that Act and not by the Central Government under the Land Acquisition Act. It was there argued that inasmuch as there was no Master Plan nor Zonal Plan in existence on the date of notification, the acquisition was bad. This Court rejected objection raised by the owners and observed, after referring to Sections 12 and 15 of the Delhi Development Act. 1957, as follows (para 23): 23. The planned development of Delhi had been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at no approval is required of N.C.R.P. Board cannot be approved, in view of our observations and discussion as made above. Another Division Bench of this Court had considered the issue as to whether the Master Plan 2021 of the Greater NOIDA had approval of the Board under the 1985 Act in the case of Sri Ram Chaudhary etc. v. M/s Technology Park and others reported in 2010 (7) ADJ 172. In the said case acquisition was also challenged pertaining of a village of Greater NOIDA, which was initiated by Section 4 notification dated 10th April, 2006 and Section 6 notification dated 30th November, 2008. One of the issues raised was that Master Plan 2021 of Greater NOIDA (which is being relief by the respondents in the present bunch of writ petitions) had not been approved by the Board. The Division Bench noted following in paragraph 136 of the said judgment, which is quoted below:- 136. By citing all these sections Mr. Shashi Nandan has contended before this Court that let the records be produced by the authority to show that the Master Plan-2021 has been approved by the National Capital Region Planning Board but the respondents authority in spite of bringing the record failed to establish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spensing with the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act. It is further submitted that the acquisition of land which was alleged to be planned industrial development in district Gautam Budh Nagar was not such a matter which required invocation of Section 17 (4). The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the provisions of Section 5A is mandatory and embodies a just and wholesome principle that a person whose property is being or is intended to be acquired should have an occasion to pursue the authority concerned that his property be not touched for acquisition. In the main writ petition (Gajraj and others v. State of U.P. and others) specific pleadings have been made taking the aforesaid ground. It is useful to refer to paragraphs 9, 11, 12, 14, 20 and 26 of the main writ petition, which are as under:- 9. That, the said notification under Section 4 of the Act issued by the respondent no. 1 without application of mind and there was no urgency in the acquisition of land for the planned industrial development on the ground of which the respondent invoked Section 17(1)and 4 of the Act by dispensing with an enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. The respondents in order to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Land Acquisition, Collector for filing and hearing of objections under Section 5-A is a blend of public and individual enquiry. The person interested or known to be interested in the land is to be served personally of the notification, giving him the opportunity of objecting to the acquisition and awakening him to such right. The provision of section 5-A is mandatory and embodies a just and wholesome principle that a person whose property is being or is intended to be acquired should have the occasion to persuade the authorities the authorities concerned that his property be not touched for acquisition. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nandeshwar Prasad v. U.P. Government has recognised the said right reported in AIR 1964 SC 1217 and held that right to file objections and the right to hearing under Section 5-A of the Act has been recognised as valuable right. 26. That, the impugned notification seeking to acquire the land under the Land Acquisition Act, is a colorable exercise of power and the entire exercise is based upon political considerations, which are of no legal consequences, arbitrary, illegal and infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioners as enshrin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fide and there being no allegation of malafide against the State, the subjective opinion formed by the State under Section 17 (4) cannot be challenged. It is submitted that insofar as the allotment made to the builders in 2010 is concerned, the said fact is wholly irrelevant for the purposes of formation of opinion of the State Government at the relevant time since the above event is a subsequent event which could not have been taken into consideration at the relevant time. On any subsequent event subjective satisfaction of the State arrived at the relevant time can neither be faulted with nor can be challenged. It is submitted that pre-notification delay and post-notification delay cannot be a basis for invalidating the notification. It is submitted that delay caused by lethargic officials has been held to be not relevant for determining as to whether there was urgency or not at the relevant time. The delay in taking steps itself accelerate the urgency. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that notifications issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act cannot be faulted and the challenge made by the petitioners to the said notifications deserves to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts dominion over any portion of the soil of the State including private property without owner's consent provided that such assertion is on account of public exigency and for public good. Section 5A of the Act providing for filing objection by any person interested in any land was inserted in the Act by Act No.XXXVII of 1923. The scheme of the Act provides that after issue of a preliminary notification under Section 4 any person interested in the land, within 30 days from the date of publication of the notification, object to the notification. By U.P. Act No.XXII of 1954 the period of 30 days has been substituted by 21 days. Every objection under Section 5A made to the Collector is considered by giving an opportunity to the objector of being heard and thereafter a report is submitted to the appropriate Government containing recommendation. The competent authority after considering the report, if any, if satisfied that any particular land is needed for public purpose, may issue declaration under Section 6 of the Act after which declaration land is required to be marked and measured and thereafter a notice is issued by the Collector inviting claims to compensation from all intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... system pertaining to irrigation, water supply, drainage, road communication or electricity, the Collector may immediately after the publication of the notice mentioned in sub-section (1) and with the previous sanction of the appropriate Government, enter upon and take possession of such land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances : Provided that the Collector shall not take possession of any building or part of a building under this sub-section without giving to the occupier thereof at least forty-eight hours notice of his intention so to do, or such longer notice as may be reasonably sufficient to enable such occupier to remove his movable property from such building without unnecessary inconvenience. (3)...... (4) In the case of any land to which, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) are applicable, the appropriate Government may direct that the provisions of section 5A shall not apply, and, if it does so direct, a declaration may be made under section 6 in respect of the land at any time after the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to apply the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act to the land in dispute. The Apex Court in facts of the above case had occasion to consider the opinion of the State Government formed under Section 17 (4) which was said to be subjective opinion. Following was laid down by the Apex Court in paragraph 8 of the said judgment:- 8. It is true that the opinion of the State Government which is a condition for the exercise of the power under s. 17(4) of the Act, is subjective and a Court cannot normally enquire whether there were sufficient grounds or justification for the opinion formed by the State Government under S. 17(4). The legal position has been explained by the Judicial Committee in King Emperor v. Shibnath Banerjee and by this Court in a recent case-Jaichand Lal Sethia v. State of West Bengal Ors. But even though the power of the State Government has been formulated under s. 17(4) of the Act in subjective terms the expression of opinion of the State Government can be challenged as ultra vires in a Court of Law if it could be shown that the State Government never applied its mind to the matter or that the action of the State Government is malafide. If therefore in a case the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Australia in the cases of R. v. Australian Stevedoring Industry Board reported in (1952)88 C.L.R. 100 and Ross Clunis v. Papadopovllos reported in (1958) 1 W.L.R. 546. In the said case the relevant regulations empowered the Commissioner to levy fine when the Commissioner has reasons to believe . It was contended on behalf of the appellant in the aforesaid case that only duty cast upon the Commissioner was to satisfy himself of the facts set out in the Regulation that the test was a subjective one and that the statement as to the satisfaction in his affidavit was a complete answer to the contention of the respondents. The aforesaid contentions were rejected by the Judicial Committee and the observations of the Judicial Committee has been quoted with approval by the Apex Court, which are to the following effect:- Their Lordships feel the force of this argument, but they think that if it could be shown that there were no grounds upon which the Commissioner could be so satisfied, a court might infer either that he did not honestly form that view or that in forming it he could not have applied his mind to the relevant facts. 286. The ratio which is culled out from the aforesaid cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id case further laid down that right to file objection under Section 5A of the Act is a substantial right. Following was laid down in paragraph 13:- 13. The right to file objection under S. 5-A is a substantial right when a person's property is being threatened with acquisition and we cannot accept that right can be taken away as if by a side-wind. 288. A three Judge Bench in the case of Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1977 S.C. 183 has elaborately considered the ambit and scope of Section 17 of the Act. The Apex Court also considered the scope of judicial review of the opinion formed by the State Government under Section 17(4). Following was laid down in paragraph 10 of the said judgment:- 10. It is true that, in such cases, the formation of an opinion is a subjective matter, as held by this Court repeatedly with regard to situations in which administrative authorities have to form certain opinions before taking actions they are empowered to take. They are expected to know better the difference between a right or wrong opinion than Courts could ordinarily on such matters. Nevertheless, that opinion has to be based upon some relevant materials in o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ire the elimination of an enquiry under section 5A of the Act. 41. Again, the uniform and set recital of a formula, like a ritual or mantara, apparently applied mechanically to every case, itself indicated that the mind of the Commissioner concerned was only applied to the question whether the land was waste or arable and whether its acquisition is urgently needed. Nothing beyond that seems to have been considered. The recital itself shows that the mind of the Commissioner was not applied at all to the question whether the urgency is of such a nature as to require elimination of the enquiry under section 5A of the Act. If it was, at least the notifications gave no inkling of it at all. On the other hand, its literal meaning was that nothing beyond matters stated there were considered. 42. All schemes relating to development of industrial and residential areas must be urgent in the context of the country's need for increased production and more residential accommodation. Yet, the very nature of such schemes of development does not appear to demand such emergent action as to eliminate summary enquires under section 5A of the Act. There is no indication whatsoever in the affidavit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The three Judge bench judgment in Narayan Govind Gavate's case (supra) was referred to but was distinguished on the premise that the said matter related to the year 1963 and due to increase of population it is no longer possible for the Court to take a view that scheme for development of residential areas do not appear to demand such emergent action as to eliminate summary inquiries under Section 5-A of the Act. Following was observed in paragraph 5 of the said judgment: 5. The provision of housing accommodation in these days has become a matter of national urgency. We may take judicial notice of this fact. Now it is difficult to hold that in the case of proceedings relating to acquisition of land for providing house sites it is unnecessary to invoke section 17(1) of the Act and to dispense with the compliance with section 5-A of the Act. Perhaps, at the time to which the decision in Narayan Govind Gavate etc. v. State of Maharashtra, [1977] (1) S.C.R. 768 related the situation might have been that the schemes relating to development of residential areas in the urban centres were not so urgent and it was not necessary to eliminate the inquiry under section 5-A of the Act. