TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 753X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77, 47178, 47414, 47148, 45754, 40356, 44917, 44921, 44924, 44926, 40334, 40335, 40341, 40342, 40345, 40347, 40350, 40354, 40359, 40361, 40362, 40417, 40418, 40419, 40420, 40421, 40422, 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, 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. One of the submissions made before the Division Bench was that the State had wrongly invoked the provisions of Sections 17(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 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mawali, 1997'. It is pertinent to note that several applications have been made either by the respective builders and/or purchasers of flats and/or the banks for impleadment, 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 Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is being treated as main writ petition. In so far as other writ petitions of different villages are concerned, learned Chief Standing Counsel has stated that counter affidavits have been filed by State and Authority 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nagar through Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and under section 7of the said Act direct the Collector of Gautam Budh Nagar to take order for the acquisition of the said land. 2. The Governor, being satisfied that the case is one 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 per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 17068 of 2009, Harkaran Singh v. State of U.P. this Court vide order dated 19.7.2011 quashed the notification. It is further pleaded that compensation amount were disbursed in 2009,2010 and 2011 after duly executing the agreement as per 1997 Rules. It is further 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oners No. 1,3,14 to 20 and 22 rest of the petitioners have received compensation on various dates in the year 2008-09 and by accepting the compensation, the petitioners have accepted the both factum of acquisition and taking of possession. About 83% in terms of area 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 housin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been made for a sum of ₹ 194.46 crores, out of which ₹ 11 crores have already been paid. 6000 residential units of varying sizes are proposed to be constructed. 4471 members of the public have booked units in the Eco village I project. Out of these 4471 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed on the ground of laches alone. 17. We have categorised the writ petitions in different groups, villagewise. Each village of Greater NOIDA and NOIDA has been allotted one group. In one group if more than one notifications under Sections 4 and 6 are challenged, the same has also been mentioned. Group 1 to 41 relate to different villages 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... possession. It was pleaded that flat buyers who are members of association having faith and belief regarding the marketable title in the land of the builders have booked flats after taking due care and any order quashing the notification shall take away the rights of the members of the association causing loss to them. It is pleaded that there is acute need of residential 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, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompensation under the agreement. With regard to various development works it was stated that in Sector Zeta-I five group housing plots were allotted in the year 2006. In Sector Zeta II, 125 residential plots and Sector Delta II, 700 residential plots and Sector Delta-III, 290 residential plots have been allotted. The writ petition has been filed with great delay. Intervention 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the State Government vide letter dated 24.08.2005, and thereafter Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 24.08.2005. Certificates issued in relevant proforma by the Collector have been filed along with the counter affidavit. Possession of land was taken and handed over to respondent No. 3 on 14.06.2006 and 06.10.2006. The writ petition suffers from delay 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 A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allenge the notification. However, the very purpose of acquisition has been changed, the respondents are playing fraud, and they are proposing to use it for construction of commercial and residential houses, hence they have come in the writ petition. No notice under Section 9 was issued or served upon the petitioners. The petitioners are willing and ready to refund the compensation. They are 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 ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acquisition. Abadi plots of illiterate persons have been included in the acquisition. In the land under acquisition there is abadi of the petitioners. Acquisition proceedings are nothing but colourable exercise of power by the State Government. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating therein that the possession of land was taken on 07.05.2003 and 94% compensation has already been disbursed. Award under Section 11of 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im to be in possession of their land and carrying on agricultural activities. It is pleaded that invocation of urgency clause under the provisions of Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Act was without any basis and without sufficient material. Dispensation of enquiry under Section 5A of the Act has been made in routine manner. It is further pleaded by the petitioners that the Authority is calling for negotiation 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 all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have further pleaded that they were given to understand that the land acquired would be used for industrial development, which would provide the youths of the village employment and taking of their land would not financially affect their family. It is alleged that the respondent Authority has hatched conspiracy of depriving the farmers of their land under mala fide and colourable exercise of power. The petitioners 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land. The award having not been issued within two years of the notification, under Section 11A of the Act, entire land acquisition proceedings stood lapsed. It is stated that joint objection was filed on 25.07.2008 praying for exemption of land for abadi purpose. It is stated that similarly placed persons were given benefit by exempting and regularizing their land Reference of writ petition No. 54028 of 2006, Kishan Singh 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , is being treated as leading writ petition. Petitioners claim to be bhumidhars in possession of plots as detailed in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 31.08.2007, invoking the provisions of Sections 17 (1) and 17(4) of the Act, proposing to acquire 484.836 hectares of land of the village in question for planned development. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 27.02.2008. 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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollector, including the relevant certificates on the basis of which the State Government dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. Copy of the award has also been brought on record along with the counter affidavit. Under agreement in accordance with 1997 Rules the land owners were granted compensation of ₹ 850/- per sq. yard, whereas under Section 11 (1) of the Act compensation fixed was ₹ 370.37/- per sq. meter. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly in July, 2011. There was no ground to invoke the provisions of Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State, in which it has been stated that possession has been taken on 20.07.2007 of 84.578 hectares of land. 81% of the compensation has already been disbursed. Award has been declared on 27.07.2011. There was sufficient material with the State Government for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of U.P. and others, challenging the notification dated 15.12.1999 issued under Section 4 of the Act read with Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire 58.893 hectares of land of the village in question for planned industrial development. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 22.04.2000. Petitioners claim to be in actual physical possession. Petitioner's case is that instead of utilizing the land for planned 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 ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant prays that writ petition be dismissed on the ground of delay. 43. In Writ Petition No. 48209 of 2011 (Shiva Dutta and others v. State of U.P. and others) notifications dated 2nd May, 2003 and 21st June, 2003 issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act by which 135.73 hectares of land was proposed to be acquired, have been challenged. The declaration under Section 6 was issued on 5th June, 2003 and 7th August, 2003, which have also been challenged. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... release/return of the land. The petitioners have also expressed their willingness to return the amount of compensation and an application submitted to Deputy Chief Executive Officer on 25th May, 2011 has been referred to, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. It is alleged that inquiry under Section 5A of the Act was wrongly dispensed with. It is submitted that about 60% of the land has not been developed. In the supplementary affidavit, it has been pleaded 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed out to land owners. The leases granted to various land owners have been mentioned in paragraphs 9 and 11 of the counter affidavit of the State. The village Badalpur has been notified as part of the industrial development area way back in the year 1996. The allegation that petitioners are still in possession has been denied. Under the 1976 Act allotment to private builders is not prohibited. 46. In Writ Petition No. 45558 of 2011 (Smt. Savitri Devi v. State of U.P. and others) aforesaid 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 respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17 (1) and 17(4) proposing acquisition of 59.561 hectares land of village Gharbara. The declaration under Section 6 was issued on 20th December, 2005. Petitioners' case is that there was no occasion to invoke urgency clause for planned industrial development. Petitioners' case further is that they have accepted the compensation under the impression that the land is acquired for planned industrial development whereas the GNOIDA has acquired the land 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 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the land. It has been pleaded that it has become fashionable to discriminatingly apply the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act in every case of acquisition. The land has been allotted to private builders whereas the purpose of acquisition was planned industrial development. In the counter affidavit filed by the State it has been stated that possession of the land was taken on 9th March, 2009 and award was declared on 21st March, 2011. Copies of the possession memo and award have been brought on the record. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tenure holders have accepted compensation under agreement. The award has been issued on 25th July, 2011. There being delay, the writ petition need not be entertained. The other writ petitions of this group raise more or less similar grounds which need no repetition. 53. The writ petitions of Group-20 relate to village Ajayabpur. In Writ Petition No. 46671 of 2011 (Om Prakash alias Omi and others v. State of U.P. and others) pleading are complete which is being treated as leading writ petition of this village. The petitioners, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1950 in the year 1991 and the said plots were purchased by the petitioner's company for purpose of plotting and sale. The proposal for acquisition was sent in the year 2003 and the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in the year 2008. The land use of the land in question was institutional. It is stated that declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been issued with a view to promote interest of private developers. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating in paragraph 11 that possession 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red for the purposes of planned industrial development. Petitioner was under the impression that the land is needed for the public purpose namely planned industrial development hence accepted the compensation under the agreement. The land was acquired for the planned industrial development and thereafter transferred to private builders for residential purposes which clearly proves that the respondents have acquired the land under colour able exercise of power. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating that possession was 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not yet been used for the purposes for which it was acquired. Dispensation of inquiry under Section - 5-A was not in routine manner and without application of mind. 58. Writ petition nos. 18303 of 2009, 17478 of 2009, 42386 of 2010 and 24261 of 2011 have been filed challenging similar notification in which this court granted interim order directing for maintaining status quo. Some of the petitioners are still in possession of their land and they have not received compensation and they are approaching respondent nos. 2 and 3 for amicable settlement 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 agreemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2nd July, 2003. Petitioners alleged that there was no material before the State to form an opinion that inquiry under Section 5-A deserves to be dispensed with. The notification has been issued in colourable exercise of powers. Petitioners' case is that 100% land of the village was reserved for Night Safari. The petitioners accepted the compensation under the impression that industries would come. The entire area is lying vacant and there was no urgency for invoking Section 17 (1) and and 17 (4)of the Act. In the counter affidavit it has further been 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 alo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and owners compensation was received by 1560 land owners. Development work has been carried out and the area has been demarcated as part of Sector 4 and 16-C. Authority has constructed roads, sewerage, drainage etc. Authority has spent ₹ 78.54 crores in Sector 16-C and Sector 41 respectively. Plots have been allotted in the year 2010. It has further been stated in paragraph -19 that initially land use of 16-C was industrial later on land use of 16-C was changed from industrial to the land under the approval of the Board dated 2.2.2010 which was further approved by 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 fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... U.P. pleadings are complete hence the same is being treated as the leading petition. Through the said writ petition the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 24th July, 2008 issued under Section-4 read with Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) for acquisition of 105.5600 hectares of land of village Chipyana Khurd. Declaration under Section-6 was issued on 29th January, 2009. Petitioners claimed that they have not received any compensation and they are also using some of their area of land for abadi purposes. Some plots of village Chipyana Khurd has not yet been acquired which shows discrimination against the petitioner. 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 cro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-6 was issued on 31st August, 2007. Petitioners claim to be in possession of land in dispute. The land use of village is shown as industrial. It is pleaded that there was no material or reason for invoking urgency clause under Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State as well as the authority stating that possession of the land was taken on 17.11.2007 and about 82% of tenure holders have accepted compensation. Award was declared on 25th August, 2011. In the counter affidavit filed by the State it has been stated that proposal was sent by the authority to the Collector on 10.2.2005 which was forwarded 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 hecta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a. It is further pleaded that acquisition proceedings in the garb of planned industrial development is in-fact are for private persons. The allottees respondent nos. 3 to 9 have been impleaded. Various persons/companies have come up by filing intervention applications. We having already permitted allottees/builders to file intervention applications by our order dated 29th August, 2011 have not issued separate notice to any of the allottees or builders. The allottees and builders who have filed application for intervention and represented by the counsel have been heard in detail. In this writ petition intervention applications have been filed 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challenged the impugned Notification. No award has been passed within two years, as such acquisition in question has lapsed. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating that after publication of Notification in question possession of the land was taken on 09.03.2009 and about 98% tenure holders have accepted the compensation and award has been declared on 27.08.2011 and the proposal of acquisition of 181.300 hectares of land was submitted by the Greater Noida Authority vide letter dated 18.01.2006 which was forwarded to the Collector, Gautam Budh Nagar vide letter dated 09.05.2008. State Government after considering the material placed before 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 canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar grounds have been taken. It has been stated in paragraph 10 of writ petition that petitioner could know about the award only in November, 2009. 80. The writ petitions in Group-33 relates to village Raipur Bangar. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46483 of 2011 (Gajraj Singh 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. By the aforesaid writ petition petitioners who are 171 in number have challenged the Notification dated 30.06.2006 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire 180.8114 hectares 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 villa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05.08.2004 and out of 295 tenure holders 275 tenure holders have already accepted compensation under the agreement and award has also been declared on 11.09.2009. There was sufficient material before the State Government for invoking urgency clause. Counter affidavit filed by the Authority reiterating the pleas taken by the State Government and it has been stated that writ petitions have been filed with great delay. Further, development work has already taken place and area demarcated sector wise which are institutional Green-1 and Ecotech-2. It has further been stated that Notification of village Malakpur was upheld in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22875 of 2003 (Om Pal Singh 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication dated 31.12.2004 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire 406.2448 acres of land of village Kasna. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 01.07.2005 and award was made on 23.03.2011. Petitioners have prayed for quashing of the aforesaid Notification including award dated 23.03.2011. Petitioners claim that without applying its mind urgency was invoked by the State Government although respondents alleged to have taken possession but the petitioners are still in possession of land. Petitioner filed objection on 25.07.2008 for exemption of their land from acquisition. Petitioners claim to have filed several application 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reement. Award has also been published on 14.09.2011. 87. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46636 of the 2011 (Jai Chand and others v. State of U.P. and others) more or less similar grounds have been urged. 88. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46129 of 2011 (Ganeshi and others v. State of U.P. and others), Notification dated 11.07.2008 and 16.02.2009 have been changed. 89. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41962 of 2007( Natthu Singh v. State of U.P. and others), Notification issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 29.12.2001 and declaration under Section 15. 03.2002 have been challenged. 0. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54028 of 2005 (Kishan Singh 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 ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement. Award has been declared on 05.06.2009. It has further stated that there were sufficient material to invoke urgency clause. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the Authority taking same grounds as has been taken by the State in their counter affidavit. It has further been stated that writ petition has been filed with delay and petitioner having received compensation, cannot challenge acquisition and further development works were carried out by the authority in the area. Plots have been allotted under Group Housing Scheme between year 2003-08 and allotments of plots under 6% of Scheme has also done in the area of 6220 sq.mt. In other writ petitions challenging same notification raises more or less similar ground which 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith regard to area 30.7591 hectares. Interim orders have been passed by this Court/Hon'ble Apex Court. Award has been issued on 27.08.2011. Letter dated 30.11.2006 written by Collector, recommending issuance of Notification under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) has been filed as Annexure-CA-3. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the Authority repeating pleas taken by State. It has further been stated that land has been carved out of the acquired land is institutional, and industrial. Other writ petitions of this group raises more or less same grounds of challenge which needs no repetition. 95. The writ petitions in Group-40 relates to village Devla. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31126 of 2011 (Chaval Singh and others 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14.09.2009. Petitioners case is that possession memo filed as Annexure CA-3 to the counter affidavit clearly indicating that possession has not been taken in view of the interim order passed in present writ petition filed by Mohd. Shakil and others. It has further been pleaded by the petitioner that greater Noida Authority has also made recommendation for invoking urgency clause but no details of any material have been given, even 10% of the amount was not deposited at the time of recommendation. Petitioners further alleged that there is no compliance of Section 17(3A). 97. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50417 of 2009 (M/s Tosha International Limited and others v. State of U.P. and others), petitioners who are five in number, have challenged the 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 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State of U.P. and others), interim order was passed by this Court on 15.10.2009. Counter affidavit has been filed stating therein that possession was taken on 14.09.2009. However there is no mention of any allotment in the village in question. 100. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57032 of 2009 (Manaktala Chemical (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others), petitioners have challenged the Notification dated 26.05.2009 and 22.06.2009. Interim order was granted on 29.10.2009 which is continuing. It has been stated that there does not exist any order of the State Government with regard to dispensation of the inquiry under Section 5-A. Petitioner's company is using the plot for industrial purposes. Report filed as Annexure-6 has been referred to which inspection report 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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Authority stating that after the Notification was issued under Section 6 possession was taken after issuance of notice under Section 9, development work has taken place and there was sufficient material available before the State Government for dispensing the inquiry. There is delay in filing writ petition. Possession was taken on 21.11.2008 and 16.09.2010. It has been specifically stated that land of village Junpat has not been allotted to any of the builders. 102. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41558 of 2009 (Surendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others) has been filed by the petitioner challenging the same Notification. Writ petition was filed on 11.08.2009 in which interim order was also passed by this Court on 13.08.2009 which is still continuing. Counter affidavit has been 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and others) has been filed challenging the Notification dated 22.3.1983 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring 299.421 hectares of land, situated in village Aleverdipur, District Gautambudh Nagar. Declaration under Section 6 was issued vide notification dated 23.3.1983. Petitioner claimed to be purchaser from one Kalu by means of registered sale deed dated 31.5.2008. Petitioner's case is that he came to know only few days back that Noida authority has acquired the land by notification dated 22.3.1983 and 23.3.1983. Petitioner claimed to be in possession of the land after sale deed and has come up in the writ petition praying for quashing the aforesaid notifications. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government stating therein 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land and award has been declared on 3.9.2011. 107. Writ Petition No. 24295 of 2010 (Mawasi v. State of U.P.Thru. P.S. Industrial Devp. Ors) has been filed challenging the notification dated 24.8.2007 and 12.8.2008. This writ petition was filed on 29.4.2010 and interim order was granted on 5.5.2010 directing for maintaining status-quo with regard to plot No. 183. 108. Supplementary affidavit has been filed annexing copy of the lease deed dated 31.3.2009 by which land measuring 10951.98 Sq. Meter was allotted to M/s Anushriya Infotech Pvt. Ltd. for development of form house on agricultural land. Petitioner case is that land was acquired for planned Industrial Development and on Plot No. 183 there is abadi of the petitioner. Petitioner submitted that an application dated 14.9.2007 had been moved before Sub Divisional 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 tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enure holder, 149 tenure holders have received compensation. Award has also been declared on 19.9.2011. It is stated that in Plot No. 421, no abadi was found in the survey. There was sufficient material on the record to invoke urgency clause. In the counter affidavit filed by the authority, plea raised in the counter of State Government have been reiterated. The authority has developed the village Badoli Bangar and spend huge amount on the development of infrastructure. More than ₹ 62 Crores has been spend on the development. Petitioner's case is that no allotment has been made in this village nor any development has taken place. Other writ petitions of this group raises more or less similar grounds to challenge the notification which needs no repletion. 110. The writ petition in Group-46 relates to village Basi 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 qua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9; case is that against the will of farmers, the compensation was paid at the rate of ₹ 378 per square yard in the year 2003, which is now being allotted to the builders'/colonizers for the group housing in the year 2010 on at the rate of ₹ 22440 per sq. yard. Petitioners' case is that acquisition of land is totally illegal, which has been done for earning profit. There was no urgency for invoking Section 17(1) 17(4) of the Act. Petitioners case is that they came to know in the year 2010 that land was allotted to the builders like 3-C Company, Urbtech and Paras Group Housing. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government stating that possession of the land was taken on 22.8.2003 and 11.1.2005. Out of 138 tenure holders, 118 tenure holders have received compensation. Award have also been declared on 19.9.2011. 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 ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt on 22.5.2010. There was no reason to exempt the land of the petitioners. Petitioners are not in possession of the land. 114. The writ petition in Group-50 relates to village Jhatta, District Gautambudh Nagar. Civil Writ Petition No. 47257 of 2011 (Bharte and others v. State of U.P. and others) is being treated as leading writ petition. Counter affidavit has been filed by both State Government as well as authority. Petitioners who are 42 in number have approached for quashing of Notification dated 12.4.2005 issued under Section 4read with Section 17(1) and 17(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring 76.8367 hectares of land situated in village Jhatta, District Gautambudh Nagar. Declaration under Section 6 was issued vide notification dated 28.10.2005. Petitioners claim to be owner in possession of plot as mentioned in paragraph no. 4 and 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een repeated. It has been denied that the petitioners are in possession of the land. It has been stated that there was no colourable exercise of power in the acquisition. Land has already vested with the State Government, it cannot be reverted back to the original owners. 115. The writ petitions in Group-51 relates to village Khoda, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Dadri, (Sadar) District Gautam Budha Nagar. Writ Petition No. 45196 of 2011 Rampat and others Versus State of U.P. and others, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents-authority, which is being treated as leading writ petition. Petitioners have challenged the Notification dated 17.3.1988 under Section 4 read with Sections 17 (1) 17 (4) of Land Acquisition Act. Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act made vide notification dated 11.7.1988. Petitioners claim to be owner in possession 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. Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prominent daily news paper namely Rashtriya Sahara and Amar Ujala on 15.8.2009 and Munadi was made on 21.8.2009. Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made vide notification dated on16.9.2009. Petitioner submitted in paragraph no. 13 of the counter affidavit it has been mentioned that publication of Section 6 of the Act having been made after about one year which clearly indicated that invoking of urgency was misused. It is submitted that publication in the news paper on 15.8.2008 and Munadi on 21.8.2009 was made to facilitate the issuance of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. 117. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40265 of 2011(Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P. and others) notification dated 8.9.2008 and 16.9.2009 has been challenged. It has been stated that notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued nearly after passing 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 15.8.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question were not acquired by the declaration as claimed by the petitioner, since the said plots were indicated in the subsequent notification dated 8.9.2008 and 16.9.2009 as observed above; In all the writ petitions of this group challenging notification under section 4 dated 8.9.2008 read with Section 17 (1) 17 (4) and declaration dated 16.9.2009 under Section 6 more or less similar ground are raised, which has already been noted, which needs no repetition. 119. The writ petition in Group-53 relates to village Nagla Nagli, District Gautambudh Nagar. Only one writ petition in this village being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46469 of 2011 has been filed challenging the notification dated 17.3.2009 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. Declaration was issued vide notification dated 8.4.2010 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. 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 m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1(Babu Ram and others v. State and U.P. and others) also challenges the notification dated 1.6.1976 and 16.9.1976 issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Petitioner had also filed application praying that writ petition be de-linked from the bunch of the writ petition. We do not find any reason to de-link the aforesaid writ petition from bunch of the writ petition. Application for de-link stands rejected. Counter affidavit has been filed by the authority, it has been stated that writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. Award has already been declared in the year 1978. 122. The writ petition in Group-55 relates to village Sadarpur, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45694 of 2011(Jai Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others), counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government as well as authority 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 Te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rit petitions of this group challenging the same notification are more or less on similar grounds which needs no repetition. 123. Writ Petition No. 47522 of 2011( Kalu and others v. State of U.P. and others) has been filed challenging the Notification dated 28.1.1994 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act for acquisition 97.219 Acres of land. Declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued vide notification dated 10.11.1995 and award was also declared on 23.10.2009. Petitioners claim to be owner in possession of the Plot Nos. 281,313,513. It is alleged that inquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act has wrongly been dispensed with. Petitioners' case is that they are in possession and they have not been given any compensation so far. It is further alleged that land has been transferred to builders. Counter affidavit has been filed by 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 rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act for acquiring 171.0945 Hectares of land situated in village Shahadara, Pargana Dadari, Tehsil Sadar, District Gautambudh Nagar. Declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 16.6.2008. Petitioner's case is that he is owner of Bhoomidhar of Khasra No. 589 area 0.9170 hectares. It is stated that there was no urgency for the acquisition of the land for the planned industrial development and respondents in order to fulfil their political obligations/promise to the private builders dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Authority was in dominating position, the petitioners were left with no option but to accept the compensation under the provision of Karar Niyamawaly 1997. Respondents have changed the purpose of acquisition by transferring the land to private builders, copy of the lease deed granted to private builders on 7.7.2011 has been annexed as Annexure, 4,5, 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 te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y M/s Unitech Pvt. Ltd., who claims to have invested 53 Crores in the project. 129. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43825 of 2011 (Nepal and others v. State of U.P. and others) has been filed by 34 persons challenging the notification dated 12.4.2005 issued under section 4 read with Section 17 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire 449.412 hectares of land situated in village Soharkha Zahidabad, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar. Declaration under Section was made on 27. 7.2006. Petitioner claimed to the agriculturalist, dependent on the agriculture income. Petitioner case is that declaration under section 6 was issued after period of 15 months whereas declaration is required to be issued within one year. It is further submitted that issuance of declaration after 15 months clearly indicates that there was no urgency in dispensing with the inquiry. Land is still in possession of the petitioner and now for the year 2010-11 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er whereas transfer is being made on exorbitantly in order to take huge profit from the petitioners. Transfer was made more than 22 thousand per sq. meter of land in favour of the builders. There was no urgency for dispensing with the inquiry under section 5A of the Act. Petitioner being illiterate agriculturist and being in possession, after acquiring knowledge have filed writ petition reiterating the full fact. In camouflage of the acquisition for the aforesaid development, respondents have issued impugned notification and thereafter, transferred the land to private builders at huge profit. Application for intervention has been moved on behalf of Mahagun Real Estate also. 131. The writ petition in Group-59 relates to village Sultanpur, Pargana Tehsil Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar. In Civil Writ Petition No. 46764 of 2011 (Ramesh and others v. State of U.P. and others) petitioners have challenged the notification dated 11.2.1994 issued under Section 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. Petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that possession of the land was taken on 14.12.2000 and award was issued on 18.6.2005. Writ Petition is highly barred by time and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. 134. Writ petitions of Group No. 60 relate to village Suthiyana. In Writ Petition No. 43264 of 2011, Hariom and others v. State of U.P. and others, counter affidavit has been field by the State as well as by the NOIDA Authority, which is being treated as leading writ petition. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the notification dated 24.09.2006, issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire 189.691 hectares land of village Suthiyana. Petitioners' case in the writ petition is that petitioners are bhoomidhars of Khasra No. 258. The petitioners were in bona fide belief that their lands were being acquired to serve the purpose, i.e. Planned Industrial Development and the acquiring body being in dominating position, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing residential flats. Possession of the land has not been taken by the State and the petitioners are residing on the said plots. There was no urgency in the matter so as to invoke Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act. Compensation for villagers was fixed @ ₹ 378.92 per square yard whereas the plots are being transferred on exorbitant amount by earning huge profit by the respondent No. 4. The land has been transferred to builders namely M/s Unitech and M/s Amrapali, who have started constructions recently. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State stating that possession of land has been taken on 22.08.2003, out of 549 tenure-holders, 467 have accepted the compensation, award has already been declared on 08.01.2010 and there is delay in filing the writ petition. To the same effect is counter affidavit filed by the Authority. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that village Wazidpur falls in different sectors namely Sectors No. 91, 135 136. Third party right has been created. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntial property which is beyond its purpose and object. It is alleged that Government is working at the instance of developers. Petitioners have prayed for quashing the notifications on the grounds set up in the writ petition. Counter affidavit has been filed by the NOIDA authority seeking that acquisition proceedings have been concluded, the land acquisition proceedings cannot be quashed and notification has rightly been issued invoking urgency clause. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioners taking ground that invocation of urgency clause was made without any rational basis. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the State stating that possession of the land has been taken on 27.01.2007. It is pleaded that there was substantial material for invoking the urgency clause by the State Government and compensation has been paid to the tenure holders under agreement under Rules 1997. The award has also been given on 21.11.2009, which has been filed along with the counter affidavit. 141. Another Writ 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. Petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rea of village Shafipur falls within the jurisdiction of respondent No. 2 and the land should not have been acquired for the purposes of respondent No. 3. Petitioners were given the compensation at the rate prescribed by respondent No. 3. Inquiry under Section 5A has wrongly been dispensed with. 144. Writ petitions of Group No. 65 relate to village Khodna Khurd. In Writ Petition No. 46602 of 2011, Lekhraj Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, counter affidavit has been filed by the State as well as by the Authority hence the said writ petition is being treated as leading writ petition. The writ petition has been filed by 15 petitioners challenging the notification dated 26.05.2009 issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) 17(4) of the Act proposing acquisition of 201.7386 hectares of land of village Khodna Khurd. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 22.06.2009. Petitioners claim to be owners of plot as mentioned in Paragraphs No. 4 to 13 of the writ petition. Petitioners' case in the writ petition is that some of the petitioners have not received compensation and only few have accepted the same under protest. There is no urgency in the acquisition and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitions raising same issues to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. The Division Bench referring the matter did not frame specific issues although some of the issues which had arisen have been noted in detail in the order. All the writ petitions having been placed before the Full Bench for decision, we proceeded to hear learned counsel for the parties and each writ petition was called for hearing. All the learned counsel for the parties had agreed that all the writ petitions be finally decided. By our order dated 29.8.2011, we directed learned Chief Standing Counsel to produce the original records of the State Government pertaining to the land acquisition. Original records of the State Government were produced by learned Chief Standing Counsel. We had also by our order dated 26.9.2011 directed learned counsel for the Greater Noida/Noida Authority to produce original records pertaining to the decision taken by the Authority in preparation of the plan as per 1991 Regulations and to various allotments made in different villages with regard to which land has been acquired. Learned Counsel for the Authority has also placed the original record of the Authority for perusal of the Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g with affidavit by our order dated 29.8.2011 and large numbers of intervention applications along with detailed affidavits have been filed and their counsels were also heard and intervention applications on behalf of the Developers Association of which builders are members have also been heard by us. 148. The writ petition No. 37443 of 2011, Gajraj Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others in which reference was made by the Division Bench is the main writ petition. We have treated one writ petition of each village of Greater Noida and Noida as a leading writ petition in which counter affidavits have been filed. Although in different writ petitions different notifications under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1),17(4) and declaration under section 6 have been challenged but issues raised in most of the writ petitions are common issues. The State, Greater Noida/Noida Authority as well as interveners have also raised similar submissions in all the writ petitions except some differences of facts. The issues arising in this bunch of writ petitions being more or less common, we proceed to note the various submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was not valid and the same was done in the routine manner without there being any urgency in the matter. Dispensing the inquiry under section 5A can only be an exception where the urgency cannot brook any delay. The provisions of Section 5A is mandatory and embodied a just and wholesome purpose that a person whose property is being or intended to be acquired should have occasion to persuade the authority concerned that his property be not touched for acquisition. (5) There has been considerable delay in several cases in issuing notification under Section 4 of the Act which proves that there was no urgency in the acquisition. Even after publication of notification under Section 4 long delay was caused in issuing declaration under Section 6 which again proves that there was no urgency in these matters which need dispensation of inquiry under Section 5A of the Act. (6) The Authority while submitting the proposal and the Collector while forwarding the recommendations have not specifically applied their mind as to whether the inquiry under section 5A be dispensed with or not. There was not even specific recommendation by the Authority and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they accept compensation under agreement in the award which shall be prepared under section 11, they shall be paid very meager amount and even if any proceeding is initiated by them for enhancement of compensation under section 18, the same shall take years which shall make the land holder loose even the amount which is being offered under 1997 Rules. (13) That State and Authority being in dominating position, the petitioners had to accept the compensation under agreement under force of circumstances which acceptance of compensation cannot prejudice the rights of the petitioners to point out illegality in the acquisition proceedings. (14) The petitioners being law abiding citizens were under bonafide belief that the acquisition of their land being for planned industrial development, plenty of industries shall come up in their area providing avenues of livelihood and opportunity to their children to get employment in view of which factors some of the petitioners did not initially rush to the Court challenging the acquisition but subsequently when the petitioners came to know that the land which was acquired in the name of planned and industrial development is being tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pment Authority v. Devendra Kumar. The apex Court in the aforesaid cases on similar facts and circumstances had laid down that urgency under section 17(1) and 17(4) cannot be invoked. The Division Bench in Har Karan Singh was bound by the aforesaid pronouncement of the apex Court and did not commit any error in not following the earlier Division Bench judgment in Harish Chand' case. Similarly several other Division Bench judgment of this Court upholding the notifications which are under challenge in some of the writ petitions need not be followed in view of the clear pronouncement of the apex Court in the aforesaid cases. Moreover, the said judgments were between the different parties and are not binding on the petitioners of these writ petitions. The creation of their party right in favour of builders/colonizers and other allottees being result of colourable exercise of power by the respondents cannot come in the way of the petitioners for getting the notifications quashed and restoration of land and these third party rights having been created in spite of entertaining various writ petitions by this Court, the respondents cannot be allowed to claim any benefit. The development ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where large tract of land is acquired. Taking of actual physical possession is not possible in the circumstances when large tract of land is involved and taking of symbolic possession is sufficient compliance of section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The majority of the land owners have accepted compensation voluntarily under 1997 Rules. After accepting compensation under 1997 Rules, it is not open for them to challenge the acquisition. The land owners have waived their right after accepting compensation under 1997 Rules.. In the event the land owners were not satisfied with the payment of compensation under Agreement it was open for them to approach the Collector under Rule 6 of 1997 Rules for setting aside of the agreement which having not been done in any case it is not open for the petitioners to contend otherwise. The petitioners having acquiesced to the acquisition proceedings they are stopped from challenging the notifications under section 4 and 6. In most of the cases, award has already been declared and those who have not accepted compensation under 1997 Rules can very well take recourse of Section 18. The Division Bench judgment in the case of Harkaran Singh v. State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... racted in the cases where possession is taken under section 17 (1). The creation of third party rights and subsequent developments have to be taken into consideration by this Court, while considering the claim of the petitioners for quashing the notifications. The petitioners having allowed creation of third party rights and substantial developments on the spot cannot complain at this stage. Sri L. Nageswara Rao in his concluding submissions has laid much emphasis on this aspect of the matter i.e. creation of third party rights and substantial development on the spot. He submits that assuming without admitting that urgency clause was wrongly invoked, this Court in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall not quash the notifications under sections 4 and 6. The nature of the land has been changed on the spot which is irreversible. Buildings and constructions have come on the spot with huge investments and developments. He submits that in several judgments of the apex Court subsequent developments have taken into consideration by the Courts and the relief of quashing the notifications under sections 4 and 6 have been refused by the Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lts, carving out plots group housing development work and other development activities. Huge amount has been invested by the Authority running in several crores in carrying out the development in different sectors after acquisition. There has been several allotment for industrial plots and large number of industries have already been set up in Greater Noida and Noida. There are large number of I.T. industries and multinational companies which have set up their industrial establishment in the area. The entire area has been fully developed. Most of the petitioners have accepted compensation under 1997 Rules without raising any objection and it is not open for them to raise any objection after taking compensation. The allegation that any force or compulsion was used by the respondents in paying the compensation is without any basis and incorrect. After allotment was made to various allottees including allotment of industrial plots, group housing plots, large scale developments have been carried out. Buildings have been constructed changing the very nature of the land and huge amounts have been invested by the allottees. Group housing allotments have also been made to various private i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n if the authority after acquisition uses the land for any other public purposes. It is not the case that land is not being used for public purpose. Interveners are bonafide purchasers without any notice and has invested huge amount after taking loan from the Bank. The petitioners are not entitled for any reliefs in these writ petitions. The interveners have obtained allotment in open tender proceedings and after getting allotment got possession from the Authority and after getting the necessary approval/sanction of plan have made huge investments towards payment to the Authority. The petitioners have waived their right to challenge acquisition proceedings having accepted compensation under 1997 Rules and having not taken any steps to challenge the acquisition within reasonable time. Subsequent developments after allotment are the relevant factors to be considered, while considering any challenge to the acquisition belatedly made. Learned Counsel for the interveners referred to detail figures of payment made to the Authority and investments made by them in developing the sites allotted to them including photographs which have been filed along with affidavit showing the developments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th law? 9. Vesting: Whether after taking possession under section 17(1) of the Act the challenge to the notifications under section 4 read with 17(1) and 17(4) and Section 6 cannot be entertained due to the reason that land which has already been vested in the State cannot be divested? 10. Section 11A: Whether acquisition under challenge has lapsed under section 11A of the Act due to non declaration of the award within two years from the date of publication of the declaration made under section 6? 11. Section 17(3A): Whether non payment of 80% of the compensation as required by Section 17(3A) of the Land Acquisition Act is fatal to the acquisition proceedings? 12. Waiver: Whether the petitioners who have accepted compensation by agreement have waived their right to challenge the acquisition proceedings? 13. Acquiescence: Whether the petitioners due to having accepted the compensation by agreement have acquiesced to the proceedings of land acquisition and they are estopped from challenging the acquisition proceedings at this stage? 14. Third Party Rights, Development Constructions: Whether due to creation of third party rights, development carri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elopment Plan and development of land according to such plan. The State Legislature thereafter enacted the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 to provide for constitution of authority for development of certain areas in the State into Industrial and Urban Township. Section 3 provided for constitution of the Authority for any industrial development area. Section 6 provided for functions of the authority. Section 12made applicable certain provisions of the 1973 Act. Section 17 gave overriding effect to the provisions of the 1976 Act. The purpose for enactment of 1976 Act is to be found out from the scheme of the Act. The preamble of a Statute is a part of the Act and it is admissible aid to construction as said by Chief Justice Dyer in Stowel v Lord Zouch, (1569) 1 Plowd 353 preamble is a key to open the minds of the makers of the Act, and the mischief's which they intended to redress.... The preamble of the Act is as follows: An Act to provide for the constitution of an Authority for the development of certain areas in the State into industrial and urban township and for matters connected therewith. 157. As noted above in the State of U.P. a comprehensiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber Public works Department or his nominee not below the rank of Joint Secretary ex-officio. - Member (c) The Secretary to the Government, Uttar Pradesh, Local Self- Government Department or his nominee not below the rank of joint Secretary-ex officio. -Member (d) The Secretary to the Government, Uttar Pradesh, Finance Department or his nominee not below the rank of Joint Secretary-ex officio. - Member (e) The Managing Director, U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation-ex officio. -Member (f) Five members to be nominated by the State Government Government by notification. - Members (g) Chief Executive Officer. -Member Secretary 159. Section 6 provided for functions of the Authority. At this very stage, it is useful to quote the constitution of the Authority as provided in Section 4 (3) of the 1973 Act which is to the following effect: (3) The Authority in respect of a development area which includes whole or any part of a city as defined in the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act. 1959, shall consist of the following members namely- (a) a Chairman to be appointed by the State Government; (b) a Vice-Chairman to be appoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d been that genuine and deserving entrepreneurs may be provided industrial and residential plots and other necessary amenities and facilities. Thus, in order to carry out the aforesaid object, a new township came into existence. 161. The writ petitions which are up for consideration in these cases, it has been submitted that although 1976 Act was enacted for purpose of industrial development, the authority has forgotten the principal object of the Act and has started functioning a body for acquiring land of farmers and selling it to private colonizers and builders for construction of multi storied complexes which activity of the authority in no way was connected with industrial development of the area. It is submitted that construction of the residential units has to be subservient to the main object of the Act i.e. construction of residential unit may be undertaken as an aid to industrial development, but instead of industrial development of area the allotment of land to individuals, builders and colonizers have become primary functions of the authority. The aforesaid submission has been forcefully put in some of the writ petitions. Suffice to refer to the pleadings in writ p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a having been established under the '1976 Act' as an 'Industrial Development Area', the primary and basic purpose for which the respondent Authority has been established, is the 'Planned Development' of the area into an 'Industrial Area'. 8. That it follows from the above that the 'Commercial or Residential Development' in the 'Industrial Development Area' carried out by the respondent No. 1 Authority should have a direct and cogent nexus with its primary and ultimate object of 'Industrial Development'. It is submitted that whenever an area is being developed into an 'Industrial Area', it follows that there will be requirement of 'Residential and Commercial Areas' as a consequence of 'Industrial Development'. 11. That the petitioners submit that the respondent Authority is under a mandatory duty to carry out 'Development' of the area, which is acquired primarily for the 'Industrial Township'. It thus follows that if the area acquired by it, is not developed by the Authority, it is against the object, spirit and mandate of the Act of 1976. Also, the 'Development' shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, it was stated by the State that averments contained in paragraph under reply related to respondent no. 3 which may give appropriate reply. The authority has filed counter affidavit in writ petition dated 22.4.2007 in which paragraphs 5 to 24 of the writ petition have been replied in paragraph 9 which is quoted as below: 9. That the contents of paragraphs 5 to 24 of the writ petition as stated are not correct. Most of the averments are irrelevant for the purposes of decision of the writ petition. It is incorrect to say that the answering respondent -Authority has only been set up for the purposes of industrial development. Section 6 (2) (c) (d) of the Act clearly provides that the Authority shall demarcate and develop sites for industrial, commercial and residential purposes according to the plan. Section 6 further provides the function of the Authority to the infrastructure for industrial, commercial and residential purposes. Hence the Authority not only in its plan earmarks land for the purposes of industrial and commercial development, but also carves out plan for providing residential facilities. Hence it cannot be said that the purpose of the Authority is only industr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... village of Greater Noida along with folder which contains summary of village including land use, total area of sector, area falling in the village and other details. In the residential area, group housing, residential small plots, residential flats, Abadi and 6% settlement as well as Activities part of residential area facilities have been mentioned. Details of the industrial land use and allotment have also been given. Since the submission of the petitioners has been that majority of land acquired has been transferred for residential purposes, we, to test the submission of the petitioner have compiled the informations provided by the Authority with regard to each village in a tabular form. The following information included in the tabular form is on the basis of the supplementary counter affidavit and the details submitted by the Authority in folders: Name of the village Area of village acquired in square meter Residential Land Use (Area in square meter) Industrial area in square meter Group Housing Residential plots/flats Abadi and 6% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 773397.68 187112.67 2467040.57 Name of the village Area of village acquired in square meter Residential Land Use (Area in square meter) Industrial area in square meter Group Housing 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 11156012.96 3900087.31 19427708.76 638219 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d area is made for group housing 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 Khu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sition. 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y is to be conceived and developed it can only be developed on land which is acquired. 