M.KATJU, J. - (1.) THIS bunch of writ petitions listed today is being disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is challenging the impugned notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, a copy of which is Annexure -1 to the writ petition. That notification states that the land in question is being acquired for Planned Industrial Development for Greater NOIDA.
(3.) IN a series of the decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court it has been held that acquisition for planned industrial development is for a public purpose vide Ajay Krishna Singhal and Ors. v. Union of India, (1996) 10 SCC 721. In the notification it is mentioned that as there is urgency, hence Section 5A is being dispensed with. In view of this recital this Court cannot interfere vide Bal Krishan Gulati v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1991 AWC 1210 ; Garg Farms and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1989 AWC 1137. In Kunwar Lal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1989 (1) UPLBEC 772 and in Ram Narain Rai v. State of U.P., 1991 AWC 341, it has been held that dispensation of inquiry under Section 5A depends on the subjective satisfaction of the State Government and hence the Court cannot interfere. It has also been held therein that where the declaration has been made by the State Government under Section 6(3) that a particular land is needed for a public purpose, the said declaration shall be conclusive evidence of the fact that it is so needed.;