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carrying out the said work and that holding an inquiry under Section 5-A would have resulted in uncalled for delay endangering the entire scheme and time-schedule of the Housing Board. It must be remembered that the satisfaction under Section 17(4) is a subjective one and that so long as there is material upon which the government could have formed the said satisfaction fairly, the court would not interfere nor would it examine the material as an appellate authority. This is the principle affirmed by decisions of this court not only under Section 17 (4) but also generally with respect to subjective satisfaction. 292. A three Judge Bench in the case of Chameli Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others reported in (1996)2 S.C.C. 549, again considered the question as to whether providing housing to the members of schedule caste (Dalit) under the scheme funded by the State, Section 17(4) of the Act can be invoked. In paragraph 14 of the judgment, relying upon the judgment in the case of State of U.P. v. Pista Devi (supra) it was observed that housing accommodation to the Dalits and Tribes is in acute shortage hence invocation of Section 17(4) for providing shelter cannot be said to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : 1985 (1) SCR 588] was followed. In the at case a three- Judge Bench of this Court had upheld the notification issued under Section 17(4), even though lapse of time of 8 years had occurred due to inter- departmental discussions before receiving the notification. That itself was considered to be a ground to invoke urgency clause. It was further held that delay on the part of the lethargic officials to take further action in the matter of acquisition was not sufficient to nullify the urgency which existed at the time of the issuance of the notification and to hold that there was never any urgency. In Jage Ram v. State of Haryana [1971 (1) SCC 671] this Court upheld the exercise of the power of urgency under Section 17 (4) and had held that the lethargy on the part of the officers at an early stage was not relevant to decide whether on the day of the notification there was urgency or not. Conclusion of the Government that there was urgency, though not conclusive, is entitled to create weight. In Deepak Pahwa case [ 1984 (4) SCC 308 : 1985 (1) SCR 588] this Court held that very often person interested in the land proposed to be acquired may make representations to the authorities conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said judgment, relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi reported in (1975)4 S.C.C. 285 and two Judge Bench judgment in State of U.P. v. Pista Devi (supra), it was observed that housing development is an urgent purpose and invocation of Section 17(1) dispensing with the inquiry is not invalid. It is relevant to note that earlier three Judge judgment in Narain Govind Gavate's case (supra) was not noticed and reliance was placed on Constitution Bench judgment in Aflatoon's case (supra) whereas in the Constitution Bench judgment in Aflatoon's case (supra) Section 5A of the Act was not dispensed with and objections were invited and about 6000 objections were filed. 294. In the case of Om Prakash and another v. State of U.P. and others reported in (1998)6 SCC 1 the Apex Court had occasion to consider invocation of urgency clause under Section 17(4) in context of acquisition of land of village Chhalera Banger situate in district Ghaziabad in State of Uttar Pradesh in which notification the public purpose was for the planned industrial development of district Ghaziabad through New Okhla Industrial Development Authority as i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for urgent possession underlying acquisition proceedings could cease to exist only because of bureaucratic inadvertence. It was held on the facts of that case that urgency continued so long as the scheme was not initiated, action taken and process completed. It is, of course, true that while deciding this question, it is observed that it is well settled legal position that urgency can be said to exist when land proposed to be acquired is needed for planned development of the city or town, etc. The said observation clearly shows that in appropriate cases when acquisition is needed for planned development of city or town urgency provisions can be invoked. This aspect is legislatively recognised by enactment of Section 17 (1A) by U.P. legislature. But the said observations cannot be read to mean that in every case of planned development of city or town necessarily and almost automatically urgency clause has to be invoked and inquiry under Section 5-A is to be dispensed with. It will all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The aforesaid observations cannot be held to be laying down any absolute proposition that whenever any acquisition is to take place for planned d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispensing with 5A inquiry. If that was not the intention of the Legislature then the latter part of sub-section (4) of Section 17 would not have been necessary and the Legislature in Section 17 (1) and (2) itself could have incorporated that in such situation of existence of urgency or unforeseen emergency automatically 5A inquiry will be dispensed with. But then that is not language of the Section which in our opinion requires the appropriate Government to further consider the need for dispensing with 5A inquiry in spite of the existence of unforeseen emergency. This understanding of ours as to the requirement of an application of mind by the appropriate Government while dispensing with 5A inquiry does not mean that in and every case when there is an urgency contemplated under Section 17 (1) and unforeseen emergency contemplated under Section 17 (2) exists that by itself would not contain the need for dispensing with 5A inquiry. It is possible in a given case the urgency noticed by the appropriate Government under Section 17(1) or the unforeseen emergency under Section 17 (2) itself may be of such degree that it could require the appropriate Government on that very basis to dispe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proposed acquisition and it also dispenses with the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act. The Authority must have subjective satisfaction of the need for invoking urgency clause under Section 17 keeping in mind the nature of the public purpose, real urgency that the situation demands and the time factor i.e. whether taking possession of the property can wait for a minimum period within which the objections could be received from the land owners and the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act could be completed. In other words, if power under Section 17 is not exercised, the very purpose for which the land is being acquired urgently would be frustrated or defeated. Normally urgency to acquire a land for public purpose does not arise suddenly or overnight but sometimes such urgency may arise unexpectedly, exceptionally or extraordinarily depending on situations such as due to earthquake, flood or some specific time-bound project where the delay is likely to render the purpose nugatory or infructuous. A citizen's property can be acquired in accordance with law but in the absence of real and genuine urgency, it may not be appropriate to deprive an aggrieved party of a fair and just oppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice. 43. The exceptional and extraordinary power of doing away with an enquiry under Section 5A in a case where possession of the land is required urgently or in unforeseen emergency is provided in Section 17 of the Act. Such power is not a routine power and save circumstances warranting immediate possession it should not be lightly invoked. The guideline is inbuilt in Section 17 itself for exercise of the exceptional power in dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A. Exceptional the power, the more circumspect the government must be in its exercise. The government obviously, therefore, has to apply its mind before it dispenses with enquiry under Section 5A on the aspect whether the urgency is of such a nature that justifies elimination of summary enquiry under Section 5A. 44. A repetition of statutory phrase in the notification that the state government is satisfied that the land specified in the notification is urgently needed and provision contained in Section 5A shall not apply, though may initially raise a presumption in favour of the government that pre-requisite conditions for exercise of such power have been satisfied, but such presumption may be displaced by the circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of residential area' or for `housing' must not be as a rule but by way of an exception. Such exceptional situation may be for the public purpose viz., rehabilitation of natural calamity affected persons; rehabilitation of persons uprooted due to commissioning of dam or housing for lower strata of the society urgently; rehabilitation of persons affected by time bound projects, etc. The list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. In any case, sans real urgency and need for immediate possession of the land for carrying out the stated purpose, heavy onus lies on the government to justify exercise of such power. 298. In the case of Dev Saran and others v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2011(4) SCC 769, invocation of urgency under Section 17(4) of the Act, where the land was acquired for construction of District Jail, was held not to be so urgent so as to invoke Section 17(4) of the Act. Following was laid down in paragraphs 19, 20, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39, which are as under:- 19. Therefore, the concept of public purpose on this broad horizon must also be read into the provisions of emergency power under Section 17with the consequential dispensation of right of hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th Section 17notification on 21st of August, 2008. These notifications were published in local newspapers on 24th of September, 2008. 36. Thereafter, over a period of 9 months, the State Government deposited 10% of compensation payable to the landowners, along with 10% of acquisition expenses and 70% of cost of acquisition was deposited, and the proposal for issuance of Section 6 declaration was sent to the Director, Land Acquisition on 19th of June, 2009. The Director in turn forwarded all these to the State Government on 17th July, 2009, and the State Government finally issued the Section 6 declaration on 10th of August, 2009. This declaration was published in the local dailies on 17th of August, 2009. 37. Thus the time which elapsed between publication of Section 4 (1) and Section 17 notifications, and Section 6 declaration, in the local newspapers is of 11 months and 23 days, i.e. almost one year. This slow pace at which the government machinery had functioned in processing the acquisition, clearly evinces that there was no urgency for acquiring the land so as to warrant invoking Section 17 (4) of the Act. 38. In paragraph 15 of the writ petition, it has been clearly stated tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue Board, U.P. to the State Government and the certificate issued by the Collector were brought before the Court. The Apex Court noted all the relevant facts, certificates and the ground for justification as was given by the respondents and laid down that there was no valid ground for invoking Section 17(4). The earlier three Judge Bench judgment in Narayan Govind Gavate's case (supra) was relied. Following was laid down by the Apex Court in paragraph 22 of the said judgment:- 22. In cases where the acquisition is made by invoking Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and/or 17 (4), the High Court should insist upon filing of reply affidavit by the respondents and production of the relevant records and carefully scrutinize the same before pronouncing upon legality of the impugned notification/action because a negative result without examining the relevant records to find out whether the competent authority had formed a bona fide opinion on the issue of invoking the urgency provision and excluding the application of Section 5-A is likely to make the land owner a landless poor and force him to migrate to the nearby city only to live in a slum. A departure from this rule should be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it was proposed to acquire an area of 590.289 hectares. The urgency for acquiring the land or the purpose of planned industrial development was reiterated. It was further stated that in absence of acquisition there was possibility of illegal constructions/ encroachments over the land proposed for acquisition, and accordingly it was necessary that the urgency provisions under section 17 of the L.A. Act may be invoked along with issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act. True copy of letter dated 21.07.2006 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure SCA-1 to this supplementary counter affidavit. 302. The learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by several Additional Chief Standing Counsel, during course of hearing, placed the original records of the State Government pertaining to land acquisition proceedings. We have perused the original records of village Patwari and records of some other village of the State Government. In the supplementary counter affidavit reference was made to the letter dated 31st March, 2006 of GNOIDA by which proposal was submitted to the Additional District Magistrate. In the record of the State Government, there is proposal submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is of which notification under Section 17 be issued. In the Note only following was mentioned by the Secretariat in paragraph 3, which is as under:- 303. On the aforesaid Note, the Deputy Secretary on the same day, i.e. 26th February, 2008 put following endorsement:- 304. Thereafter the file was marked to Principal Secretary. The said Note was also countersigned by Special Secretary on 27th February, 2008 and on 3rd March, 2008 the Principal Secretary, Industrial Development marked the file to the Chief Minister. On 10th March, 2008 the Secretary to the Chief Minister has put endorsement that Hon'ble the Chief Minister as Departmental Minister has approved. 