Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) FIRST writ petition, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22207 of 2011, was directed to be connected with Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5236 of 2010 (Rajendra and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) by an order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 18th April, 2011, whereas other writ petitions have been connected with Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22207 of 2011. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5236 of 2010 along with many other matters has already been decided by this Division Bench by judgement and order dated 19th August, 2011, which is reported in, 2011 (10) ADJ 323 (DB) (Rajendra and others Vs. State of U.P. and others). Accordingly, all the aforesaid writ petitions being connected with each other have been placed before this Court for the purpose of analogous hearing. The contentions of the respective contesting parties before us are that the disputes involved in these matters relate to same village i.e. Shahpur Bamhetta, which was also involved in the bunch decided by Rajendra and others (supra). The dispute resolved by this Court in Rajendra and others (supra) was in respect of Hi -Tech Township, whereas in the present cases the dispute is in respect of Integrated Township. Schemes of both the aforesaid townships are more or less similar with each other. The basic difference in these two bunch of cases, i.e. Rajendra and others (supra) and the present one, is that in the earlier one the land was acquired without giving any opportunity under Section 5 -A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short called as the 'Act'), whereas in the present bunch the requirement of Section 5 -A has been complied with on the part of the respondents. Petitioners' main contention is that in the earlier cases the land acquired was agricultural land but in the present cases it is abadi land. No order under Section 5 -A of the Act was served upon the petitioners. The petitioners have relied upon the judgement reported in : 2005 (7) SCC 627 (Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur Chenai and others), as was made in the earlier referred case, and contended that Section 5 -A of the Act confers a valuable and important right in favour of a person, whose lands are sought to be acquired which is akin to fundamental right. The State in exercise of its power of "eminent domain" may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be paid. We find that so far as abadi land is concerned, the Supreme Court in its recent judgement reported in JT, 2011 (4) SC 524 [Sri Radhy Shyam (Dead) through L.Rs. and others Vs. State of U.P. and others] held that in case of acquisition of abadi (residential) property of the appellant if no opportunity is given for hearing, the acquisition will be unsustainable in law. However, in the present cases we find that the interest of the petitioners is more for compensation than the need of keeping the land.
(2.) IN any event, to avoid any complication on the issue with regard to giving opportunity of hearing and not giving opportunity of hearing, like the matter referred above in re: Rajendra and others (supra), we pass the similar order as contained in paragraph -89 of such judgement, which is as under: 89. The petitioner/s will make their application before the Collector within a period of fifteen days from the date of obtaining certified copy of this order, if not already made to him. Upon receipt of such application/s, the Collector will independently adjudge the demand of the petitioner/s about settlement of compensation and if necessary, he will also make survey of the land to support his independent view. He will also give an opportunity of hearing to all the petitioners. The petitioners will be able to take assistance of the pleader. The Collector will complete all exercise to make his report and sent the entire report to the State Government, for taking final decision in this regard, within a period of 21 days from the date of making application/s and in case the application has already been made, such period of 21 days will be counted after expiry of period of fifteen days granted for making applications. The State Government, who is the final authority, upon receipt of report will take a decision in the matter within a period of one month thereafter positively. The decision of the State will be final and binding upon all the parties. Physical possession of the land of the petitioners, if not taken by the Ghaziabad Development Authority, will be taken after completion of the course of action, as directed by this order, with regard to settlement of compensation to be paid to the petitioners. If this approach is made and the compensation amount is considered and if the petitioners are inclined to take compensation, it will be considered finally by following the Rules, 1997. Making of such applications, if any, for settlement will be totally optional on the part of the petitioner/s. If any unwilling petitioner wants to take advantage of Section 11 -A of the Act or under Section 48 of the Act, it is open for him to proceed accordingly. Such petitioner can also make appropriate applications before the authority concerned for due consideration of the cause under Section 11 -A and/or Section 48 of the Act, as the case may be, and a separate report will be prepared by the Collector and/or the authority concerned and the same will be sent to the State for the purpose of taking final decision. In case they become successful, immediate steps will be taken by the authority in accordance with law. If not, they will not be debarred from getting compensation following the same principle. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of, however, without imposing any cost.;