173. Sri Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the Authority has categorically submitted that for carrying out the development 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quoted above that unless it acquires the land it cannot carry out the development is also misconceived. From the stand taken by the Authority, the mindset of the authority is clear that it is necessary to acquire the land to carry out development which stand is not 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 par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ituting a Municipality in every State. Exception has been provided in cases where municipal services are being provided by an industrial establishment in that area. Neither any Panchayat nor any municipality has been constituted in the area of the Authority in view of the proviso to Article 243Q (1). The proviso to Article 243Q(1) is for a purpose 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 Industri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... areas including provision of roads, lighting, water supply, drainage facilities and so on. It may do this either jointly with Government or local authorities or on an agency basis in furtherance of the purposes for which the corporation is established. The industrial area thus has separate provision for municipal services being provided by the Industrial 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 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,1894. 186. In paragraph 14 of the writ petition, it has been pleaded that although the land was acquired for Planned Industrial Development in District Gautam Bugh Nagar, but they have transferred the same to private builders for construction and sale and since May, 2011 the employee of the respondents and private builders are trying to dispossess the petitioners from their Abadi Land. One of 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 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.10.2005 5.1.2006 14.6.2006 and 6.10.2006 December 2006 to 2007 and one in October 2008 2210/2285 tenure holder Date of Award 25.7.2011 Pali 7.9.2006 23.7.2007 1.11.2007and10.4.2008 March, 2008 to August 2008 470/558 93.49% Award under section 11 has been declared on 10.8.2011. Biraundi-Chakrasenpur 28.11.2002 29.1.2003 7.5.2003 December 2003 to April 2005 85% 94% 9.9.2009 Tusiyana 10.4.2006 30.11.2006 2.2.2007 and 25.3.2008 February 2008 to 31.3.2010 88% 81% 27.4.2010 under section 11 Dabra 31.10.2005 1.9.2006 31.1.2007 March 2007 to December 2008 94% 88.76% Award declared on 23.7.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.5.2003 22.7.2003 5.8.2004 August 2004 to august 2006 93% 93% 11.9.2009 Maicha 17.4.2006 11.4.2007 May 2008 85% 85% 9.8.2011 Name of village Dates of Notifications under Sections 4 6 Dates on which possession claimed to be taken Period during which compensati on received Percentage of tenure holders receiving compensate on Percentage of total compensate on disbursed Status of award Kasnaw.p no. 46848/11 31.12.2004 1.7.2005 28.12.2005,3 0.12.2006 and 29.1.2011 February 2005 to august 2006 81.50% 83% 23.3.2011 Kasna w.p. no. 40852/11 11.7.2008 16.2.2009 9.3.2009 April 2009 to june 2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12.4.2005 27.7.2006 16.10.2006 February 2007 to November2009 - 83.86% 86.83% 27.7.2011 BadaoliBangar 7.11.2007 9.5.2008 2.6.2008 Feb. 09 to June 09 72.48% 96.95% 19.9.2011 Suthiyanaw.p.43264/11 26.9.2006 21.11.2006 13.12.2006 May 2008 to June 2008 82% 82% 5.7.2010 Suthiyanaw.p. 46295/11 29.1.2003 28.3.2003 7.5.2003 October 2004 to Dec.2004. 97.56% 97.56% 15.3.2007 ChauraSadatpur 1.6.1976 16.9.1976 28.10.1976 - 100% 25.9.1978 Dostpur Mangrauli 17.3.2009 18.4.2010 22.5.2010 - Not received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal 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 rights and have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilders 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 that they would be employing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers 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 ..... espondent No. 2 illegally 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 pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is to the effect that the petitioners were under 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 colo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 36. In the circumstances of this case, we do not consider that there is such acquiescence 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sional and the position has not been crystallised to the prejudice of the petitioners. No rights have, therefore, accrued in favour of 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 funda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dilatory tactics. The writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay on the part of the petitioners (see Tilokchand Motichand 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d direction given by the High Court to conduct enquiry under Section 5A, after three years had expired, is illegal. Section 4(1) also stood lapsed by operation of proviso to Section 6 of 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 Subordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id down in paragraph 9 which is quoted below:- 9. Recently, another Bench of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. (P) Ltd. re- examined the entire case law and held 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se also, the writ petition having been filed after taking over the possession and the award having become final, the same deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge and that of the Division 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 Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revision under Section 34 of the Act, 1976, is a judicial order. What should be reasonable time, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 214. Recent judgment of the Apex Court in Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal Ors, (2011) 5 SCC 394 has also been relied 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 suff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has consistently held that delay in filing the writ petition should be viewed seriously and relief denied to the petitioner if he fails to offer plausible explanation for the delay. The Court has also held that the delay of even few years would be fatal to the cause of the petitioner, if the acquired land has been partly or wholly utilised for the 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 re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were filed in the year 1998 challenging the land acquisition proceedings. An objection was taken by the society in whose favour the land was acquired contending that writ petition was hopelessly barred by time being delayed by 14 years from the date of the issue of the notification under Section 4. It was further contended that petitioners have participated in the inquiry 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 n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon the Government to take a decision to acquire the lands without going into all those relevant facts. The irresistible inference flowing from the facts and circumstances of these cases is, whereas the poser conferred under the Land Acquisition Act is for acquiring lands for carrying out housing scheme by a housing society, in each of the cases the acquisition of lands is not for a bona 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been accepted by the land owners, hence the challenge is unsustainable. The Apex Court repelled both the objections and has laid down following in paragraphs 9, (i)..... when the acquisition has been found to be totally malafide and not for bona fide purpose, the ground of delay and acquiescence in the present case has no substance.... and (ii)..... learned counsel for the appellant tried to persuade us 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 acqui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitions having been filed with delay and laches, the same deserve to be dismissed on the aforesaid ground. The Division Bench judgment in Puran Singh's case (supra) proceeded to examine the said submission in detail. The Division Bench noticed the submission in the aforesaid case and laid down following in paragraphs 49, 52 and 56 which are quoted below:- 49. To recapitulate, the submissions of the petitioners in these writ petitions are that land acquisition by the State in the present case was in a colourable 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... odihalli and Challaghata for the purpose of Golf-cum-Hotel Resort . Notification under Section 4 (1) was issued on 29/12/1981 and declaration under Section 6 was issued and thereafter an award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 07/4/1986. However, instead of utilising the acquired land for the purpose specified in the notification, Corporation transferred the same to private parties. Writ Petitions were filed in the year 1995, praying for quashing the notifications dated 29/12/1981 and 16/4/1983 issued under Section 4 of the Act and 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 C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise of discretion by the High Court was totally arbitrary or was based on irrelevant consideration. In Smt. Narayani Debi Khaitan v. State of Bihar [C.A. No. 140 of 1964 decided on 22.9.1964], Chief Justice Gajendragadkar, speaking for the Constitution Bench observed: It is well-settled that under Article 226, the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary. There can be no doubt that if a citizen moves the High Court under Article 226 and contends that his fundamental rights have been contravened by any executive action, the High Court would 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 Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he transfer of land to private builders cannot be thrown out on the ground of delay and laches. 224. 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. We, now proceed to refer to cases in which there are inordinate delay and the aforesaid ground pleaded are not applicable to them. These petitions with inordinate delay relate to Noida. There are two writ petitions 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioned above in which there are no satisfactory explanation for inordinate delay and laches, we proceed to examine the other writ petitions on merits taking over all facts and circumstances and the grounds pleaded in the aforesaid writ petitions. We are not inclined to throw the writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches. 4. National Region Planning Board Act, 1985. 230. As noted above, the Greater Noida Authority as well as the Noida Authority were constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Development Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as Act,1976 . The area of Noida or Greater Noida is included in the National Capital Region. For 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng and development of the National Capital Region and also of need for the harmonised policy for land-uses and other infrastructure to avoid haphazard developments in the region. 2. The Bill seeks to replace the aforesaid High Powered Board by a statutory Board, to be known as the National Capital Region Planning Board, which shall consist of the Union Minister of Works and Housing as its Chairman, the Administrator of Union territory of Delhi, the Chief Ministers of the States of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan and 11 other members to be nominated by the Central Government in consultation with the participating States and Union territory of Delhi. While the objects of the 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-o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ituted under Section 3. A planning committee is constituted by the Board for assisting the Board for discharge of its function. 234. Section 7 of the NCRPB Act, 1985 defines Functions and Power of the Board and of the Committee whereas Section 8defines the Powers of the Board. Sections 7 and 8are quoted below: 7. Functions and Powers of The Board and of The Committee Functions of the Board.- The functions of the Board shall be - (a) to prepare the Regional Plan and the Functional Plans; (b) to arrange for the preparation of Sub-Regional Plans and Project Plans by each of the participating States and the Union territory; (c) to co-ordinate the enforcement and implementation of the Regional Plan,Functional Plans, Sub-Regional Plans and Project Plans 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 arran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed below: 10. Contents of the Regional Plan.- (1) The Regional Plan shall be a written statement and shall be accompanied by such maps, diagrams, illustrations and descriptive matters, as the Board may deem appropriate for the purpose of explaining or illustrating the proposals contained in the Regional Plan and every such man, diagram, illustration and descriptive matter shall be deemed to be a part of the Regional Plan. (2) The Regional Plan shall indicate the manner in which the land in the National Capital Region shall be used, whether by carrying out development thereon or by conservation or otherwise, and such other matters as are likely to have any important influence on the development of the National Capital Region and every such Plan shall include the following elements needed to promote growth and balanced development of the National Capital Region, namely:- (a) the policy 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facilities; (e) priority areas at sub-regional level for which immediate plans are necessary; (f) proposals for the supply of drinking water and for drainage; and (g) any other matter which is necessary for the proper development of the sub-region. 238. Section 19of the NCRPB Act, 1985 provides for Submissions of Sub- Regional Plans to the Board to ensure that such Plan is in conformity with the Regional Plan and Section 20 of the NCRPB Act, 1985 provides for Implementation of Sub-Regional Plans. etc. Sections 19 and 20 are quoted below: 19.Submission of Sub-Regional Plans to the Board:-(1) Before publishing any Sub-Regional Plan, each participating State or, as the case may be, the Union territory, shall, refer such Plan to the Board to enable the Board to ensure that such Plan is in conformity with the Regional Plan. (2) The Board shall, after examining a Sub-Regional Plan, communicate, within sixty days from the date of receipt of such Plan, its observations with regard to the Sub-Regional 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or in relation to, any land or other property, where necessary to give effect to any Regional Plan, Functional Plan, Sub-Regional Plan or Project Plan, shall be made by the Government of the concerned participating State, or, as the case may be, the Union territory, in accordance with the law for the time being in force in that State or Union Territory. 241. Before we proceed to consider the purpose and objects of the NCRPB Act, 1985, it is necessary to have a look on the pleadings of the petitioners in different writ petitions regarding NCRPB Act, 1985. 242. In Writ Petition No. 57032/2009,Manaktala Chemical (Private) Ltd. v. State of U.P. Ors, filed on 24/10/2009 the petitioners have impleaded Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority as respondent no. 4 and National Capital Region Planning Board, New Delhi as respondent no. 5. In paragraph 24 following pleading was made which is quoted below: 24. That the land sought to be acquired by impugned notifications is part of National Capital Region and the authority responsible for approval of the Master Plan is respondent No. 5. To the best knowledge of the petitioner company there is no approval of the Master Pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of the present writ petition. 45. That as per the provisions under the National Capital Regional Planning Board Act, 1985 no change or amendment can be done in the Regional plan once it is prepared. The regional plan 2021 does not cover any Hi-tech township or development in a similar form. The policy therefore, is hit by specific provisions of the National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985 in as much as neither any approval has been obtained for said policy from the National Capital Region Board nor the Regional Plan so prepared by the Board contains any such concept of Hitech Township policy. Thus the policy as such is contrary to the provisions contained under the National Capital Regional Planning Board Act, 1985. 244. While hearing these writ petitions, we noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there has been no approval of the plan by the National Capital Regional Planning Board as required by the NCRPB Act, 1985. On 14/9/2011 we passed following order: Hearing pertaining to village Patwari, including the hearing of interveners has been concluded. Regarding village Ghodi Bachhera and village Sakipur hearing has also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required to communicate within 60 days its observation with regard to Sub-Regional Plans and thereafter the participating State after consideration of the observation is required to finalise Sub-Regional Plans after ensuring that it is in conformity with the regional plan and thereafter it can be implemented under Section 20 of the NCRPB Act,1985. The Sub-Regional Plan has to be in conformity with the Regional Plan and functional plans. 250. Section 17 (3) of the NCRPB Act, 1985 requires that the Sub-Regional Plan may indicate the elements to elaborate the regional plan at the sub-regional level namely:-. (a) reservation of areas for specific land-uses which are of the regional or sub-regional importance;and (b) future urban and major rural settlements indicating their area, projected population, predominant economic functions, approximate site and location. 251. Section 7 (b)of the NCRPB Act, 1985 further provides for Functions of the Board shall include arranging for the preparation of Sub-Regional Plans and Project Plans by each of the participating States and the Union territory and Section 19 of the Act, 1985 gives power to the Board to scrutinise Sub-Regional Plans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the green signal nothing can go ahead. The necessary implication of this is also that at every stage in reference to the plans, aforesaid, each constituent State as part of the National Capital Region Plan has to keep a close consultation with, the federal agency which is the Board. The Petitioners challenge the acquisition of certain areas for the development of Greater Noida, particularly of village Tugalpur and Rampur Jagir. Prima facie upon perusal of the record and upon hearing the parties, the Court at present is not satisfied that the contention of either parties can be objectively considered without the development plans attaining finality without consultation of the National Capital Region Planning Board. On behalf of Greater Noida much emphasis was laid on certain correspondence which was exchanged between the Chairman of the Greater Noida and the Member Secretary of the Board. Yesterday after submissions were made by Member Secretary and today by Counsel for the Board, Mrs. Sheila Sethi it is clear that the Board had not had an occasion, as of date to approve any detailed development plan for the simple reason that these have neither been submitted no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 in so far as the Board it concerned in these matters, of the fundamental duties as enshrined in Article 51A (g) (h) and (j) read with 48A of the Constitution of India. Subseq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal Magistrate in their favour Under Section 143. The Greater Noida is developing the region as a consequential aspect of preventing the construction and asphyxiation of Delhi. Except that this exercise has a method In Its madness. Delhi cannot be contained and yet it cannot eat up, as a routine the sprawl of what lies in its hinterland. 14. But, if agriculture and forestry is a recognised conforming use and it is to be protected and there are several references to this aspect in the report referred to in the order of 27 February, 1996, entitled Urban Plan 2001, itself an off-shoot directly of the Greater Noida under the U.P. Industrial Areas Development Act, 1976, and indirectly of the National Capital Regional Planning Act, 1985, then, the spirit of the sanctity given to these areas, as greens, forests and agriculture, is to be respected. These areas were not meant to disappear, but protected with bias towards increasing them. The constitution says so. 21. Thus, to remove doubts and further to ensure that planning of the National Capital Region is not jeopardised nor any conforming uses which have been given sanctity within it and further to eliminate racketeering in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Metro centre of Greater Noida and Noida have clearly been demarcated in the NCR Plan-2021 but the land use within the area of the Authority is to be demarcated fixed by the Authority concerned. 7. That, Development Plan of the respondent Authority has been duly published and is a public document. It is incorrect on the part of the petitioners to state that there is no Development Plan made by the GNIDA. It is wholly incorrect on the part of the petitioners to allege that the city of Greater Noida has no approval of the National Capital Regional Planning Board. Further legal submissions with regard to the provisions of law shall be advanced at the time of hearing. 