305. From the Notings which were made at the level of the State Government it is clear that there is no specific recommendation by the Secretariat for dispensation of inquiry under Section 5A. The letter dated 25th February, 2008 of the Commissioner and Director, Land Acquisition Directorate also does not have any recommendation that the case is of such nature that inquiry under Section 5A of the Act be dispensed with. There is no recommendation by the Commissioner and Director, Land Acquisition Directorate except that Gover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee approved the proposal of 16 villages including village Patwari which indicates mechanical and cursory manner in which the whole issue was dealt with. The acquisition of huge agricultural land of 16 villages running in several thousands hectares was involved and the proposal was pushed through by completing only formality without application of mind. 310. Now we revert to the judgment of the Apex Court in Radhy Shyam's case (supra) which relate to village Makaura (one of the villages of Greater NOIDA) for which proposal was submitted by District Level Committee along with the village Patwari. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case had examined the question regarding invocation of Section 17(4) and in paragraph 78 of the judgment the reason given for justification for invocation of urgency clause in the aforesaid case has been noted in detail. In paragraphs 79 and 80 of the judgment the Apex Court has held that factors which were mentioned in the certificates submitted to the State Government do not furnish legally acceptable justification for exercise of power by the State Government under Section 17(1) of the Act. Paragraphs 78, 79 and 80 of the said judgment are quoted below: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oyment opportunities in the State and will also go against the investment policy of the Government. (h) If written/oral objections are invited from the farmers and are scrutinized, then it will take unprecedented long time and disposal thereof will hamper planned development of the area. (i) As per the provisions of the Act, there shall be at least one year's time gap between publication of the notifications under sections 4 and 17 and Section 6. 79. In our view, the above noted factors do not furnish legally acceptable justification for the exercise of power by the State Government under Section 17(1) because the acquisition is primarily meant to cater private interest in the name of industrial development of the district. It is neither the pleaded case of the respondents nor any evidence has been produced before the Court to show that the State Government and/or agencies/instrumentalities of the State are intending to establish industrial units on the acquired land either by itself or through its agencies/instrumentalities. The respondents have justified the invoking of urgency provisions by making assertions, which are usually made in such cases by the executive authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nand Kishora Gupta and others v. State of U.P. and others reported in (2010)10 SCC 282, the said ground was held to be a relevant ground for invoking urgency clause. In Nand Kishore Gupta's case (supra) the High Court noticed the materials which were submitted for invoking urgency clause. The High Court had noticed one of the reasons as in case of delay there is strong possibility of encroachment of the land which will affect the project . The Apex Court in Nand Kishora Gupta's case (supra) made following observations in paragraph 93, which are as under:- 93. We have deliberately quoted the above part of the High Court judgment only to show the meticulous care taken by the High Court in examining as to whether there was material before the State Government to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. We are completely convinced that there was necessity in this Project considering the various reasons like enormousness of the Project, likelihood of the encroachments, number of appellants who would have required to be heard and the time taken for that purpose, and the fact that the Project had linger ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid down by the Apex Court in paragraph 8, which is as under:- 8. The Government itself, in its communication dated the 13th of March, 1953, has plainly admitted that one of the grounds upon which the original order of detention Was passed is unsubstantial or nonexistent and cannot be made a ground of detention. The question is, whether in such circumstances the original order made under section 3 (1) (a) of the Act can be allowed to stand. The answer, in our opinion, can only be in the negative. The detaining authority gave here two grounds for detaining the petitioner. We can neither decide whether these grounds are good or bad, nor can we attempt to assess in what manner and to what extent each of these grounds operated on the mind of the appropriate authority and contributed to the creation of the satisfaction on the basis of which the detention order was made. To say that the other ground, which still remains, is quite sufficient to sustain the order, would be to substitute an objective judicial test for the subject decision of the executive authority which is against the legislative policy underlying the statute. In such cases, we think, the position would be the same as if o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alities. If the Authority wanted to prevent unauthorised colonization of agricultural land or illegal constructions, then nothing prevented it from taking action under Section 9 of the 1976 Act. No explanation has been given by the State Government and the Authority as to why appropriate measures were not taken to prevent unauthorised colonization of land in Shahberi and elsewhere. The inefficiency of the State apparatus to take action in accordance with law cannot be used as a tool to justify denial of opportunity of hearing to the landowners and other interested persons in terms of Section 5A of the 1894 Act. 316. Apart from the original record of village Patwari, we have perused the original records of other villages. For example, land acquisition proceedings of village Roja Yakubpur along with the proposal of land acquisition forwarded by Director, Land Acquisition Directorate dated 14th February, 2006, certificate in Prapatra-10 by the Collector in which same wordings were repeated that for completion of project the possession of the land is to be immediately taken and on invocation of Section 17 the provisions of Section 5A are dispensed with and he is fully satisfied with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h was sufficient and can be utilized for planned industrial development but, in spite of the same the respondent no. 1 has issued the aforesaid notifications at the request of respondent no. 3. 8. That there is no evidence on record regarding the requirement of the respondent no. 3 to develop the planned industrial area. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 31.10.2005 while the notifcation under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 1.9.2006. The delay in issuance of the notification shows that there was no urgency to acquire the land of the petitioners, but the respondent no. 1 illegally and arbitrarily by showing the urgency has dispensed with the provisions of section 5 of the Act by invoking the power under section 17 of the Act. 317. Paragraph 7 of the writ petition has been replied by the GNOIDA by filing a counter affidavit in paragraph 39. Paragraph 39 of the counter affidavit filed by GNOIDA is to the following effect:- 39. That the contents of para 7 and 8 of the writ petition are wrong and denied. That it is denied that there was no demand for establishment of any industry. It is also denied that no scheme was approved at the time of acquisition. The pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the GNOIDA or by the State that after taking possession on 5.9.2008, as alleged by the respondents, nothing was done for years although learned counsel for the respondents submits that allotment was made in the year 2010 to builders and colonisers have no bearing on the question of urgency at the relevant time when State Government exercised its power under Section 17(4) of the Act. It may be true that event which happened subsequent to exercise of power by the State Government under Section 17 (4) can have no effect on forming any opinion which was formed earlier but the fact that land was allotted years after acquisition and taking possession proves the case of the petitioners that there was no urgency in the matter as to invoke Section 17(4) of the Act dispensing with inquiry. This Court even subsequent to the decision of the State Government invoking Section 17(4) of the Act can verify and test the strength of submissions made by the petitioners that invocation of urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act was in routine manner and without application of mind. 320. Shri. A.K. Mishra learned counsel appearing for an intervener laid emphasis on Section 17(1A) which was added ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 5A are automatically dispensed with and he is in agreement with dispensation of inquiry. The Collector himself having not applied his mind, who was required to consider all aspects and no reasons/recommendations having been there in the notings of the officers of the State Government as noticed above, there was no material on record to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act; (iii) Even assuming without admitting that reasons given by the GNOIDA in its Note of Justification for issuing notification under Section 4/17 were considered and relied by the State Government for arriving on its subjective satisfaction to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5A, the subjective satisfaction is vitiated since the ground that unless the land is not immediately provided, the land shall be encroached has been held by the Apex Court to be a irrelevant ground in Om Prakash's Radhy Shyam's cases (supra). The subjective satisfaction based on an irrelevant ground is vitiated in law. 322. As observed above, the notifications issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1)and 17(4) were identical with all acquisitions and the materials on record before the State Go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as issued on 31.10.2005, whereas section 6 notification was issued on 1.9.2006. In this context one case is to be specifically noted i.e. writ petition No. 44093 of 2011 Beli Ram v. State of U.P. and others of village Kondali Banger. In the writ petition, notification dated 8.9.2008 issued under section 4 read with Section 17 (1) and section 17(4) and notification dated 16.9.2009 read with Section 6 have been challenged. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State in which it has been pleaded that notification under section 4 was published in the Hindi newspaper Rashtriya Sahara and Amarujala on 15.8.2009 and the Munadi in the village was carried out on 21.8.2009 and thereafter notification under section 6 was issued on 16.9.2009 which was published in the daily newspaper Jansatta and Dainik Jagaran on 24.10.2009. From the above, it is clear that even publication of section 4 notification was made in the newspaper on 15.8.2009 and Munadi was done on 21.8.2009 i.e. notification under section 4 was published after 11 months and notification under section 6 was issued after more than one year of the gazette publication of section 4. 325. The submission which has been pressed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invocation of the urgency provisions void. We however wish to say nothing about post-notification delay. In Jaga Ram v. State of Haryana, this court pointed out the fact that the State Government or the party concerned was lethargic at an earlier stage is not very relevant for deciding the question whether on the date on which the notification was issued, there was urgency or not. In Kash Reddy Papiah v Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, it was held, Delay on the part of the tardy officials to take further action in the matter of acquisition is not sufficient to nullify the urgency which existed at the time of the issue of the notification and to hold that there was never any urgency. In the result both the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are rejected and the special leave petitions are dismissed. 327. The next case relied by learned counsel for the respondents is Chameli Singh others v. State of U.P. and another (1996) 2 SCC 549, the apex Court had occasion to consider the question of pre-notification and post notification delay. The apex Court laid down following in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17: 15....The pre-notification and post-notification delay caused by the concer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Government when it invoked urgency clause and dispensed with inquiry under Section 5-A. As held by this Court, the delay by itself accelerates the urgency: Larger the delay, greater be the urgency. So long as the unhygienic conditions and deplorable housing needs of Dalits, Tribes and the poor are not solved or fulfilled, the urgency continues to subsist When the Government on the basis of the material, constitutional and international obligation, formed its opinion of urgency, the Court, not being an appellate forum, would not disturb the finding unless the court conclusively finds the exercise of the power mala fide. Providing house sites to the Dalits, Tribes and the poor itself is a national problem, and a constitutional obligation. So long as the problem is not solved and the need is not fulfilled, the urgency continues to subsist. The State is expending money to relieve the deplorable housing condition in which they live by providing decent housing accommodation with better sanitary conditions. The lethargy on the part of the officers for pre and post- notification delay would not render the exercise of the power to invoke urgency clause invalid on that account. 