B.S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) IN all these writ petitions land acquisition proceedings, initiated under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act), have been challenged on various grounds. As all the petitions raises same questions of facts and have been heard together, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are that Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Official Gazette dated 13.7.2006 for Planned Development of land measuring 67.829 hectares in revenue estate of Surakhbanga, Pargana Vrindavan, District Mathura. The urgency powers under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) were invoked. Inquiry envisaged under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 26.7.2007, and substance there of was published in the local newspapers; subsequently, on 28.7.2007, in respect of the entire land notified under Section 4 of the Act, i.e., 67.829 hectares. Hence these petitions. We have heard S/Shri R. N. Singh, Gaurav Banerji, S. M. A. Kazmi, learned Senior Counsel with S/Shri Anurag Khann, M. K. Gupta, C. B. Yadav, Smt. Manju R. Chauhan, Mukhatar Alam, Punit Kumar Gupta, for the petitioners, Shri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sunita Agrawal for the Development Authority, and S/Shri P. S. Chauhan and Ramesh Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State.
(3.) IT has been canvassed on behalf of the petitioners that the land has been notified for establishing a residential colony by the Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority (hereinafter called the Development Authority) which is not a public purpose. The land use of most of the lands under Notification and Declaration has been shown as reserved for Maths and Ashrams in the existing Master Plan, as prepared by the Development Authority, and duly approved and notified by the State Government. Therefore, acquisition for some other purpose is not permissible. There was no material before the State Government to show that it was a case of grave urgency and limited right of persons interested to file objections under Section 5-A be dispenses with, particularly, when the Declaration under Section 6 has been made on the last date of limitation prescribed under the Act; Section 4 Notification had been issued after having correspondence and deliberations for about 2-3 years, and thus, there has been pre-notification and post-notification delay on the part of the State Government. Dispensation of the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is a colourable exercise of power just to cover the lethargic attitude/inaction of the State Government. There is nothing on record to show that the Government had ever passed an order applying its mind and recording a finding that there was a grave urgency, and thus, inquiry under Section 5-A be dispensed with. Thus, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. In one of the writ petitions (Writ Petition No. 40330 of 2007) additional grounds had been raised that all the petitioners therein are Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. There are Government Notifications exempting their land from acquisition and even their applications for releasing their land under Section 48 of the Act had been rejected. Thus, proceedings are liable to be quashed.;