8. That after the acquisition, the land was developed and demarcated in accordance with the Master Plan-2021 has been clearly stated in the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the Authority. The petitioners ought to have pointed out this while making (an incorrect) submission that there is no plan. It is clarified that land use is fixed sectorwise and not village wise. Therefore, the land use percentage is taken of the city as a whole and not village wise. The village boundaries, for the purpose of pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partments. The Allahabad High Court, while going through the various Plan-enabling provisions under the NCRPB Act, 1985, considered the Regional Plan a major instrument of development. In a judgment dated 18.12.1998 in the Civil Misc. Petition No. 13899 of 1998, it observed: The National Capital Region Plan Act, 1985 is a central legislation. The intention of this central legislation is to decongest Delhi, and yet retain the conforming uses of agriculture and greens, and to harmoniously coordinate and monitor industry and urbanisation without compromising with the conforming area and usage... ..land uses cannot be changed except with the tacit permission and close scrutiny of the National Capital Region Planning Board.....Development of industry or urbanisation by purchase of land reserved for conforming uses of agriculture, forests or greens within the area eclipsed by the National Capital Region, is prohibited. whatever development is permissible must be strictly monitored under the National Capital Region Plan Act, 1985 by the authorities named and constituted under it. In the judgment dated 01.10.1996 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26737 of 1993, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r/Local Area Plans. The elaboration of the land use details and zoning regulations would be incorporated in the Sub-regional Plans and Mas/Development Plans by the respective State Governments. Four broad zones and major activities/uses permitted in these zones are given below: 17.5.1 Controlled/Development/Regulated Zone (a) Urbanisable Areas (including existing builtup/urban areas) Within the urbanisable area proposed in the Master/Development Plan of the respective town, the functions and uses designated as under be continued: i) Residential ii) Commercial iii) Industrial iv) Government offices, public and semi-public v) Recreational vi) Utility Services vii) Transport and communications viii) Open spaces, parks and playgrounds ix) Graveyards/cemeteries and burning ghats x) Man-made heritage areas xi) Natural heritage areas/eco-sensitive areas/ conservation areas The local authority according to the prescribes uses in the Master/Development Plans will govern detailed land uses within the urbanisable area. The Master/Development Plans of all the towns will be prepared within the framework of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operative till 2001 A.D.(An-nexure I) the lands of Delhi Auto and Maha Maya are included in the area set apart for 'recreational' use only. On this basis the Regional Plan was prepared and approved under the NCR Act on 3.11.1988 and finally published thereunder on 23.1.1989 according to which the area in question was set apart for 'recreational' use only. Admittedly no change in this Regional Plan to alter the land use of that area to 'residential' purpose was made any time thereafter in accordance with the provisions of NCR Act. The overriding effect of the NCR Act by virtue of Section 27 therein and the prohibition against violation of Regional Plan contained in Section 29 of the Act, totally excludes the land use of that area for any purpose inconsistent with that shown in the published Regional Plan. Obviously, the permissible land use according to the published Regional Plan in operation throughout, of the area in question, was only 'recreational' and not residential since no change was ever made in the published Regional Plan of the original land use shown therein as 'recreational'. This being the situation by virtue of the overriding e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not prohibit the acquisition before its permission for acquisition. There is no provision in the Act 1985, which requires that if the State Government acquires the land prior permission should be taken. Both the Acts 1985 and 1894 operate in different fields. the Act 1894 is not dependant upon the Act 1985. The acquisition proceedings will not be vitiated if prior approval of the Board under the Act 1985 has not been taken before the acquisition. Any development on the land acquired will have to be done in accordance with law. However The notification has been issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The National Capital Region Planning Board Act 1985 does not prohibit, the acquisition of land. Nor any permission is required for acquisition of land. The National Capital Region Planning Board Act 1985 is to give suggestions and observations on the Master Plan, Sub regional plan, which are incorporated by the Greater Noida Authority from time to time according to the Drafted Master Plan. It is further clarified, the Section 19 of the Act 1985, clearly shows that is for regarding the observations and suggestions. The paper clip and relevant documents showing the letters and corr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4/1/2008- Board requested the Greater Noida Authority for finalisation of Master Plan for Phase-II. 14/2/2009-N.C.R.P. Board wrote to Greater Noida to send Master Plan for Phase II and updated proposed Land use plan 2021 be sent to Board. 13/5/2009-Board wrote to the Greater Noida that inspite of several reminders, no response has been received from Greater Noida with regard to Draft Master Plan-2021. (Phase II). 27/5/2009-State Government forwarded the letter of the Board dated 13/5/2009, to the Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida for compliance. 16/6/2009-The State Government wrote to the Board forwarding letter dated 21/5/2009 of the Greater Noida Authority for examining the amendments passed in 76th meeting and to include in the Master Plan 2021. 25/6/2009-Board again wrote to the Greater Noida to submit all details with regard to change of land use as taken in the 76th Board meeting along with all details necessity of change of land use to the Board. 29/12/2009-Meeting of the Planning Committee was held in which the draft master plan for Greater Noida 2021 and following conclusion was recorded by the Board. After detailed deliberation, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... builders after effecting land use changes. The magnitude to which the land use which was earlier proposed in the Master Plan 2021 and has been changed by the Authority subsequent to the approval of the said Master Plan by the Authority is clearly depicted in the letter dated 30/3/2010 of the State Government by which the State Government has accorded approval to the change of land use as prayed for by the Authority. 257. Letter dated 30/3/2010, has not been brought on record by the Authority but has been brought on record in the intervention application filed on behalf of the Developers Association. A perusal of the said letter indicates that 900 Hectares of land which was earlier marked as industrial was changed and out of 900 Hectares of land 608.94 Hectares of land has been converted for residential purposes, the various land uses which were for recreation/green area were also changed. The issue is not that the Authority cannot recommend any change in its proposed Master Plan or its land use, but the question is as to whether the said change in land use is in accordance with the regional Plan and Functional plan of the Board which issue is to be examined by the Board and u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, were challenged by the land owners and one of the ground taken was that the land which was acquired for planned development of the Leather City Project did not have approval of the Board under Section 19, hence the acquisition was liable to be struck down on the said ground also. In the said case the Board has issued draft Sub-Regional Plan whereas the leather city project was not mentioned. The Authority in that case made several request to the Board to include the leather city project, but no reply was given approving the request. In the said context the acquisition was held to be vitiated. Paragraphs 20 and 23 are relevant which are quoted below: 20. Admittedly, the Respondents had not obtained the approval of the NCRPB for construction of the Leather City Project as Sub-regional plan in terms of Section 19(2) of the NCRPB Act. The purpose or aim of the NCRPB Act is to provide for co-ordinated, harmonized and common plan development of the National Capital Region at the central level in order to avoid haphazard development of infrastructure and land uses in the said region, which includes the district of Ghaziabad in the U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as are likely to have any important influence on the development of the National Capital Region... 28. Section 27 provides that the provisions of the NCR 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 the NCR Act; or in any decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority. 23. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Respondents, vide its resolution dated 19.04.2005, had authorized the NCRPB to prepare Sub-regional plan of construction of the Leather City Project at Hapur in the district of Ghaziabad for the HPDA. Subsequently, the NCRPB issued a draft Sub-regional plan, wherein the Leather City Project was not mentioned. The Respondents had made several requests to NCRPB to include Leather City Project but No. reply granting approval has come in terms of Section 19 (2) of the NCRPB Act. Section 19 of the NCRPB Act contemplates the grant of approval by the NRCPB, and finalization by the State Government, of the Sub-Regional Plan if it is in consonance and consistent with the Regional Plan for the Natio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... needs no approval from N.C.R.P. Board. 265. Now, the provisions of Section 40 of the NCRPB Act,1985 needs to be considered. Section 40 of the NCRPB Act, 1985 provides that Acquisition of land shall be made by the Government of the concerned participating State where necessary to give effect to any Regional Plan, Functional Plan, Sub-Regional Plan or Project Plan. Section 40 of the NCRPB Act, 1985 has to be interpreted in a manner so as to promote the object of the Act. When the land use in the NCR Region is controlled by various plans as contemplated by the NCRPB Act, 1985 the acquisition of land has also to be in line and conformity with the aforesaid Act, 1985. This can be illustrated by giving a small example i.e. supposing an area in the NCR is reserved for agricultural use and actual agricultural is taking place in the said area, any exercise by the Authority to acquire land for residential purpose shall be simply prohibited. The Authority in the present cases have indiscriminately proceeded to acquire the land in the name of Planned Industrial Development. In event where agriculture is the reserved purpose acquiring the land of the agriculturist shall be with n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent Trust v. Smt. Lakshmi Devi). In other words, the fact that actual development is permissible in an area other than a development area with the approval or sanction of the local authority did not preclude the Central Govt. from acquiring the land for planned development under the Acts. Section 12 is concerned only with the planned development. It has nothing to do with acquisition of property-, acquisition generally precedes development. For planned development in an area other than a development area, it is only necessary to obtain the sanction or approval of the local authority as provided in sec. 12(3). The Central Govt. could acquire any property under the Act and develop it after Obtaining the approval of the local authority. As already held the appellants and the writ petitioners cannot be allowed to challenge the validity of notification under Section 4 on the ground of laches and acquiescence. The plea that the Chief Commissioner of Delhi had no authority to initiate the proceedings for acquisition by issuing the notification under Section 4 of the Act as Section 15 of the Delhi Development Act gives that power only to the Central Govt. relates primarily to the val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Devi, [1963] Supp. 2 SCR 312). In Other Words, the fact that actual development is permissible in an area other than a development area with the approval of sanction of the local authority did not preclude the Central Government from acquiring the land for planned development under the Act. Section 12 is concerned only with the planned development. It has nothing to do with acquisition of property; acquisition generally precedes development. This Court observed :(para 23) For planned development in an area other than a development area, it is only necessary to obtain the sanction or approval of the local authority as provided in Section 12 (3). The Central Government could acquire any property under the Act and develop it after obtaining the approval of the local authority. 269. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition as laid down by the Apex Curt in the aforesaid cases. It is however, relevant to note that when the case of Aflatoon was delivered the NCRPB Act, 1985 was not enacted and in the case Bhagat Singh's case (supra) also the Court had no occasion to consider Section 40 of the NCRPB Act, 1985. Even if it is accepted that there is no prohibition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were not in conformity with the NCRPB Act, 1985. 272. We are also of the considered view that the Authority has acted in a manner which is nothing but a deliberate violation of the NCRPB Act, 1985 and in spite of the directions given by this Court in the case of Ravindra Singh (supra) on 01/10/1996 that an Officer at the level of Secretary of the Government should enquire conforming uses of land according to the NCRPB Act, 1985 no serious efforts have been taken by the State. We are of the view that a thorough inquiry is necessary in the whole exercise undertaken by the Greater Noida by the Officers of the highest level at the State Government. 273. We direct the Chief Secretary of the State to appoint officers not below the level of Principal Secretary (except the officers of Industrial Development Department who has dealt with the relevant files) to conduct a thorough inquiry regarding the acts of Greater Noida 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. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... either been appointed nor any advertisement for the such appointment has been made till the date. Neither any inquiry on the spot has been conducted nor any survey of the plots sought to be acquired has been got done and thus it transpires that there was no material before the State Government to make an opinion to direct that the provisions of Section 5-A shall not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present impugned notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) as well as under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of Land Acquisition Act. Notification No. 664/77-3-08-86Arjan/08 Lucknow dated 12.03.2008 and there was no application of mind by State Government. 12. That, it is relevant to mention here that excluding the enquiry under Section 5A can only be an exception where the urgency cannot brook any delay. The enquiry provides an opportunity to the owner of land to convince the authorities concerned that the land in question is not suitable for purpose for which it is sought to be acquired or the same sought to be acquired for the collateral purposes. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondents No. 1 without the application of mind dispensed with the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such extreme urgency that right of objection of the land holders required to be dispensed with. It is submitted that there has to be application of mind on the issue as to whether right of objection under Section 5A be dispensed with and without there being application of mind to the above aspect, the invocation of Section 17 (4) in a routine manner is illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted that the State Government did not apply his mind to the relevant materials and has directed for invocation of Section 17(4) which is unsustainable. It is further submitted that there was no sufficient material before the State Government on the basis of which any reasonable opinion can be formed that the matter was of such urgency that right of objection should be dispensed with. The submission has also been made that there has been pre-notification as well as post- notification delay which clearly proved that there was no such urgency as to invoke Section 17(4) of the Act. In the main writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the fact that land was allotted to various private builders for construction of multi-storey building and group housing flats in the year 2010 cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to refer to the notifications in the main writ petition and the original records perused by us of village concerned. All the notifications which are under challenge, are similarly worded except the area and the village. Section 4 notification dated 12th March, 2004, which is under challenge in the main writ petition, is to the following effect:- No. 664/LXXVII-3-08-86 Arjan.-08 Dated Lucknow, March 12, 2008 Under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act no. 1 of 1894), the Governor is pleased to notify for general information that the land mentioned in the Schedule below, is needed for a public purpose namely for the planned industrial development in district Gautam budh Nagar through Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority. 2. The Governor, being of the opinion that the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said Act, are applicable to said land inasmuch as the said land is urgently required, for the planned industrial development in district Gautam budh Nagar through Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and it is as well necessary to eliminate the delay likely to be caused by an inquiry under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ception to the aforesaid general scheme is provided in Section 17 of the Act. Section 17 of the Act contains special power in cases of urgency. Section 17(1) provides that in cases of urgency whenever the appropriate Government directs the Collector, though no award has been made, to take possession of any land on expiration of 15 days from publication of the notice. Section 17(2) of the Act enumerates emergent situation which requires taking of possession of any land like owing to any sudden change in the channel of any navigable river or other unforeseen emergency. Under the said section the Collector is empowered to take possession immediately after publication of notice with the previous sanction of the appropriate Government provided the occupier is given at least 48 hours notice. Section 17(4) of the Act provides that in case any land to which, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, the provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) are applicable, the Government may direct that provisions of Section 5A shall not apply. Section 17 (1), 17(2) and 17(4) of the Act, which are relevant, are quoted below:- 17. Special powers in case of urgency. - (1) In cases of ur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n (1-A) has been added, which is to the following effect:- 17(1-A). The power to take possession under sub-section (1) may also be exercised in the case of land other than waste or arable land, where the land is acquired for or in connection with sanitary improvements of any kind or planned development. 283. By U.P. Act No.I of 1966 in sub-section (4) of Section 17of the Act sub-section (1-A) was also substituted. 284. The submission, which has been much pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is regarding invocation of Section 17(4) dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A. The question to be considered is as to whether in facts of the present case dispensation of inquiry under Section 5A was valid or not. The opinion of the State Government to be formed under Section 17(4) is based on subjective satisfaction. Whether such subjective satisfaction is subject to judicial review is the scope of inquiry in these cases. There has been several judgments of the Apex Court in which ambit and scope of Section 17(4) came for consideration, which shall hereinafter be considered. 