32 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was no urgency in the State action which could deny the petitioners their right under Section 5A. In the counter which was filed in this case by the State before the High Court, it was not disputed that the time gap between Section 4 notification read with Section 17, and Section 6 notification was about 11 months. 331. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that delay prior to issuance of notification and subsequent to the issuance of notification under section 4 accelerates the urgency as has been held by the apex Court in several cases. This argument has been specifically considered in recent judgment of the apex Court in Devendra Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others (Civil Appeal No. 6293 of 2011 decided on 3.8.2011). The apex Court held that delay in proceeding itself shall not create urgency but urgency may be accelerated only in cases where there exist urgency. Thus, existence of urgency is a material factor. It is relevant to quote paragraph 13 which is to the following effect: 13. Learned senior counsel for the respondents also relied on the decision of this Court in Deepak Pahwa case (supra). In that case, the land was acquired by invoking urge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o proper explanation with regard to inordinate delay caused in issuing notification under section 6 when section 4 notification was already issued by the State Government invoking urgency. Thus, the submission of the petitioners have substance that in large number of cases pre-notification and post-notification delay caused clearly indicates that the cases were not such so as to invoke sections 17(1) and Section 17(4). 7. Colourable Exercise of Power 333. Petitioners' case in the writ petition is that the acquisition of agricultural land of the petitioners was in colourable exercise of power and was nothing but fraud on power. In the main writ petition (Gajraj and others v. State of U.P.), the petitioners' case is that urgency clause was invoked in order to fulfil the obligations to the private builders. It has been pleaded that the notifications seeking to acquire the land were in colourable exercise of power. In the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioners have pleaded in paragraph 14, as quoted above, that although the land was acquired for planned industrial development in district Gautam Budh Nagar but the same has been transferred to private builders for construction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od. 335. In Writ Petition No. 37119 of 2011 (Dal Chand and others v. State of U.P. and others) of village Roja Yakubpur, following was stated in paragraphs 7, 11 and 12:- 7. That the purpose for which the land of petitioners is sought to be acquired as per the notification is Plan Industrial Development through the Authority which, on the fact of it, is incorrect and is, in fact, a camouflage. It may be stated here that State Government wrongly and illegally mentioned in the notification that the land is being acquired for Plan Industrial Development through the Authority while, in fact, the land is sought to be acquired for the purposes of transferring the same to private builders (in the present case respondents No. 3 to 8) for construction residential colonies/flats. Thus the entire exercise which has been done is colourable exercise of powers and on this ground alone the impugned notifications and acquisition proceeding pursuant thereof, are liable to be quashed. 11. That, however, the land which was acquired Plan Industrial Development by invoking urgency clause U/s. 17 (4) of the Act and the inquiry as contemplated U/s. 5of the Act was dispensed with in the acquisition procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers and part of four supplementary counter affidavit, it is revealed that in following villages the GNOIDA itself has changed the land use converting the land use into residential whereas it was different in the master plan. The details of villages in which land use was got changed by GNOIDA to enable it to facilitate transfer to private parties, are as follows:- 1. Patwari 2. Junpat 3. Ghori Bachhera 4. Chhapraula 5. Pali 6. Yusufpur Chak Shahberi 7. Kasna 8. Haibatpur 9. Chhipayana Khurd 10. Itehra 11. Roja Yakubpur 12. Bishrakhpur Jalalpur 339. We have already observed, while considering Issue No. 1 and 2, that GNOIDA has not correctly comprehended the object and purpose of the 1976 Act and its actions have not been in accord to promote the purpose and object of the Act. Reckless proposals submitted by the GNOIDA for acquiring huge fertile agricultural land of villages of GNOIDA and NOIDA which remain unutilised for years and ultimately the industrial use of some villages was got changed into residential facilitating transfer to private parties indicate that the action of the GNOIDA is not to fulfil the object of the Act, rather it has been exercising its statutory power for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that once the land was acquired and taken over by the requiring body for the purposes of industrial development, then it can be public or commercial and residential accommodation connected with the said industrial development but it cannot enter into simple housing development scheme performing the job of the development authorities and Nagar Nigams etc., which are authorised under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and colourable exercise other similar Acts. 342. There cannot be any dispute that according to the provisions of the 1976 Act and Regulations land acquired can be put to different uses as mentioned in Regulation 2 of the 1991 Regulations including agricultural, commercial, industrial, institutional and residential houses but as observed by us while deciding Issue No. 1 and 2 other uses have to be subservient to the dominant object of the industrial development. 343. Learned counsel for the GNOIDA has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of N.P. Singh v. State of U.P. and another reported in 2010 (10) ADJ 217 for the proposition that the Authority can alienate the plots to private builders and the Authority cannot be prohi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... third partner, including private builders. That private builders may make profit is no answer. The State with its limited financial resources can allow others to achieve the object of the Act which is its primary concern including affordable housing and better infrastructure. The first contention must be rejected. 344. We are of the view that no exception can be taken to the power of the Authority to transfer or lease out the property as empowered by Section 7. We are, however, of the view that power under Section 7 has to be utilised for the purpose and object of the Act and leaving the industrial development as its dominant object, the Authority cannot act in a manner that it has become a facilitator of carrying building activities in the area to private builders without it having any connection with the object of industrial development. The power given to the Authority under the Act has to be exercised keeping in view the object of the Act. 345. The phrase colourable exercise of power came for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and another v. Gurdial Singh and others reported in (1980)2 SCC 471. In the said case Justice Krishna Iyer explained as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that purpose. Sec. 4 (1) confers power on the Government and the Collector to acquire land needed for a public purpose. The power to acquire land is to be exercised for carrying out a public purpose. If the authorities of the Sammelan cannot tolerate the existence of a cinema theatre in its vicinity, can it be said that such a purpose would be a public purpose ? May be the authority of the Sammelan may honestly believe that the existence of a cinema theatre may have the pernicious tendency to vitiate the educational and cultural environment of the institution and therefore, it would like to wish away a cinema theatre in its vicinity. That hardly constitutes public purpose. We have already said about its proclaimed need of land for putting up Sangrahalya. It is an easy escape route whenever Sammelan wants to take over some piece of land. Therefore, it can be fairly concluded that the Sammelan was actuated by extraneous and irrelevant considerations in seeking acquisition of the land the statutory authority having known this fact yet proceeded to exercise statutory power and initiated the process of acquisition. Does this constitute legal mala fides? 26. Where power is conferred to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, the impugned notification has to be declared illegal and invalid for this additional ground. 347. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred to terms and conditions of allotment of land to private builders indicating that on mere payment of 5% of allotment money allotments have been made since entire efforts of the Authority were to only help the private builders and allot as much land to them as possible. The object of the Authority to earn huge profit is writ large in its action. The petitioners submit that the allotment to builders on very soft terms was the real purpose and object of the Authority for acquisition which has come true by subsequent conduct of the Authority. One of the allotment letters dated 17.8.2010 in favour of M/s Supertech Ltd. has been filed as Annexure CA-3 to the counter affidavit filed by M/s Supertech Ltd. (respondent No. 9) in Writ Petition No. 43825 of 2011 (Nepal and others v. State of U.P.) which indicates that: (i) allotment has been made on 5% reservation money and 5% allotment money; (ii) there shall be moratorium of 24 months from the date of allotment for payment of instalments; (iii) allotment amount was to be paid within 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment nor there is any material on the record on the basis of which we can come to the conclusion that the State Government has acquired the land at the instance of private parties. Thus we are of the view that petitioners have not successfully pleaded and proved malafide against the State Government although it has been proved that State has proceeded to issue notifications under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) and Section 6 without application of mind as observed above. 8. Taking of possession: 351. One of the submissions which has been pressed by petitioners' counsel in all the writ petitions is that no possession of the plots in question have been taken by the Collector on the spot. It is submitted that possession as contemplated under Section 17, sub Section 1 has to be actual physical possession. It is submitted that the District Revenue Authorities as well as NOIDA authority/greater NOIDA authorities have never taken physical possession of land in dispute and the possession memo has been prepared without coming on the spot and there are neither signatures of land holders nor there are signatures of any independent witnesses in the possession memo. 352. Lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 47 of the Act if impeded in. taking possession. On publication of the notice under section 9(1) claims to compensation for all interests in the land has to be made; be it the interest of the owner or of a person entitled to the occupation of the land. On the taking of possession of the land under section 16 or 17 (1) it vests absolutely in the Government free from all incumbrances. It is, therefore, clear that taking of possession within the meaning of section 16 or 17 (1) means taking of possession on the spot. It is neither a possession on paper nor a symbolical possession as generally understood in Civil Law. But the question is what is the mode of taking possession? The Act is silent on the point. Unless possession is taken by the written agreement of the party concerned the mode of taking possession obviously would be for the authority to go upon the land and to do some act which would indicate that the authority has taken possession of the land. It may be in the form of a declaration by beat of drum or otherwise or by hanging a written declaration on the spot that the authority 10 SC 75- 18 has taken possession of the land. The presence of the owner or the occupant of the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y meet the requirement of law. However, this would not be the position in case crop is standing on the land or a kachha or pacca structure has been raised on such land. In that case, actual physical possession is required to be taken. There may be a case where the acquiring authority is in possession of the land, as the same has already been requisitioned under any law or the property is in possession of a tenant, in such a case symbolic possession qua the tenure holder would be sufficient. 