- (1.) OM Prakash, J. In these writ petitions validity of a notification dated 5-1-1991 issued under Section 4 (1) and of the declaration dated 7-1-1992 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (briefly 'the Act'), (Annexures-3 and 4 to writ petition No. 9735 of 1992 respectively) by which the lands belonging to the petitioners, inter alia, are sought to be acquired, has been challenged.
(2.) SINCE the fascicle of those writ petitions relate to the aforesaid notification and declaration, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act respectively the same is decided by a common judgment. Total area sought to be acquired under this notification for the planned industrial development by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (for short the NOIDA), aggregates to 790 Bighas 16 Biswas and 9 Bigwansis, that is, 494. 26 acres. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act dated 5-1-1991 (Annexure-4 to writ petition No. 9733 of 1992) was published in the official Gazette on 2-2-1991 in two daily newspapers, namely, "dainik Hint' and Dainik 'athah' on 30-3-1991 and 24-3-1991 respectively which were shown to us at the time of hearing by the Standing Counsel but have not been filed. A public notice dated 13-2-1991 containing the substance of the said notification (Annexure-1 to model caunter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 9520 of 1992) was caused to be published in central locality (See Annexure-2 to the model counter affidavit in writ petition No. 9520 of 1992. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette dated 7-3-1992 and in two newspapers on 1-2-1992 in uzinik Jagran and Rashtriya Sahara, which too were shown to us at the time of hearing. The common plea of ail the petitioners is that the need of acquisi tion of lands covered by the impugned notification and the declaration was not so urgent as to impel the State Government to give a direction that the provisions of Section 5-A shall not apply.
(3.) UPON a conjoint reading of sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 17, it is seen that in the cases of urgency, the Government may direct that provi sions of Section 5-A shall not apply and if it does so direct, a declaration may be made under Section 6 in respect of the land at any time after the date of publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. The notification under Section 4 (1) had been issued in all these cases invoking sub-section (4) of Section 17 and thus, inquiry envisaged by Section 5-A was dispensed with. The common contention of the petitioners is that there was no urgency of acquisition of their lands and, therefore, inquiry contemplated by Section 5-A was illegally dispensed with by the State Government and hence, the notifica tion issued under Section 4 (1), read with Section 17 (4) and the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act are null and void. The question for consideration is whether the need for acquisition of the lands of the petitioners was urgent and if so, whether the State Govern ment was right in giving a direction that provisions of Section 5-A shall not apply. Such a question arises very often in the land acquisition proceedings and, therefore, there is no dearth of guideline. However, it is, no doubt, a difficult task for the courts to apply the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in several cases to the facts of a given case.;