Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) THIS Bench is burdened with several writ petitions regarding various acquisition of lands in the State inclusive of various villages, which fall within the area of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, particularly by the side of Yamuna Expressway. Prima facie, we are of the view that the State used the urgency clause in the routine manner. The act of the State appears to be unexplainable in nature.
(2.) IT seems to be departure from solemn duty of the State towards people. A lot of hue and cry is there in respect of the ways and means of the acquisitions of lands by the State ignoring the necessity of hearing of the land owners under Section 5 -A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter in short called as the "Act") applying the urgency clause under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act. Inspiration of filing so many writ petitions is outcome of the latest Supreme Court and High Court judgements in this regard. Therefore, in addition to consideration of the cause, the Court has additional duty to find out who is genuine and who is unscrupulous litigants, trying to take advantage of the situation. However, with the consensus of the parties, the matters with regard to Village Patwari, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Buddh Nagar have been taken up at first. There is a reason for taking up those matters at first. Recently, on 19th July, 2011 another Division Bench of this Court delivered a judgement in Writ -C No. 17068 of 2009 (Har Karan Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors.), by which the notification dated 20th March, 2007 under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) of the Act and notification dated 09th July, 2008 under Section 6 read with Section 17(4) of the Act have been set aside. In the supplied copy of such judgement, the date of first notification is shown as 12th March, 2008 when that of the second notification is shown as 30th June, 2008. Most likely these two dates are the dates of publication of such notifications, particularly when No. objection has been raised by the Petitioners about dates of notifications. It appears to us that the judgement was delivered in the light of the judgement delivered by the Supreme Court on 06th July, 2011 reported in : 2011 (6) ADJ 480 (SC) (Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Devendra Kumar and Ors.).
(3.) MAIN attack of the Petitioners is that the lands were acquired for the purpose of industrial development but instead of developing the same, it has been given to several private builders to construct the residential accommodations for the respective purchasers. No. change of land use is made. No. opportunity of hearing has been given. Payment of compensation is grossly inadequate. Mr. Pankaj Dubey, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in the first writ petition, has virtually reiterated the judgement delivered by the Division Bench of this Court on 19th July, 2011 to establish his case. On the other hand, Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State, has contended before us that the judgement, which has been delivered by the Division Bench of this Court on 19th July, 2011, is not based on the correct appreciation of facts. He has submitted that before delivery of the judgement dated 19th July, 2011, another Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 25th November, 2008 in Civil Misc.;