357. In Banda Development Authority's case (supra) the Apex court again considered manner of taking possession and after considering earlier judgment following principle was laid down in paragraph 37 which is quoted as below: 37. The principles which can be culled out from the above noted judgments are: i) No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what act would constitute taking of possession of the acquired land. ii) If the acquired land is vacant, the act of the State authority concerned to go to the spot and prepare a panchnama will ordinarily be treated as sufficient to constitute taking of possession. iii) If crop is standing on the acquired land or building/structure exists, mere g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the High Court was not right in recording a finding that the acquired land will be deemed to have vested in the State Government. 359. In the main writ petition no. 37443 of 2011 in the counter affidavit filed by the State it has been stated that possession of land was transferred to Greater NOIDA on 5.9.2008 and 12.1.2009 the relevant averment regarding delivery of possession has been made in paragraph 12(e) which is quoted below: The Greater Noida Development Authority deposited 70% of the compensation amount (10% of the compensation amount had already been deposited by the Greater Noida Authority before submitting the proposal for issuance of Section 4 Notification), as required under the Land Acquisition Act, before sending the proposal for issuance of declaration under Section 6. The proposal was sent to the State Government vide letter no. 144/10 dated 24.06.08 and the State Government after being satisfied with the proposal issued declaration under Section 6(1)/17(1) on 30.06.2008. After the declaration under Section 6(1)/17(1), notices under Section 9 were issued to the land owners, and after expiration of fifteen days time as stipulated in the notices, possession of lan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... officers of the greater NOIDA authority and Additional District Magistrate Land Acquisition, Gautam Budh Nagar. The aforesaid possession memo are not the possession memo or the document showing taking of possession by the State. There is no occasion to transfer the possession to the greater NOIDA authority by the State unless the possession is obtained by the State. Further more, as held in the judgment of the apex court as noticed above even if the land is vacant the State authority has to go to the spot and prepare a Panchanama which ordinarily be treated as sufficient to constitute taking of possession. The possession memo filed by the State in the counter affidavit can not be termed to be a Panchanama since signatures of any Panch (independent witness) are absent. Thus the taking of possession by the respondent can not be said to be in accordance with the law. Thus we find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that possession was not taken by the State authorities of land in accordance with law and possession memo which has been filed by the State authorities can not be treated to be valid possession memo evidencing taking of possession. 9. Ves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n case after issue of the notifications should be quashed including the award dated January 7, 1952 and reference made to civil Court under section 18 of the Act. 365. The restoration of possession was not directed in view of the judgment of the apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 653-654 of 1964 decided on the same date that intermediary interest of the appellant had validly vested in the State of U.P. under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 366. Respondents have placed reliance on a judgment of the apex Court in (1996)3 Supreme Court Cases 600 Senjeevnagar Medical and Health Employees Cooperative Housing Society v. Mohammad Abdul Wahab and others in which judgment, the apex court laid down following in paragraph 12: A Bench of three Judges had held that once possession was taken and the land vested in the Government, title to the land so vested in the State is subject only to determination of compensation and to pay the same to the owner. Divesting the title to the land statutorily vested in the Government and reverting the same to the owner is not contemplated under the Act. Only Section 48 (1) gives power to withdraw from acquisition that too before possession is taken. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... three Judges Bench had clearly laid down that the High Court has no doubt discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the notification under section 4 and notification under section 6 but it should be exercised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic consideration. 369. As laid own by the apex Court in the Judgment Today 2009 (9) S.C. 537 National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. Mahesh Dutta and others that in the event possession of land in respect whereof a notification had been issued had been taken over, the State would be denuded of its power to withdraw from the acquisition in terms of Section 48 of the Act. It is true that under the Act after vesting of the possession in the State under section 17 (1), there is no provision under which the acquisition can be withdrawn or vesting can be nullified but the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 challenging the acquisition cannot be hedged with any such limitation that court in appropriate case cannot quash the notifications and the entire acquisition proceedings. To hold that after land is vested in the State under section 17 (1), the acquisition cannot be quashed would be putting limita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r challenging the land acquisition proceedings dispensing with the provisions of Section 5A and urgency clause 17(4) and notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. There is no interim order in the writ petition. By efflux of time, the writ petition has rendered infructuous as the land has vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The writ petition is dismissed. 371. The petitioners of the writ petition filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court against the aforesaid judgment. The leave was granted by apex Court. The appeal was allowed by judgment and order dated 1.2.2010 in Civil Appeal No. 1331 of 2010, Kesari Singh and others v. Government of U.P. The apex Court gave following judgment on 1.2.2010. : Leave granted. Heard. 2. The appellants' land was said to be acquired by issuing the notification dated 26.09.2006 under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dispensing with Inquiry under Section 5A followed by final notification dated 9.1.2007 issued under Section 6 of the said Act. The appellants challenged the acquisition notifications by filing a writ petition in the year 2007. The writ petition was dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntire proceedings for acquisition of the land has lapsed. Section 11 A of the Act is as follows: 11A. Period within which an award shall be made. - (1) The Collector shall make an award under section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse: Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. 373. Learned counsel for the respondents refuting the submission made by counsel for the petitioners contends that in all the acquisitions under challenge Section 17(1) was invoked and the possession was taken of the land after issue of notice under Section 9 and land has vested in the State under Section 17 sub Section (1) hence Section 11-A has no application. 74. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Section 11 A applies in the cases where Section 17 has not been invoked and in cases where Section 17 has been invoked, there is no applicability of Section 11-A. 375. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel appearing for the respondents. It is contended that the provision of Section 17(3-A) is directory. It is submitted that even if 80% compensation is not tendered/paid to the land holder, acquisition shall not be vitiated, reliance has again been placed on judgment of Sateyendra Prasad Jain (supra) as well as the judgment of the Apex Court in Banda Development Authority (supra) and Awadh Bihari Yadav (supra). 378. The provisions of Section 17(3A) of the Act were considered by three Judge Bench in Satendra Prasad's Jain case, following was laid down by Apex Court in paragraph 17: In the instant case, even that 80 per cent of the estimated compensation was not paid to the appellants although Section 17(3-A)required that it should have been paid before possession of the said land was taken but that does not mean that the possession was taken illegally or that the said land did not thereupon vest in the first respondent. It is, at any rate, not open to the third respondent, who, as the letter of the Special Land Acquisition Officer dated 27th June, 1990 shows, failed to make the necessary monies available and who has been in occupation of the said land ever since its possession ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under Section 9 to the measurements made under Section 8, and into the value of the land at the date of the publication of the notifications under Section 4, sub- section (1), and into the respective interests of the compensation and shall make an award under his hand of - (i) the true area of the land; (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land;and (iii)the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom,or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him: Provided that no award shall be made by the Collector under this sub- section without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf: (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which possession has not been taken. It was contended that in view of Section 11-A of the Act the entire land acquisition proceedings lapsed as no award under Section 11 had been made within 2 years from the date of commencement of the Land Acquisition Amendment;, 1984. We are of the view that the above plea has no force. In this case, the Government had taken possession of the land in question under Section 17(1) of the Act. It is not open to the Government to withdraw from the acquisition (Section 48 of the Act). In such a case, Section 11-A of the Act is not attracted and the acquisition proceedings would not lapse, even if it is assumed that no award was made within the period prescribed by Section 11-A of the Act. Delivering the Judgment of a Three Member Bench of this Court, in Stander Prasad Jain and others v. State of U.P. and others, 1993 (4) SCC 369, S.P. Bharucha, J., at page 374, paragraph 15, stated the law thus: Ordinarily, the Government can take possession of the land proposed to be acquired only after an award of compensation in respect thereof has been made under section 11. Upon the taking of possession, the land vests in the Government, that is to say, the owne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b silentio being unnecessary in the facts of the case as otherwise such a finding is per incuriam, being in violation of the statute. A fortiorari the said finding cannot be sustained as a binding precedent. 74. This court further holds that in all cases of emergency acquisition under section 17, the requirement of payment under section 17(3A) must be complied with. As the provision of section 17(1) and section 17(2) cannot be worked out without complying with requirement of payment under section 17(3A) which is in the nature of condition precedent. If section 17(3A) is not complied with, the vesting under section 17(1) and section 17(2) cannot take place. Therefore, emergency acquisition without complying with section 17(3 A) is illegal. This is the plain intention of the statute which must be strictly construed. Any other construction, in my opinion, would lead to diluting the Rule of Law. 381. Hon. Justice Swatanter Kumar took a different opinion and relying on various judgment of this Court following the line of Satyendra Prasad Jain it was opined that Section 17(3-A) is not mandatory. Justice Swatanter Kumar further held that Section 11-A has no application to the acquisition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he intervenors has submitted that the petitioners after having accepted the compensation under the 1997 Rules, and having not objected to the dispensation of inquiry under Section 5A of the Act, 1894 they have waived their right to challenge the acquisition. 384. Learned Counsel appearing for the State has also contended that the petitioners shall be treated to have waived their right challenging the writ petition in view of the facts and circumstances of the present cases. 385. Shri S.P. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the intervenors, elaborating his submission contended that even though the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act, 1894 was dispensed with by invoking Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act, the land owners ought to have objected against the said dispensation and no objections having been filed by the land owners it will be presumed that the petitioners have waived their right to challenge the notifications. It is further contended that the petitioners after having accepted the compensation under the 1997 Rules, they shall be treated to have relinquished all their rights against the acquisition. It is submitted by Shri S.P. Gupta, that if there are any grieva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered by the Apex Court in Sikkim Subba Associates v. State of Sikkim, (2001) 5 SCC 629. The Apex Court defined the principle of waiver in paragraph 16 in following words. Waiver involves a conscious, voluntary and intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known, existing legal right, advantage, benefit, claim or privilege, which except for such a waiver, the party would have enjoyed. 389. The submission of Shri S.P. Gupta that the petitioners accepting the compensation under the 1997 Rules hence they shall be treated to have waived their right to challenge the acquisition now needs to be considered. 