285. The first judgment of the Apex Court which need to be noted is in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id not honestly form that opinion or that in forming that opinion the State Government did not apply its mind to the relevant facts bearing on the question at issue. It follows therefore that the notification of the State Government under S. 17 (4) of the Act directing that the provisions of s. 5A shall not apply to the land is ultra vires. The view that we have expressed is borne out by the decision of the Judicial Committee in Estate and Trust Agencies Ltd. v. Singapore Improvement Trust in which a declaration made by the Improvement Trust of Singapore under S. 57 of the Singapore Improvement Ordinance 1927 that the appellants' property was in an insanitary condition and therefore liable to be demolished was challenged. Section 57 of the Ordinance stated as follows: 57. Whenever it appears to the Board that within its administrative area any building which is used or is intended or is likely to be used as a dwelling place is of such a construction or is in such a condition as to be unfit for human habitation, the Board may by resolution declare such building to be insanitary. The Judicial Committee set aside the declaration of the Improvement Trust on two grounds; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the State Government was malafide, (c) or that there were no ground upon which the State Government could form such an opinion, (d) or that in forming such opinion it did not apply its mind to the relevant facts. In the aforesaid case the Apex Court held that forming of opinion under Section 17(4) was erroneous. The Apex Court laid down following in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the said judgment:- 22. For the reasons already expressed we hold that the State, Government has no jurisdiction to apply the provisions of s. 17 (1) and (4) of the Act to the land in dispute and to order that the provisions of s. 5A of the Act will not apply to the land. We are further of the opinion that the State Government had no jurisdiction to order the Collector of Mirzapur to take over possession of the land under s. 17(1) of the Act. The notification dated October 4, 1950 is therefore illegal. For the same reasons the notification of the State Government under s. 6 of the Act, dated October 12, 1950 is ultra vires. 23. We accordingly hold that a writ in the nature of certiorari should be granted quashing the notification of the State Government dated October 4, 1950 by which the Gover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opinion and discretion must be permitted to have full play? Once the Court comes to the conclusion that the authority concerned was acting within the scope of its powers and had some material, however meagre, on which it could reasonably base its opinion, the Courts should not and will not interfere. There might, however, be cases in which the power is exercised in such an obviously arbitrary or perverse fashion, without regard to the actual and undeniable facts, or, in other words, so unreasonably as to leave no doubt whatsoever in the mind of a Court that there has been an excess of power. There may also be cases where the mind of the authority concerned has not been applied at all, due to misunderstanding of the law or some other reason, what was legally imperative for it to consider. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case further laid down that the mind of the Officer or authority concerned has to be applied to the question whether there is an urgency of such nature that even the summary proceedings under Section 5Aof the Act should be eliminated. Followings were laid down by the Apex Court in paragraphs 38, 40, 41 and 42 of the said judgment:- 38. The mind of the offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the elimination of the enquiry under section 5A of the Act. The recitals in the notifications, on the other hand, indicate that elimination of the enquiry under section 5A of the Act was treated as an automatic consequence of the opinion formed on other matters. The recital does not say at all that any opinion was formed on the need to dispense with the enquiry under section 5A of the Act. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case has clearly laid down that public purpose, namely, development of an area for industrial and residential purpose does not call for any such action, barring exceptional circumstances, for dispensation of summary inquiry under Section 5A. 289. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in the case of State of Punjab and another v.. Gurdial Singh and others reported in (1980)2 S.C.C. 471 had laid down that authority should not invoke the provisions of Section 17(4) unless there is real urgency. Following was laid down in paragraph 16:- 16. The fourth point about the use of emergency power is well taken. Without referring to supportive case-law it is fundamental that compulsory taking of a man's property is a serious matter and the smaller the man the more ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod of nearly 23 years since then the population of India has gone up by hundreds of million and it is no longer possible for the Court to take the view that the schemes of development of residential areas do not 'appear to demand such emergent action as to eliminate summary inquiries under Section 5-A of the Act'... 291. Another judgment of the Apex Court which needs to be noted is in the case of Rajasthan Housing Board and others v. Shri Kishan and others reported in (1993)2 S.C.C. 84. In the said case also the Government had issued direction for dispensation of inquiry under Section 17(4). The Apex Court examined materials which were before the Government on the basis of which it formed its opinion for directing dispensation of inquiry. The Apex Court approved the action of the Government after referring to relevant materials which were found sufficient for invoking Section 17(4) of the Act. It is useful to quote following observations of the Apex Court which are in paragraph 14 of the judgment:- 14. Secondly, we are satisfied that there was material before the government in this case upon which it could have and did form the requisite opinion that it was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Apex Court:- 14. What was said by chinnappa Reddy, J. in the context of provisions of housing accommodation to Harijans is equally applied to the problem of providing housing accommodation to all persons in the country in State of U.P. Vs. Pista Devi, 1986(4)SCC 251, holding that today having regard to the enormous growth of population, urgency clause for planing development in urban areas was upheld by a two -judge Bench. The ratio of Kasireddy Papaiah case 1975 AIR(AR)269: 1975(1)APLJ 70] was quoted with approval by a three-judge Bench in Deepak Pahwa v. Lt. Governor of Delhi , 1984(4)SCC 308 : 1985(1)SCR 588. The delay by the officials was held to be not a ground to set at naught the power to exercise urgency clause in both the above decisions. It would thus be clear that housing accommodation to the Dalits and Tribes is in acute Shortage and the state has undertaken as its economic policy under planned expenditure to provide shelter to them on a war footing, in compliance with the Constitutional obligation undertaken as a member of the UNO to the resolutions referred to here in before. 15. The question, therefore, is whether invocation of urgency cause under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iplicity of enquiries, communications and discussions leading invariably to delay in the execution of even urgent projects. Very often delay makes the problem more and more acute and increases urgency of the necessity for acquisition. In Rajasthan Housing Board v. Shri Kishan [1993 (2) SCC 84 ] (SCC at p. 91), this Court had held that 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 Government could have formed the said satisfaction fairly, the Court would not interfere nor would it examine the material as an appellate authority. In State of U.P. v. Keshav Prasad Singh [1995 (5) SCC 587 ] (SCC at p. 590), this Court had held that the Government was entitled to exercise the power under section 17(4) invoking urgency clause and to dispense with inquiry under Section 5-A when the urgency was noticed on the facts available on record. In Narayan Govind Gavate case a three-Judge Bench of this Court had held that Section 17 (4) cannot be read in isolation from Section 4(1) and Section 5-A of the Act. Although 30 days from the notification under Section 4(1) are given for filing objections under Section 5-A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the High Court and the High Court came to the conclusion that the land acquisition proceedings were not vitiated and the writ petitions were dismissed. The Apex Court looked into the all relevant materials which were before the Government including the proposal submitted by the GNOIDA for acquisition. The Apex Court also noticed one year delay from the submission of proposal recommending invocation of urgency clause and further delay of 9 months in issuing declaration under Section 6. The Apex Court observed that above conduct of the respondents falsify their claim of urgency for acquisition. After considering the materials, which were before the State Government, the Apex Court came to the conclusion that there was no relevant material before the State Government when it invoked the power under sub-section (4) of Section 17 dispensing with the inquiry. The three Judge judgment in Narayan Govind Gavate's case (supra) as well as two Judge judgment in State of U.P. v. Pista Devi (supra) were referred to. The Apex Court also made observation that the later Bench of two learned Judges of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Pista Devi's case (supra) could not have laid down an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be treated to be almost otiose or inoperative. Such is not the ratio of the aforesaid decision and nothing to that effect can even impliedly be read in the aforesaid observation which is of general nature. It only suggests that in appropriate cases, urgency clause can be invoked when the land is proposed to be acquired for planned development of city or town. 25. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, therefore, the conclusion becomes inevitable that the action of dispensing with inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act in the present cases was not based on any real and genuine subjective satisfaction depending upon any relevant data available to the State authorities at the time when they issued the impugned notification under section 4(1) of the Act and dispensed with Section 5-A inquiry by resorting to Section 17 sub-section (4) thereof. The first point is, therefore, answered in the negative, in favour of the appellants and against the contesting respondents. 295. A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court had occasion to consider invocation of urgency clause under Section 17(4) in the case of Union of India v. Mukesh Hans reported in 2004(8) SCC 14. The three Judge B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 5A but then there is a need for application of mind by the appropriate Government that such an urgency for dispensation of the 5A inquiry is inherent in the two types of urgencies contemplated under Section 17 (1) and (2) of the Act. 33. An argument was sought to be advanced on behalf of the appellants that once the appropriate Government comes to the conclusion that there is an urgency or unforeseen emergency under Section 17(1) and (2), the dispensation of enquiry under Section 5Abecomes automatic and the same can be done by a composite order meaning thereby that there no need for the appropriate Government to separately apply its mind for any further emergency for dispensation with an inquiry under Section 5A. We are unable to agree with the above argument because sub- section (4) of Section 17 itself indicates that the government may direct that provisions of Section 5A shall not apply which makes it clear that not in every case where the appropriate Government has come to the conclusion that there is urgency and under sub- section (1) or unforeseen emergency under sub-section (2) of Section 17 the Government will ipso facto have to direct the dispensation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ortunity of putting forth its objections for due consideration of the acquiring authority. While applying the urgency clause, the State should indeed act with due care and responsibility. Invoking urgency clause cannot be a substitute or support for the laxity, lethargy or lack of care on the part of the State Administration. 297. In a later case reported in (2010)11 S.C.C. 242; Anand Singh v. State of U.P. and others all earlier cases have been referred to and the principles of invoking Section 17(4) of the Act have been restated. It was further laid down in the said judgment that, generally speaking, development of an area for residential purpose or planned development takes many years and in every case of planned development dispensation of inquiry under Section 5A of the Act is not required. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case further observed that ratio of two Judge Bench in State of U.P. v. Pista Devi case (supra) is contrary to the ratio laid down in earlier three Judge Bench judgment in Narayan Govind Gavate's case (supra). As noted above, in Narayan Govind Gavate's case (supra) the three Judge Bench has laid down that scheme for housing development or industr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placed by the circumstances themselves having no reasonable nexus with the purpose for which power has been exercised. Upon challenge being made to the use of power under Section 17, the government must produce appropriate material before the court that the opinion for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A has been formed by the government after due application of mind on the material placed before it. 45. It is true that power conferred upon the government under Section 17 is administrative and its opinion is entitled to due weight, but in a case where the opinion is formed regarding the urgency based on considerations not germane to the purpose, the judicial review of such administrative decision may become necessary. 46. As to in what circumstances the power of emergency can be invoked are specified in Section 17(2) but circumstances necessitating invocation of urgency under Section 17(1) are not stated in the provision itself. Generally speaking, the development of an area (for residential purposes) or a planned development of city, takes many years if not decades and, therefore, there is no reason why summary enquiry as contemplated under Section 5A may not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 17with the consequential dispensation of right of hearing under Section 5A of the said Act. The Courts must examine these questions very carefully when little Indians lose their small property in the name of mindless acquisition at the instance of the State. If public purpose can be satisfied by not rendering common man homeless and by exploring other avenues of acquisition, the Courts, before sanctioning an acquisition, must in exercise of its power of judicial review, focus its attention on the concept of social and economic justice. 20. While examining these questions of public importance, the Courts, especially the Higher Courts, cannot afford to act as mere umpires. In this context we reiterate the principle laid down by this Court in Authorised Officer, Thanjavur and another v. S. Naganatha Ayyar and others reported in (1979) 3 SCC 466, wherein this Court held: 1. It is true that Judges are constitutional invigilators and statutory interpreters; but they are also responsive and responsible to Part IV of the Constitution being one of the trinity of the nation's appointed instrumentalities in the transformation of the socio-economic order. The judiciary, in it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (4) of the Act. 38. In paragraph 15 of the writ petition, it has been clearly stated that there was a time gap of more than 11 months between Section 4 and Section 6 notifications, which demonstrates that there 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. 39. The construction of jail is certainly in public interest and for such construction land may be acquired. But such acquisition can be made only by strictly following the mandate of the said Act. In the facts of this case, such acquisition cannot be made by invoking emergency provisions of Section 17. If so advised, Government can initiate acquisition proceeding by following the provision of Section 5A of the Act and in accordance with law. 299. The two recent judgments given by the Apex Court, both relating to planned industrial development in district Gautam Budh Nagar through Greater NOIDA, are very relevant and need to be referred in some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andless poor and force him to migrate to the nearby city only to live in a slum. A departure from this rule should be made only when land is required to meet really emergent situations like those enumerated in Section 17(2). If the acquisition is intended to benefit private person(s) and the provisions contained in Section 17(1) and/or 17(4) are invoked, then scrutiny of the justification put forward by the State should be more rigorous in cases involving the challenge to the acquisition of land, the pleadings should be liberally construed and relief should not be denied to the petitioner by applying the technical rules of procedure embodied in the Code of Civil Procedure and other procedural laws. 301. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the materials, which have been referred to in the counter affidavit by the State as justification for invocation of Section 17(4) of the Act in the present case as well as scrutiny of original records as have been produced by the learned Chief Standing Counsel for perusal of the Court. The State in its supplementary counter affidavit dated 11th September, 2011 filed in Writ Petition No. 37443 of 2011 (main writ petition) has brought on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich proposal was submitted to the Additional District Magistrate. In the record of the State Government, there is proposal submitted by the Commissioner and Director, Land Acquisition Directorate to the Special Secretary dated 25th February, 2008 along with which the Note of Justification as well as Prapatra as have been filed along with the supplementary counter affidavit are also there. A perusal of the original records of the State Government reveal following:- (i) The proposal submitted by Greater NOIDA for acquisition of land of 20 villages of Greater NOIDA including villages Patwari and Makaura was placed before the District Level Committee for consideration of the proposal. The Committee approved the proposal 2.2.2007. The Committee noticed in its proposals that with regard to 5 villages 20% amount has been deposited, for one village 70% amount has been deposited and for rest of the villages proposal be sent after amount is deposited. The Committee made recommendation for issuing notification under Sections 4/17 and 6/17 of the Act and forwarded resolution. (ii) The said resolution of the District Level Committee, it appears, was forwarded to the Divisional Leve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 Government may issue notification under Section 4 (1)/17 and sent a copy to the Directorate and the Collector. Along with the letter of the Collector dated 22nd February, 2008 which was forwarded to the Commissioner and Director, Land Acquisition Director, certificates required to be sent have been annexed. In the letter of the Collector the recommendation made, is to the following effect:- 306. In the Note of Justification submitted by the GNOIDA which was countersigned by the Collector, following reasons were given:- 307. In his certificate, the Collector has only observed that for completion of the project possession of the land is urgently required to be taken. The Collector has further observed that by invoking Section 17, the provisions of Section 5A shall come to an end and he is satisfied that for completing the project possession of land is required to be urgently taken. Along with the proposal of the Collector dated 22nd February, 2008 there is Prapatra No. 1, whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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:- 78. The stage is now set for consideration of the issue whether the State Government was justified in invoking the urgency provision contained in Section 17 (1) and excluding the application of Section 5-A for the acquisition of land for planned industrial development of District Gautam Budh Nagar. A recapitulation of the facts shows that upon receipt of proposal from the Development Authority, the State Government issued directions to the concerned authorities to take action for the acquisition of land in different villages including village Makora. The comments/certificate signed by three officers, which was submitted in the context of Government Order dated 21.12.2006 was accompanied by several documents including proposal for the acquisition of land, preliminary inquiry report submitted by the Amin, Land Acquisition, copies of khasra khatauni and lay out plan, 10 per cent of the estimated compensation and a host of other documents. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umentalities 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 i.e. the inflow of funds in the State in the form of investment by private entrepreneurs and availability of larger employment opportunities to the people of the area. However, we do not find any plausible reason to accept this tailor-made justification for approving the impugned action which has resulted in depriving the appellants' of their constitutional right to property. 80. Even if planned industrial development of the district is treated as public purpose within the meaning of Section 4, there was no urgency which could justify the exercise of power by the State Government under Section 17(1)and 17(4). The objective of industrial development of an area cannot be achieved by pressing some buttons on computer screen. It needs lot of deliberations and planning keeping in view various scientific and technical parameters and environmental concerns. The private entreprene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der 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 lingered already from 2001 till 2008. We do not see any reason why we should take a different view than what is taken by the High Court. 313. On the basis of the above observation made in paragraph 93 of the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the respondents submits that likelihood of encroachment is relevant material and the State cannot be said to be at fault in relying on the said paragraph. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Om Prakash's case (supra). In the said case the Apex Court had specifically held that possibility of unauthorised encroachment is wholly irrelevant factor for invoking urgency under Section 17(4) of the Act. Following was laid down by the Apex Court in paragraph 15 of the judgment in Om Prakash's case (supra), which is as under:- 15. So far as the present proceedings are con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich 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 one of these two grounds was irrelevant for the purpose of the Act or was wholly illusory and this would vitiate the detention order as a whole. Principle, which was order as a whole. This principle, which was recognised by the Federal Court in the case of Keshav Talpade v. The Kingb Emperor (2), seems to us to be quite sound and applicable to the facts of this case. (1) Vide state of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya, [1951] S.C.R. 315. The next recent judgment of the Apex Court to be noticed is the judgment in the case of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Devendra Kumar and others reported in 2011 (6) (SC) ADJ 480. The aforesaid case also was a case pertaining to village Shahberi of district Gautam Budh Nagar in which notifications were issued for the same purpose. The writ petition was filed challenging the no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 the justification for dispensation of inquiry. In the Note submitted by Greater NOIDA regarding justification for issuing notification under Section 4/17 it was mentioned that several applicants want allotment of plots which is not being possible due to acquisition of the land. It was stated that specially the reputed industrial organizations of foreign countries want allotment and to invest in the State and in case the land is not allotted immediately, the units might go to other States. These were the reasons which have been repeated in all such certificates. It is also to be noticed that all the certificate, which have been submitted in all the case, does not bear any date and appears to have been mechanically prepared using the same words. It is also relevant to notice that petitioners in the writ petition have ple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 purpose of the U.P. Industrial Area and Development Act, 1976 is to ensure the planned development of the notified industrial development area and the village Dabara was notified as part of the industrial development area. The Authority has been constituted for the planned development and has adequate staffs and officers which have either being posted on the deputation by the State Government or directly appointed by the Authority. It is wrong and denied that prior to acquisition no enquiry or survey was conducted. 318. In above context, it is relevant to note that the reason that several industrial Units belonging to foreign country have applied for allotment and unless the land is not immediately allotted to them they will establish their industries in another State, has been taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 in the statute by U.P. Act 22 of 1954. It is submitted that urgency in case of Planned Development having been statutorily recognised, it is not open to the petitioners to contend that there was no urgency to invoke Section 17(1) and 17(4) for planned industrial development. It is relevant to note that Section 17(1A) was added by U.P. Act 22 of 1954 since in Section 17 of the Act power to take possession was available only for waste or arable land, and the U.P. Amendment was brought to enable the Government to exercise power under Section 17(1) for planned development which otherwise was not available under Section 17. It is further to note that by Parliamentary Act 68 of 1984 the words 'waste and arable' land has been deleted and substituted by 'any land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Government including the certificates issued by the Collector in Prapatra-10 as well as the Note of Justification submitted by the authorities were in identical term, hence the invocation of Section 17(4) has to be held to be vitiated in all the above cases. 323. Considering the dictum of the Apex Court, as noticed above and the facts as noticed above, we hold that invocation of Section 17(4) by the State Government dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act while issuing notification under Section 4 is vitiated. The dispensation of inquiry being invalid, all the petitioners were entitled for an opportunity to file objection under Section 5A of the Act. 6. Pre-notification and Post-notification delay: 324. The p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 the learned counsel for the petitioners are that section 6 has been not immediately issued after section 4 clearly indicates that there was no urgency in the acquisition and the invocation of urgency under section 17(1)and 17(4) was done in the routine manner without there being any real need or urgency in the matter. The question of delay caused prior to issuance of notification under section 4 as well as subsequent to section 4 had come for consideration before the apex Court in several cases. In AIR 1971 SC 1033 Jage Ram and others v. State of Haryana in which apex Court observed the fact that State Government or Authority concerned was lethargic at an earlier stage is not very relevant for deciding the question whet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 concerned officer does not create a cause to hold that there is no urgency.. Housing conditions of Dalits all over the country continue to be miserable even till day is a fact of which courts are bound to take judicial notice. The ratio of Deepak Pahwa's case (supra) was followed. In that 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 acquisit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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. 328. Again in (2002) 4 SCC 160 First Land Acquisition collector v. Nirodhi Prakash Gangoli and another, the Court considered the post notification delay. Following was observed in paragraph 5: Any post Notification delay subsequent to the decision of the State Government dispensing with an enquiry under Section 5(A) by invoking powers under Section 17(1) of the Act would not invalidate the decision itself specially when no malafides on the part of the government or its officers are alleged. Opinion of the State Government can be challenged in a Court of law if it would be shown that the State Government never applied its mind to the matter or that action of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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 urgency provisions under section 17 for the purpose of construction of a New Transmitting Station for the Delhi Airport after the correspondence of nearly eight years among the various Departments of the Government before the Notification and the declaration was published in the Gazette. This Court has held that mere pre-notification delay would not render the invocation of the urgency provisions void as very often, the delay increased the urgency of the necessity for acquisition. We are afraid that the decision will not come to the rescue of the respondents because this Court has observed that delay only accelerates or inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as 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 and sale. Copy of Lease deed dated 31st March, 2010 by which one Supertech Limited was transferred plot measuring 2,04,000.00 square meters for construction of residential colonies, has been brought on the record. 334. In Writ Petition No. 47502 of 2011 (Jugendra and othes v. State of U.P. and others) of village Tusiyana following has been pleaded in paragraphs 11 and 31:- 11. It is now well established that the State Government, Greater Noida Authorities, Bulders and the Colonizers have hatched a conspiracy to deprive the farmers of their lands by malafide and colourable exercise of powers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hile, 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 proceeding. The land acquired is not used for Plan Industrial Development through Authority and it is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired and is transferred to Respondent No. 3 to 8 for the purposes of constructing residential flats. 12. That vide lease deed dated 28.07.2010 an area of 106196.00 sq. meter of Plot No. GH-01, Techzone-IV Greater Noida is transferred in favour of Respondent No. 3 namely Amarpali Leisure Valley Developers Pvt. Ltd. for the development and marketing of Group Housing Pockets/flats/plots. A photocopy of the said lease deed da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 object which is not contemplated by the 1976 Act. The GNOIDA has mechanically recommended invocation of urgency clause so that land holders could not raise any finger regarding the acts and motive of the GNOIDA and it may pursue its plan to carry on its activity as it pleases. We have already noticed above that GNOIDA is labouring under misconception that unless it acquires the land under the Land Acquisition Act it cannot carry any development which mindset is not in ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther 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 prohibited from making allotments of group housing plots. It was held by the Division Bench that Section 7of the Act does not bar the Authority from selling or leasing the land to private parties including private builders. Following was laid down by the Division Bench in paragraph 15 of the said judgment, which is as under:- 15. On consideration, therefore, of Sections 6 and 7, it is clear that power is conferred on the Authority to sell, lease ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 to what is mala fide in the jurisprudence of power, sometimes called colourable. Following was laid down in paragraph 9:- 9. The question, then, is what is mala fides in the jurisprudence of power? Legal malice is gibberish unless juristic clarity keeps it separate from the popular concept of personal vice. Pithily put, bad faith which invalidates the exercise of power - sometimes called colourable exercise or fraud on pow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 achieve a purpose it has been repeatedly reiterated that the power must be exercised reasonably and in good faith to effectuate the purpose. And in this context 'in good faith' means 'for legitimate reasons'. Where power is exercised for extraneous or irrelevant considerations or reasons, it is unquestionably a colourable exercise of power or fraud on power and the exercise of power is viti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 years; and (iv) land allotted was 249410 square meters. The above indicates that Authority allotted huge land on very soft terms and conditions which discloses its intention to transfer as much land as possible to private builders putting aside its main object of industrial development. 48. While considering the issue pertaining to National Capital Regional Planning Board Act, 1985, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on various judgments of the Apex court; A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 1989 Narmada Bachao Andolen v. State of Madhya Pradesh and judgment of the Apex Court in Prahlad Singh and others v. Union of India and others 2011 5 S.C.C. 386. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the counter affidavit filed by the State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overnment 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 land to effectuate the taking, of possession is not necessary. No further notice beyond that under section 9 (1) of the act: is required. When possession has been taken, the owner or the occupant of the land is dispossessed. Once possession has been taken the land vests in the Government. 355. In paragraph 28 it was further observed that how ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 going on the spot by the authority concerned will, by itself, be not sufficient for taking possession. Ordinarily, in such cases, the authority concerned will have to give notice to the occupier of the building/structure or the person who has cultivated the land and take possession in the presenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 land was transferred to Greater Noida Development Authority on 05.09.2008, for an area of 572.592 hectares, and on 12.01.2009 for an area of 1.453 hectares. True photocopies of the possession memo dated 05.09.2008 and 12.01.2009 are being filed herewith an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Vesting: 363. One of the submissions raised by learned counsel for the respondents is that in view of the land having been vested in the State after taking possession under section 17(1) of the Act, no relief can be grante ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. That question did not arise in this case. The property under acquisition having been vested in the appellants, in the absence of any power under the Act to have the title of the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication 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 limitation in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 where no such limitation has been contemplated. It is another case that High Court while exercising ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 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 by the High Court by a short order dated 9.2.2009 stating that the petitioner has become infructuous because there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed relian ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 was taken, to urge that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uire into the objections (if 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 inclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) Expect in the case provided for in Section 36, the Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the Acquisition of any land of 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 compen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he statutory provision which automatically violates the constitutional guarantee under Article 300A. A passing observation to the contrary in S.P. Jain (supra) must pass sub 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 follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner at present that Section 17(3) A is mandatory, non compliance of which vitiate the acquisition can not be accepted. 12. Waiver: 383. Shri S.P. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the 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 petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... go before the State Government and raise objections failing which they shall be treated to have waived their right to challenge the acquisition is misconceived. 388. The principle of waiver has been elaborately dealt with and considered 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 Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned delay. The delay in making the said award deprived the land owners/petitioners of the enjoyment of their property or to deal with the land and delay in making the said award has subjected the owners of the land to untold hardship. 393. In the present case, the award under Section 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 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal remedies under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. They reconcile with deprivation of land by accepting the amount of compensation offered by the Government and by thinking that it is their fate and destiny determined by God. Even those who get semblance of education are neither conversant with the functioning 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 m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it must be remembered that violation of each and every provision does not furnish a ground or the Court to interfere. The provision may be a directory one or a mandatory one. In the case of directory provisions, substantial compliance would be enough. Unless it is established that violation of a directory provision has resulted in loss and/or prejudice 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 subjec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the jurisdiction of this Court. 406. In these circumstances, we are of the view that it cannot be presumed that the petitioners/land owners have waived their rights and cannot be nonsuited on the ground that they have waived their rights to challenge the acquisition. 13. Acquiescence: 407. 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r removal of wall which prayer was for the first time introduced in 1969. In this background, we are not inclined to entertain the submission on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant that defendants 2 and 3 should be directed to remove the wall W W-1 and clear the passage of encroachment. 411. In Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd.(supra) defining the acquiescence following was laid down in paragraphs 103 and 104 which are quoted below:- 103.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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opositions: (1) It is for the customer to establish affirmatively that the signature on the disputed cheque is not that of the customer but a forgery., (ii) If the drawer's cheque is forged or unauthorised, however clever the forgery is, the banker cannot debit his customer's account in case he pays the sum unless he establishes adoption or estoppel. (iii) What amounts to adoption or estoppel is dependent upon the circumstances of each case. (iv) In order to make the customer 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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16(b) That in Sector 3, about 2250 individual residential plots were allotted through draw of lots in the month of January 2009 and 625 individual residential flats through draw of lots in July 2009 under the Schemes XT-01 and BHS. 16(c) That in Sector Tech Zone IV, Group Housing plots were carved out and allotted under Scheme BRS-01 to BRS-05. The allotment letters were issued to the allottees between the period March 2010 to March, 2011, Also in Tech Zone IV, some Institutional and some Information Technology plots 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 422. From the facts which have been brought on the record it is clear that after creation of third party rights, the allottees also proceeded to carry on building activities and substantial constructions have been made on some of the places. The submission which has been pressed by the learned counsel for the respondents and the intervenors is that in view of the creation of third party rights and developmental activities carried on the spot, it is not in the interest of justice that the petitioners be granted relief of quashing the acquisition and an application by intervenors has 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 Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with, whether the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act be quashed or not. The Apex Court made following observations in paragraph 30 which is quoted below:- 30. It is also to be kept in view that the impugned notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued for the purpose of planned development of District Ghaziabad through NOIDA and by the said notification, 496 acres of land spread over hundreds of plot numbers have been acquired. Out of 494.26 acres of land under acquisition, only the present appellants owning about 50 acres, making a grievance about acquisition of their lands have gone to the court. Thus, almost 9/10th 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tika Ram Ors v. State of U.P. Ors, (2009) 10 SCC 689, the Court was faced with a situation where invocation of Section 5A of the Act, 1894 was held not to be justified. The Court thereafter proceeded to consider as to whether the notification deserves to be quashed or not. Following was laid down in paragraph 116 which is quoted below:- 116.In a reported decision in Kishan Das Ors. v. State of UP Ors. this Court has taken a view that where the acquisition has been completed by taking the possession of the land under acquisition and the constructions have been made and completed, the question of urgency and the exercise of power under Section 17(4) would not arise. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quashed the entire acquisition. This appears to be the reason why the Division Bench of the High Court, while disposing of Writ Appeal Nos. 676 of 1997 and 8/9 of 1998 observed that quashing of acquisition by this Court was only in relation to the land of the petitioner of that case and, at this belated stage, we are not inclined to declare that order dated 21.8.1990 passed by this Court had the effect of nullifying the entire acquisition and that too by ignoring that the appellant-Board has already utilized portion of the acquired land for housing and other purposes. Any such inferential conclusion will have disastrous consequences inasmuch as it will result in uprooting those who may have settled 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. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nkara Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. M. Prabhakar Ors, (2011) 5 SCC 607. The Apex Court in the said case laid down principles for granting or refusing relief on the ground of delay and laches. Following was laid down in paragraphs 54 and 68 which are quoted below: 54. The relevant considerations, in determining whether delay or laches should be put against a person who approaches the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution is now well settled. They are: (1) There is no inviolable rule of law that whenever there is a delay, the court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition; it is a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion, and each case must be dealt with on its own facts. (2) The 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 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted nor transferred and in some of the cases possession memo while taking possession mentions that possession was not taken since the land was covered by any interim order of the Court. The fact that most of the petitioners did not invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226of the Constitution immediately after declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 or after taking of the possession has also relevance while considering the issue as to what relief the petitioners are entitled in the facts of the present cases. 436. 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. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case and they have independent right to challenge the acquisition. On the basis of law laid down by Supreme Court the Division Bench in Har Karan Singh's case also observed that law of acquisition of land by State applying the Section 17(1) and 17(4) has undergone a sea change after the judgments of Supreme Court in Anand Singh's case, Radhey Shyam case, Devendra Kumar's case (supra) following was laid down in paragraph 30 in Har Karan Singh's case: 30. The petitioners of this bunch were not parties in writ petition No. 38758 of 2008. They have right challenge the acquisition of land on the basis of law laid down by the Supreme Court. The principle of res judicate are not attracted to estop from challenging acquisition. We are also find that the ground that the land acquired for public purpose has been used for private commercial 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 Ana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28.11.2002 29.01.2003 05.03.2004 Dabara 17366 of 2008 Subey Ram Vs. State of U.P. Ors 31.10.2005 01.09.2006 22.08.2008 Yusufpur Chak Shahberi 56522 of 2007 Haris Chandra Ors. Vs. State of U.P. Ors. 17.05.2006 10.09.2007 27.11.2007 Khanpur 38793 of 2008 Jasraj Singh 31.01.2008 30.06.2008 16.09.2008 Tusiyana 69534 of 2006 Sudhir Chandra Agarwal 10.04.2006 30.06.2006 29.02.2008 441. It has further been submitted that against Division Bench judgment of this court in Jasaraj Singh, Sudhir Chandra Agarwal and Munshi Singh, the special leave to appeal were also filed in the Supreme Court which were dismissed. 442. We have perused the judgment of Division Bench of this Court as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plied to the question whether there is,an urgency of such a nature that even the summary proceedings under Section 5A of the Act should be eliminated. It is not just the existence of an urgency but the need to dispense with an inquiry under Section 5A which has to be considered. 444. In Union of India v. Mukesh Hansh (supra), the argument was made before the apex court that when the appropriate Government comes to the conclusion that there is an urgency or unforeseen emergency under Section 17(1) and 17(2) the dispensation of the inquiry under Section 5-A becomes automatic. This argument was repelled by the Apex court in paragraph 33 which is quoted as below : An argument was sought to be advanced on behalf of the appellants that once the appropriate Government comes to the conclusion that there is an urgency or unforeseen emergency under Section 17(1) and (2), the dispensation of enquiry under Section 5Abecomes automatic and the same can be done by a composite order meaning thereby that there no need for the appropriate Government to separately apply its mind for any further emergency for dispensation with an inquiry under Section 5A. We are unable to agree with the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e an order is made under s. 17 (1), an order under s. 17(4) is also passed; but in law it is not necessary that this should be so. It will also be seen that under the Land Acquisition Act an order under s. 17(1) or s. 17 (4) can only be passed with respect to waste or arable land and it cannot be passed with respect to land which is not waste or arable and on which buildings stand. 445. Thus the view taken in Harischand case as extracted above that the District Magistrate having arrived at conclusion that land was required urgently and there was justification for acquiring the land was not sufficient recommendation for dispensation of inquiry under Section 5-A and there being no application of mind to the aforesaid aspect which is specifically required to be considered, the judgement of the Division Bench in Harishchand can not the said to be in accordance with law as laid down by Apex court in Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra and Union of India v. Mukesh Hansh. 446. The division Bench judgment in Harakaran Singh's case have referred to Anand Singh's case (supra) which had relied on Narayan Singh Gautey's case. The Division Bench in Harakaran Sing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not made available then various foreign industrialist who intend to establish industries shall go to some other State, was considered and it was held that the said ground could not be substantiated by the authority. It is useful to quote paragraphs 24,25,26 which is to the following effect : 24. The averment in the counter affidavit and the record produced before us would go to show that land use of the land in Village Tushiana in the master plan was reserved as, 'institutional'. The land was part of notification of the industrial area under Section 3 of U.P. Act No. 6 of 1976. The development of the area was proposed for allotment to various industries and institutions and that it was stated that in case the development plan is not made available, the investors would establish their industries in some other States affecting the development of the industrial area. 25. On our request, a list of industries with their proposals was provided by the GNIDA alongwith their first supplementary counter affidavit. A perusal of the list of the industries would show that the GNIDA relied upon names of some of the industries, which have already set up their industrial units ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Section 17 having not been substantiated by the authority, the subjective satisfaction was clearly vitiated as has been laid down by the apex court in Sibban Lal Saxena's case (supra). 450. It is also relevant to note that against the Division Bench judgment in Sudhir Chandra Agarwal case special leave to appeal Civil no. 11551 of 2008 was filed in the Apex Court which was dismissed by following order dated 12 May 2008: Heard. The Special Leave petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner be given ex-post-facto hearing within two months from today. 451. The respondents have also referred two judgment of the Apex Court dated 12.12.2008 by which order the Special Leave to Appeal Civil no. 28731 of 2008 filed against the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 16.09.2008 in writ petition no. 38793 of 2008 was challenged. The Supreme Court by order dated 12.12.2008 dismissed the Special Leave Petition by following order: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No merit. The special leave petition is dismissed. 452. Learned counsel for the respondent sought to contend that since the Division Bench judgment of this court as mentioned above has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies would have the liberty of taking or canvassing any view contrary to the one expressed by this Court. The order of Supreme Court would mean that it has declared the law and in that light the case was considered not fit for grant of leave. The declaration of law will be governed by Article 141 but still, the case not being one where leave was granted, the doctrine of merger does not apply. The Court sometimes leaves the question (sic) open. Or it sometimes briefly lays down the principle, may be, contrary to the one laid down By the High Court and yet would dismiss the special leave petition. The reasons given are intended for purposes of Article 141. This is so done because in the event of merely dismissing the special leave petition, it is likely that an argument could be advanced in the High Court that the Supreme Court has to be understood as not to have differed in law with the High Court. 454. The recent judgment of the Apex court in M/s. Royal Orchid Hotel Ltd. fully support the contention of the petitioners that their rights are not affected by the Division Bench judgment of this Court upholding the notification in which they were not party. In the aforesaid case the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rety. Unfortunately, the Division Bench of the High Court went a step further and dismissed the writ appeals filed by the brothers of respondent No. 1 without even adverting to the factual matrix of the case, the grounds on which the order of the learned Single Judge was challenged and ignored the law laid down by the coordinate Bench in three other cases. The special leave petitions filed by the brothers of respondent No. 1 were summarily dismissed by this Court. Such dismissal did not amount to this Court's approval of the view taken by the High Court on the legality of the acquisition and transfer of land to private persons. In this connection, reference can usefully be made to the judgment in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359. 455. We, however, hasten to add that the Division Bench judgment as referred above in which the different writ petitions filed by the petitioners of those cases challenging the acquisition proceedings were dismissed are binding between the inter parties and the effect of that judgment is not to be affected by any of observations made by us in this judgement except to their precedential value. 456. In view of the foregoing discu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n have already been undertaken. We thus, proceed to consider first the case of those villages where no third party rights have been created and no substantial developments have taken place. We first take the case of village Devla of Greater Noida. There are 23 writ petitions in this group (group 40). The notifications under section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and (4) was issued for acquiring the 107.0512 hectrares land of village Devla on 26.5.2009, which was published in the news paper on 4.5.2009. Declaration under section 6 was issued on 22.6.2009 which was published in the news paper on 30.7.2009. The possession is claimed to have been taken on 14.9.2009. 8 writ petitions were immediately filed in the year 2009 itself. First we take up the writ petition No. 50417 of 2009 M/S. Tosha International Ltd. Ors. v. State of U.P. and others. The said writ petition has been filed by five petitioners challenging the notifications under section 4 and 6. The writ petition was filed on 16.9.2009 which was heard on 18.9.2009 and following order was passed by this Court: We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3 and Sri Ramend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... black and white picture tube in the year 1990. The petitioner no. 1 claims to be registered under the Factories Act with Deputy Director, Factories, Western Zone, Meerut as well as under the Sales Tax Act. The petitioner no. 1 also claims to have been allotted a import code by the office of Joint Chief Controller Import and Export since 1988. No objection of U.P. Pollution Control Board was obtained on 22.10.1990. The petitioner's case is that in the plots owned by the petitioner no. 1 in the village as well as in the adjoining village Gulistanpur. Factory building, tanker shed, power plant room, LPG tanker plant and other plants have been constructed. The petitioner also took steps for grant of SEZ status under the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005. The petitioner submitted proposal before the competent authority. The petitioner has annexed in the writ petition correspondences with the District Magistrate, State Government as well as Govt. of India in this regard. The letter of Government of India, Ministry of Commerce Industries dated 17.1.2006 has been filed as Annexure- 10 by which the Government of India granted approval in principal subject to obtaining recommendations of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncluded in the declaration under section 6 Tosha Picture Tube and Constructions has been mentioned. 462. The Authority along with Supplementary affidavit-4 has filed details of village Dewla in which it has been stated that in the village in question only 19% land owners have accepted compensation under agreement and a sum of ₹ 150.37 lakhs have been incurred on the development within the unacquired land of the village abadi A chart has been filed in the folder where summary of village Dewla has been given which clearly indicates that no allotment of any plot has been made and area under recreational green is under process of planning. It is useful to quote the aforesaid summary of village Dewla given in folder along with supplementary affidavit-4: 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 sanction ed Nos of plots on which completion has been issued. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 changed in the sector plan which is not an industrial. Meaning thereby that the industries as per land use of the area has to be closed, whereas as noted above, the object and purpose of the Authority under the 1976 Act is industrial development. When the object of the Act is itself industrial development what purpose shall be served in shutting down the running industries has not been explained. In any view of the matter, there being no creation of third party rights and there being no substantial developments, we are of the view that the notifications under challenge dated 26.5.2009 under section 4 invoking Section 17(1) and 17(4) and notification under section 6 dated 7.6.2009 and all consequential actions deserves to be quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled to restoration of their land. As noted above, the award has not yet been given in this village. Several ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure 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 actions be quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled to restoration of their land. 468. Next writ petition to be considered is Writ Petition No. 47486 of 2011; Rajee and others v. State of U.P. and others (Group-42) relating to village Asdullapur, NOIDA. Notification under Section 4 was dated 27.1.2010. The declaration was issued under Section 6 dated 13.7.2010. The possession of 22.432 hectares (out of total land acquired 33.6115 hectare) is claimed to be taken on 24.6.2011. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een 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 entitled for quashing the notifications under section 4 and declaration under section 6 due to creation of third party rights, substantial developments, constructions made on the land in dispute and delay. A three Judges Bench recently had occasion to consider all aspects of land acquisition and the consequences which take place due to acquisition of land in (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 129 Bondu Ramaswamy Ors. v. Bangalore Development Authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 acquisitions can be conveniently divided into three broad categories: (i) Acquisitions for the benefit of the general public or in national interest. This will include acquisitions for roads, bridges, water supply 123. projects, power projects, defence establishments, residential colonies for rehabilitation of victims of natural calamities. (ii) Acquisitions for economic develo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or 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 the entire area into a polluting concrete jungle. The entries and exits from the layouts will be bottlenecks leading to traffic jams. Once such illegal colonies come up with poor infrastructure and amenities, it will not be possible to either rectify and correct the mistakes in planning nor provide any amenities even in future. Residents of such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 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 it has been brought on record by the Authority in the main writ petition that an agreement was entered between the land owners of village Patwari and Authority by which it was agreed that an additional compensation of ₹ 550/- per square meter be given to the land owners of village Patwari in addition to the compens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 quashing the impugned notification at this stage. We cannot be unmindful of the legal position that the acquiring authority can always issue a fresh notification for acquisition of the land in the event of the impugned notification being quashed. The consequence of this will only be that keeping in view the risi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 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 suitable for forming self contained layouts. The acquisition thereof cannot be justified on the ground that these small islands of acquired land, could be used as a stand alone park or playground in regard to a layout formed in different unconnected lands in other villages. Similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 additional compensation is concerned. In the circumstances, we leave it to the Authority to take a decision as to whether the benefit of additional compensation shall also be extended to those with regard to whom the notifications of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 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 ensured by the Authority at an early date. It may be open for Authority to take a decision as to what proportion of additional compensation be asked to be paid by allottees. Those petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