390. From the materials brought on record, it does appear that the majority of land owners have accepted the compensation under the 1997 Rules. 391. 1997 Rules, have been framed by the State of U.P. under Section 11 sub-section 2. The circumstances under which the petitioners have accepted the compensation under the 1997 Rules, have been explained in several writ petitions. It is useful to refer to the pleadings in the writ petition in that regard. 392. In Writ Petition No. 45694/2011, Jai Singh Ors v. State of U.P. Ors, the petitioners have challenged the notifications dated 30/3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 11 was declared on 29/1/2010 which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition which award was declared after more than 6 and a half years from issuance of declaration under Section 6. The rate of compensation under the 1997 Rules, as has been also noted in the award was ₹ 378.92 per square yard for Pushtaini and ₹ 329.50 per square yard for Gair Pushtaini , whereas in the award under Section 11(1), the rate fixed for per square yard was ₹ 156 which has been mentioned in the award. The pleadings of the petitioners as noted in paragraph 16 and the apprehension which has been expressed in the pleadings come true by the events as noted above. 394. Learned counsel for the petitioners have rightly contended that the acceptance of compensation under the 1997 Rules, is not voluntarily, but is due to force of circumstances and the compulsion. The land of poor farmers have been acquired and possession having been claimed to be taken by invoking Section 17 (1) of the Act, 1894 petitioners are deprived of their property and they had no option, but to accept whatever the meagre amount was offered by the respondents under the agreement to somehow survive. 395. Learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the State apparatus nor they can access the records prepared by the concerned authorities as a prelude to the acquisition of land by invoking Section 4 with or without the aid of Sections 17(1)and/or 17(4).398. Again the Apex Court had occasion to consider another case of land acquisition in which the acquisition of land of Village Sahberi of District Gautam Budh Nagar was involved is Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Devendra Kumar Ors. 2011 (6) ADJ 480. 399. In the said case the issue of accepting compensation by the land owners under the 1997 Rules was also raised. The submission made before the Apex Court in the said case was that the relief should not be granted to those who have accepted compensation. The Apex Court observed that the situation in which the people belonging to this class are placed does not leave any choice to them to make compromises and try to salvage whatever they can. Following observation was made in paragraph 39 which is quoted below:- 39. We do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that quashing of the acquisition proceedings should have been confined to those who had not accepted the amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the party, no interference is warranted. Even in the case of violation of a mandatory provision, interference does not fellow as a matter of course. A mandatory provision conceived in the interest of a party can be waived by that party, whereas a mandatory provision conceived in the interest of public cannot be waived by him. In other wards, wherever a complaint of violation of a mandatory provision is made, the Court should enquire- in whose interest is the provision conceived. If it is not conceived in the interest of public, question of waiver and/or acquiescence may arise - subject, of course, to the pleadings of the parties. This aspect has been dealt with elaborately by this Court in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma and in Krishanlal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of a large number of decision on the subject. Though the said decisions were rendered with reference to the statutory Rules and statutory provisions (besides the principles of natural justice) governing the disciplinary enquiries involving government servants and employees of statutory corporation, the principles adumbrated therein are of general application. It is necessary to keep these consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenors have also laid much stress on the acquiescence. It has been contended that the acceptance of compensation under the 1997 Rules, clearly proves that the petitioners/land owners have acquiesced to the acquisition of their land and they cannot be now permitted to challenge the same. Development of land, allotment to third parties without any objection by the petitioners/land owners has also been cited as grounds to plead acquiescence. Acceptance of allotment of Abadi sites to some of the land owners have also been referred to as acquiescence on the part of the land owners. 408. Shri L. Nageshwar Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State as well as Shri S.P. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenors have relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in The Naya Garh Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Anr. v. Narayan Rath Anr. (1977) 3 SCC 576, Krothapalli Satya Narayana v. Koganti Ramaiah Ors, (1984) 2 SCC 439, Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. Arvind Bhai Ram Bhai Patel Ors, (2006) 8 SCC 726 and the judgment of the Apex Court in Urmila Roy Ors v. Bengal Peerless Housing Development Company Limited Ors, (2009) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Acquiescence is a facet of delay. The principle of acquiescence would apply where: (i) sitting by or allow another to invade the rights and spending money on it; (ii) it is a course of conduct inconsistent with the claim for exclusive rights for trade mark, trade name, etc. 104.In Power Control Appliances v. Sumeet Machines (P) Ltd. sthis Court stated:(SCCp.457,para 26) 26.Acquiescence is sitting by, when another is invading the rights and spending money on it. It is a course of conduct inconsistent with the claim for exclusive rights in a trade mark, trade name etc. It implies positive acts; not merely silence or inaction such as is involved in laches. 412. The last case relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents is Urmila Roy (supra) in which land acquisition proceedings after issuance of notification under Section 4, the attorney of land owners wrote a letter that owners are willing to negotiate the price of the land. In the said circumstances, the Court observed that the land owners had acquiesced to the acquisition. Following was laid down in paragraph 60 which is quoted below:- 60. It is significant that this letter written by the Attorney Urmila Roy, on behalf of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r liable for the loss the neglect on his part must be in or intimately connected with the transaction itself and must have been the proximate cause of the loss. (v) The Banker cannot set up either estoppel or adoption if his own conduct or negligence has occasioned or contributed to the loss, the well settled principle being that where one of two innocent parties must suffer for the fraud of a third, that party should suffer whose negligence facilitated the fraud. 415. The judgment of Punjab High Court in Allahabad Bank's case (supra) also laid down the same proposition following the above Division Bench judgment of Madras High Court. The aforesaid two cases were on their own facts arising out of cases of forgery between the Bank and its customer. Those cases were on their own facts and do not help the intervener in the present case. 14. Third Party Rights and Construction: 416. After publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act,1894 the State/Authority has claimed to have taken possession under Section 17(1) of the Act, 1894. In the main writ petition i.e. 37443/2011, Gajraj Singh Anr. v. State of U.P. Ors, date of taking possession was 05/9/2008 (572.592 hectares) an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been allotted during the period 2008 to March 2009 under the Authority's open ended schemes. 417. Learned counsel appearing for the authority has also given details of allotments and developments made in different villages. Taking the case of Village Patwari, which is the Village involved in the main writ petition being Writ Petition No. 37443/2011,Gajraj Singh Ors. v. State of U.P. Ors., along with the supplementary affidavit-4 in folders giving details of allotments and other developments has been filed. In the details given with regard to Village Patwari, Group Housing Plots have been allotted in the year 2010 numbering 15 Plots in Sector 10 and 11 in which the Village Patwari, falls. Group Housing Plots have been allotted in Tech Zone-4, Sector 1 and Sector 2 of an area running into several lacs Square metres. Allotment for plot under Sports City, Farm House has also been made. 418. In Tech Zone-4 under the institutional category 24 plots have been allotted from the year 2008-2011. Residential small Flats in Sector 2 numbering 1880 have been allotted. 419. In Sector 3, 689+300 flats have also been allotted. In the intervention application filed on behalf of the Develop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also been filed as noted above by Flat Owners Association claiming that large number of members of public have got their flats booked and most of them have taken financial assistance from Banks and other financial institutions and are shouldering financial liability towards allotments of flats. The details regarding allotments of flats have also been brought on record. 423. As noticed above, Shri L. Nageshwar Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State in his concluding submission contended that even if the Court comes to the conclusion that dispensation of inquiry under Section 5A of the Act, 1894 was not justified, present is not a case where the petitioners are entitled for relief of quashing the notifications acquiring the land. It is submitted that the said relief is to be refused on the grounds mentioned below: (I) The petitioners have approached this Court with delay and not immediately after declaration under Section 6 of the Act. (II) After taking of the possession, the Authority has carried out development works and made allotments to various third parties who have acquired rights and to undo all subsequent acts shall neither be equitable nor just. (III) Due to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the acquired lands have stood validly acquired under the land acquisition proceedings and only dispute centers round 1/10th of these acquired lands owned by the present appellants. It is a comprehensive project for the further planned development in the district. We are informed by learned senior counsel Shri Mohta for NOIDA, that a lot of construction work has been done on the undisputed land under acquisition and pipelines and other infrastructure have been put up. That the disputed lands belonging to the appellants may have stray complex of lands sought to be acquired. That if notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 (4) is set aside qua these pockets of lands then the entire development activity in the complex will come to a grinding halt and that would not be in the interest of anyone. ...... ...... That we cannot permit upsetting the entire apple cart of acquisition of 500 acres only at the behest of 1/10th of land owners whose lands are sought to be acquired. We may also keep in view the further alien fact that all the appellants have filed reference for additional compensation under Section 18 of the Act. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel, was righ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We must notice that acquisitions in this case are of 1984- 1985 and two decades have passed thereafter. The whole township has come up, the houses and the lands have been allotted, sold and re-sold, awards have been passed and overwhelming majority of land owners have also accepted the compensation, this includes even some of the appellants. In such circumstances we do not think that the High Court was in any way wrong in not interfering with the exercise of power under Section 17 (4) of the Act. At any rate, after the considered findings on the factual questions recorded by the High Court, we would not go into that question. 430. The next case relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents is Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. L. Chandrasekaran (Dead) By Lrs Ors, (2010) 2 SCC 786. In the aforesaid case, the High Court quashed the declaration under Section 6 of the Act leaving the preliminary notification intact. Thereafter Special Leave Petition was filed by A.S. Naidu in which the Apex Court took notice of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition (Amendment Act, 16/1997) in terms of which declaration under Section 6 was required to be made within three years from the date of preliminary no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the flats or houses constructed by the appellant- Board or who may have built their houses on the allotted plots or undertaken other activities. 431. Heavy reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the judgment of the Apex Court in Anand Singh Anr. v. State of U.P. Ors, (2010) 11 SCC 242. In the aforesaid case, appeals were filed against the judgment of the High Court by which judgment, writ petition filed by the land holders was dismissed. The land was acquired for residential colony by the Gorakhpur Development Authority. One of the submission made before the High Court and the Apex Court was that the State Government wrongly exercised its power under Section 17(4) in dispensing with the inquiry. The Apex Court after considering all relevant cases has come to the conclusion that the dispensation of inquiry under Section 5Awas unsustainable. The Apex Court after taking the view that notification in so far as the dispensation of inquiry under Section 5A, was unsustainable, proceeded to consider as to whether at that distance of time acquisition proceedings may be declared invalid and illegal. The Apex Court noted the submission of the Gorakhpur De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... principle on which the court refuses relief on the ground of laches or delay is that the rights accrued to others by the delay in filing the petition should not be disturbed, unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, because court should not harm innocent parties if their rights had emerged by the delay on the part of the petitioners. (3) The satisfactory way of explaining delay in making an application under Article 226 is for the petitioner to show that he had been seeking relief elsewhere in a manner provided by law. If he runs after a remedy not provided in the Statute or the statutory rules, it is not desirable for the High Court to condone the delay. It is immaterial what the petitioner chooses to believe in regard to the remedy. (4) No hard and fast rule, can be laid down in this regard. Every case shall have to be decided on its own facts. (5) That representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of the delay. 68. The other factor the High Court should have taken into consideration that during the period of delay, interest has accrued in favour of the third party and the condonation of unexplained delay would affect the rights of third parties. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioners are entitled. 15. Effect of upholding of some of the notifications in some writ petitions earlier decided. 16. Conflicts in view of Division Benches: Both the above issues are taken together for consideration. 437. The Division Bench while hearing main writ petition as noticed above in its referring order dated 26 July 2011 has noticed two contrary decisions of Division Bench of this Court. First judgment is Division Bench Judgment dated 25 November 2008 in writ petition no. 45777 of 2008, Harish Chand and others v State of U.P. and others and second judgment is judgment of the Division Bench dated 19 July 2011 in writ petition no. 17068 of 2009 Har Karan Singh v. State of U.P. and others (2011 VI A.D.J. 755) . In Harishchand's case the notifications dated 12.3.2008 and 30 June 2008 acquiring the land of village Patwari was under challenge. The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition by following order: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. Learned Standing Counsel has produced the original records pertaining the land acquisition proceedings under challenge. The notification dated 20.3.2007 and 9.7.2008 under Section 4 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purposes by allotment of land to private builders for construction of multi-storey housing complexes was neither taken nor pressed in the aforesaid writ petition dismissed by the Court. The law of acquisition of land by the State applying Section 17 (1) and (4) has undergone a sea change after the judgments of the Supreme Court in Anand Singh's case (Supra) decided on 28.7.2010, Radhey Shyam's case (Supra) decided on 18.4.2011 and Devendra Kumar's (Supra) case decided on 6.7.2011. 439. Thus one of the issues which has arisen for consideration by this Full Bench is as to which of the aforesaid two judgments be approved and followed. The submission which has been placed by learned counsel for the respondent is that subsequent Division Bench in Har Karan Singh's case would not have taken divergent view to one which was taken in Harishcand's case. It is submitted that at best the subsequent Division Bench could have made a reference to be heard by a larger Bench. In view of the fact that now this larger Bench had been constituted to consider as to which of the view is correct, the issue that subsequent Division Bench ought to have made a reference to the larger Benc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invocation of Section 17 was correct: We have perused the original records and we find that the District Magistrate had not indicated various factors which led him to arrive at a conclusion that the land was required urgently and there was justification for acquiring the land. The State Government having regard to the letter/reports on record formed an opinion that it was a fit case to strike the urgency clause under Section 17of the Land Acquisition Act. We are, therefore of the opinion that the contention raised on behalf of the writ petitioner have no force. From perusal of the above reasoning of the Division Bench it is clear that the Division Bench took the aforesaid view on the basis of District magistrate having indicated in his conclusion that the land was required urgently and there was justification for acquiring the land. 443. We have noticed that three Judge Bench in Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra held that the mere fact that there is urgency under Section 17(1) is not sufficient for invocation of Section 17(4) but the mind of the officer or the authority has to be applied to the question whether the urgency is of such a nature that even the summary proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gives power to the Government to direct the Collector, though no award has been made under s. 11, to take possession of any waste or arable land needed for public purpose and such land thereupon vests absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. If action is taken under s. 17(1), taking possession and vesting which are provided in s. 16 after the award under s. 11 are accelerated and can take place fifteen days after the publication of the notice under s. 9. Then comes s.17(4) which provides that in case of any land to which the provisions of sub-s. (1) are applicable, the Government may direct that the provisions of s. 5-A shall not apply and if it does so direct, a declaration may be made under s. 6 in respect of the land at any time after the publication of the notification under s. 4 (1). It will be seen that it is not necessary even where the Government makes a direction under s. 17(1) that it should also make a direction under s. 17 (4). If the Government makes a direction only under s. 17 (1) the procedure under s. 5-A would still have to be followed before a notification under s. 6 is issued, though after that procedure has been followed and a notification unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upheld. One of the Division Bench judgments is relied by the respondent is Munshi Singh v. State of U.P. and others 2009 VIII A.D.J. 360 by which judgment the notifications dated 20 June 2007 under Section 4 and notification dated 18 June 2008 under Section 6 was challenged. The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition. The Division Bench while dismissing the writ petition has relied on Division Bench of this Court in Radhey Shyam and others v. State of U.P. 2009 2 A.D.J. 388. Against the judgment of Radheya Shyam and others by which Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition upholding the notification, special leave petition was filed in the Supreme Court and the Division Bench Judgement of the High Court has been reversed by Apex Court in Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P. 2011 5 S.C.C. 553. 448. Another Division Bench judgment of this court which is relevant is Sudhir Chandra Agarwal v. State of U.P. and another 2008 III A.D.J. 289 by which the acquisition notification under Sections 4 and 6 relating to Village Tushiana were upheld one of the arguments raised by the petitioners was that the invocation of Section 17 sub clause 4 by dispensing of the inquiry under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the land, the law does not permit the Court to consider the material as if it was weighing the evidence for the purposes of recording subjective satisfaction of invoking the urgency clause for acquisition of the land. If the material is relevant, on which competent authority, as reasonable person may invoke the urgency clause for acquisition of the land, the Court would not put such material on the scales, to weigh or measure such urgency. The court is not competent to carry out judicial review of the sufficiency or insufficiency on the material placed before it. What the Court required to see is whether such material is relevant, and that the competent authority in the State Government could have formed an opinion without their being any motive or ill-will for invoking the urgency clause. In the present case the State has given in the counter affidavit, the material on which it had placed reliance and has produced the material before us, which we find to be relevant for the purpose of invoking urgency clause. Even if we may, after perusing the record arrive on different conclusion, we would restrain ourselves from interfering, as in such case we would be substituting our opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that said order do not constitute any ratio within meaning of Article 141 nor it attracts doctrine of merger, following was laid down by the Apex court in paragraph 27: A petition for leave to appeal to this Court may be dismissed by a non-speaking order or by a speaking order. Whatever be the phraseology employed in the order of dismissal, if it is a non-speaking order, i.e. it does not assign reasons for dismissing the special leave petition, it would neither attract the doctrine of merger so as to stand substituted in place of the order put in issue before it nor would it be a declaration of law by the Supreme Court under Article 141of the Constitution for there is no law which has been declared. If the order of dismissal be supported by reasons then also the doctrine of merger would not be attracted because the jurisdiction exercised was not an appellate jurisdiction but merely a discretionary jurisdiction refusing to grant leave to appeal. We have already dealt with this aspect earlier. Still the reasons stated by the Court would attract applicability of Article 141 of the Constitution if there is a law declared by the Supreme Court which obviously would be binding on all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition filed by respondent No. 1 on merits is vitiated by any patent legal infirmity. It is true that the writ petitions filed by the brothers of respondent No. 1 had been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay and the writ appeals and the special leave petitions filed against the order of the learned Single Judge were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court and this Court respectively, but that could not be made basis for denying relief to respondent No. 1 because his brothers had neither questioned the diversification of land to private persons nor prayed for restoration of their respective shares. That apart, we find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to approve the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge in dealing with Writ Petition Nos. 2379 and 2380 of 1993 filed by the brothers of respondent No. 1. He distinguished the judgments of the Division Bench in Mrs. Behroze Ramyar Batha and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (supra) and Smt. H.N. Lakshmamma and others v. State of Karnataka and others, without any real distinction and did not adhere to the basic postulate of judicial discipline that a Single Bench is bound by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture is one of the main vocation/occupation of its residents. Planned development of cities, towns is welcome factor but while proceeding with planned development/industrial development, good fertile agricultural land cannot be always sacrificed. As observed above, the right of objection of land owners as contemplated under section 5A was done away so that land owners could not point out any shortcomings/flaw in the acquisition process or justify exclusion of their land from acquisition. 459. In these writ petitions in majority of cases third party rights have been created after issue of declaration under section 6 and after taking possession substantial developments including constructions have been undertaken which has been already noted in detail by us in preceding paragraphs but there are few villages in which no third party rights have been created and no substantial developments have taken place. The cases where third party rights have not been created and no substantial developments have taken place and the cases where third party rights have been created, substantial developments have taken place and constructions made have to be separately treated and cannot be dealt with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nferred and the State Government is required to record its own independent reasons for invoking the urgency clause. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the petitioners are entitled for interim order. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further urged that in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Munshi Singh and others v. Union of India and others reported in A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1150 for dispensing with an enquiry under Section 5A, mere mention of word Land Development of the Area is not sufficient and respondents are bound to show that the interested persons were aware of the scheme or were shown the scheme or the master plan in respect of land development. In this view of argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel is directed to produce the entire records of acquisition on 21.10.2009 to demonstrate that satisfaction has been recorded by the State Government by applying in its own independent mind and enquiry under Section 5A was dispensed with in accordance with law. List on 21.10.2009. Until further orders of this court, parties are directed to maintain status quo. 460. The petitioners' case in the writ petition is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o acquisition of land of different plots belonging to the petitioners in the same area. The petitioner's case is that this Court entertained the writ petition and granted interim relief also. The petitioner has pleaded that the State Government has exempted land belonging to one M/s Arti Roiling Mills from the acquisition proposal whereas the petitioner has been discriminated since the petitioners' industry is also running from 1990. 461. Although in writ petition No. 50417 of 2009, no counter affidavit has been filed by the State despite the order of this Court dated 18.9.2009 but the counter affidavit of the State has been filed in the leading writ petition of the village being writ petition No. 31126 of 2011 Chaval Singh v. State of U.P. and others. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, it has been stated that possession of the land was taken on 14.9.2009. It was also stated in the counter affidavit filed on 14.9.2011 that no award has yet been prepared in so far as acquisition of village Dewla is concerned. In the counter affidavit filed by the State as mentioned above, the State has brought on record Prapatra Sankhya 16 which is prepared of assets which is noted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . An interim order was also passed directing the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to possession as on date. The petitioner's case in the writ petition is also that the petitioner is a registered company which is using the plots in question for industrial purposes. The factory claims to be in existence over it. Reliance has also been placed on survey report dated 8.11.2007 which has been filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition (as referred to above, while considering the writ petition of Tosha International Ltd.). In the survey on the plots which the petitioner claims, the mention of factory against plot nos. 566 and 564 was there and it was noted that factory was closed. The petitioner's claim that factory is in existence since 1990. Other grounds challenging the notifications have been taken. 465. From the details as submitted by the Authority along with Supplementary affidavit-4 regarding the village in question, the land use as on the date of notification under sections 4 and 6as well as of today is institutional green, recreational green, residential and commercial. The petitioners claim to be running industry over their plot, whose land use has now been chan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chak Sahberi as given in the folder is as follows: Details Area in (Sq m) Sector Name Scheme Name Allotted area Unallotted area Nos of allotted plots Nos of unallotted plots Nos of plots on which building plan sanctioned Nos of plots on which completion has been issued. Agricultural Area +River 1,293,118.15 Under process of planning Total. 1,293,118.15 In paragraph 6 of the note submitted along with the folder, following has been mentioned: The Authority has incurred a total expenditure of ₹ 386.00 lakhs upto July 2011 on the development. A sum of ₹ 25.00 lakhs has been spent on the development of the acquired land while an amount of ₹ 361.00 lakhs have been incurred on the development within the un-acquired land of the village abadi. 467. From the materials brought on record, it is thus clear that neither any third party rights have been created in the village nor any substantial development has been made in the acquired area and the award claims to have been given on 14.9.2011 i.e. much after filing of the writ petition and after hearing in this writ petition had begun. The writ petition deserves to be allowed and notifications including all consequential action ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been stated that possession has been taken on 16.2.2009 and out of 825 tenure holders 61 have received compensation. The writ petition having been filed only on 10.8.2011, we are of the view that the petitioners are not entitled for relief of quashing the notification. 472. Now comes the writ petitions of village Pali, the leading writ petition being writ petition No. 46933 of 2011, Rabhubar and others v. State of U.P. The writ petition has been filed on 16.8.2011 challenging the notification dated 7.9.2006 under section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) as well as notification dated 23.7.2007 under section 6. The possession of the land is claimed to have been taken on 1.11.2007 and 10.4.2008. It has been further stated in the counter affidavit that out of 558 tenure holders 470 have accepted compensation under agreement and for 93.49% area, the compensation has already been paid and award was made on 10.8.2011. In the facts of the present case, we are of the view that the petitioners are not entitled for the relief of quashing the notifications. 473. Now comes the issue as to what reliefs be granted to the petitioners of other writ petitions even though they are not entitle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rgency provisions in section 17 of the LA Act; (iii) notification of areas far larger than what is actually required, for acquisition, and then making arbitrary deletions and withdrawals from the acquisitions; (iv) offer of very low amount as compensation by Land Acquisition Collectors, necessitating references to court in almost all cases; (v) inordinate delay in payment of compensation; and (vi) absence of any rehabilitatory measures. While the plight of project oustees and landlosers affected by acquisition for industries has been frequently highlighted in the media, there has been very little effort to draw attention to the plight of farmers affected by frequent acquisitions for urban development. 151. There are several avenues for providing rehabilitation and economic security to landlosers. They can be by way of offering employment, allotment of alternative lands, providing housing or house plots, providing safe investment opportunities for the compensation amount to generate a stable income, or providing a permanent regular income by way of annuities. The nature of benefits to the landlosers can vary depending upon the nature of the acquisition. For this limited purpose, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty participation, providing annuity benefits ensuring a regular income for life, providing rehabilitation in the form of housing or new businesses, should be considered and whichever is found feasible or suitable, should be made an integral process of the scheme of such acquisitions. If the government or Development Authorities act merely as facilitators for industrial or business houses, mining companies and developers or colonisers, to acquire large extent of land ignoring the legitimate rights of land-owners, it leads to resistance, resentment and hostility towards acquisition process. 474. It is also relevant to notice that in same judgment, the apex Court has also noticed the consequence of unauthorised or illegal developments and the benefits of planned developments. It is useful to quote paragraphs 130 and 131 which are to the following effect: 130. But in an unauthorised or illegal development, the roads are narrow and minimal, virtually no open spaces for parks and playgrounds, and no area earmarked for civic amenities. There will be no proper water supply or drainage; and there will be a mixed use of the area for residential, commercial and industrial purposes converting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The apex Court noticed that there are two competing interest, firstly the interest of the State, vis-a vis the general public and secondly the right of property of an individual. The apex Court observed following in paragraph 52: 52. The Courts should, therefore, strive to find a balance of the competing interests. 476. The payment of adequate compensation for acquisition of land is also the important aspect of the whole exercise. One aspect of compensation, in the shape of payment of additional compensation with regard to land holders of village Patwari needs to be noted. As noted above, the Division Bench while passing the order dated 26.7.2007 for hearing of the matter by larger Bench has left open to the petitioners, State and Authority to make an effort of settlements. After order of this Court dated 26.7.2011, the Authority took steps and invited the land holders of village Patwari to arrive at a settlement. The Authority has filed a supplementary affidavit in the main writ petition giving details of facts and events which took place towards the settlement between the authority and the land owners regarding payment of additional compensation. In the supplementary affidavit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this context reference is made to the judgment of the apex Court in (2005) 13 SCC 4777 Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory Ors. In the aforesaid case, the acquisition of land was made under the National Highways Act, 1956. The apex Court found that acquisition was not in accordance with law. However, to meet the ends of justice, it was held that additional compensation be paid to the land owners to compensate them. Following was laid down in paragraph 14: Having held that the impugned notification regarding acquisition of land is invalid because it fails to meet the statutory requirements and also having found that taking possession of the land of the writ petitioners in the present case in pursuance of the said notification was not in accordance with law, the question arises as to what relief can be granted to the petitioners. The High Court rightly observed that the acquisition of land in the present case was for a project of great national importance, i.e. the construction of a national highway. The construction of national highway on the acquired land has already been completed as informed to us during the course of hearing. No useful purpose will be served by qua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew of the foregoing, we affirm the directions of the Division Bench subject to the following further directions and clarifications: (i) In regard to the acquisition of lands in Kempapura and Srirampura, BDA is directed to re-consider the objections to the acquisitions having regard to the fact that large areas were not initially notified for acquisition, and more than 50% of whatever that was proposed for acquisition was also subsequently deleted from acquisition. BDA has to consider whether in view of deletions to a large extent, whether development with respect to the balance of the acquired lands has become illogical and impractical, and if so, whether the balance area also should be deleted from acquisition. If BDA proposes to continue the acquisition, it shall file a report within four months before the High Court so that consequential orders could be passed. (ii) In regard to villages of Venkateshapura, Nagavara, Hennur and Challakere where there are several very small pockets of acquired lands surrounded by lands which were not acquired or which were deleted from the proposed acquisition, BDA may consider whether such small pockets should also be deleted if they are not suit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtainly not extend the benefit to those who had not approached the Court or who might have gone into slumber. 481. As noticed above, the land has been acquired of large number of villagers in different villages of Greater Noida and Noida. Some of the petitioners had earlier come to this Court and their writ petitions have been dismissed as noticed above upholding the notifications which judgments have become final between them. Some of the petitioners may not have come to the Court and have left themselves in the hand of the Authority and State under belief that the State and Authority shall do the best for them as per law. We cannot loose sight of the fact that the above farmers and agricultures/owners whose land has been acquired are equally affected by taking of their land. As far as consequence and effect of the acquisition it equally affects on all land losers. Thus land owners whose writ petitions have earlier been dismissed upholding the notifications may have grievances that the additional compensation which was a subsequent event granted by the Authority may also be extended to them and for the aforesaid, further spate of litigation may start in so far as payment of additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll be entitled for restoration of their land subject to deposit of compensation which they had received under agreement/award before the authority/Collector. 2 (ii) Writ petition No. 17725 of 2010 Omveer and others v. State of U.P. (Group 38) relating to village Yusufpur Chak Sahberi is allowed. Notifications dated 10.4.2006 and 6.9.2007 and all consequential actions are quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled for restoration of their land subject to return of compensation received by them under agreement/award to the Collector. 2 (iii) Writ Petition No. 47486 of 2011 (Rajee and others v. State of U.P. and others) of Group-42 relating to village Asdullapur is allowed. The notification dated 27.1.2010 and 4.2.2010 as well as all subsequent proceedings are quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled to restoration of their land. 3. All other writ petitions except as mentioned above at (1) and (2) are disposed of with following directions: (a) The petitioners shall be entitled for payment of additional compensation to the extent of same ratio (i.e. 64.70%) as paid for village Patwari in addition to the compensation received by them under 1997 Rules/award which payment shall be ensur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|