- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This bunch of writ petitions have been filed raising a common grievance and for the sake of convenience, writ petition no. 55285 of 2014 (Ravindra Wadhwa and 2 Others v. State of U.P. And 3 Others) is being treated as the leading case along with writ petition nos. 67115 of 2011 (M/s Cottage Industries Exposition Private Ltd. v. State of U.P. And Others) and 11045 of 2016 (Cottage Industries Exposition Ltd. v. State of U.P. And Others).
(2.) The above noted writ petitions and all the other connected writ petitions are directed against the first notification dated 24.8.2009 and declaration dated 13.10.2010 issued under sections 4/17 and 6/17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as well as the second notification dated 14.9.2010 and declaration dated 24.5.2011 issued under Section 4/17 and 6/17 of the Act by means of which the land was acquired for a public purpose i.e. for the construction of Agra Inner Ring Road as well as for Land Parcel. It has been very strongly contended by the counsel appearing for the petitioners that Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act has been wrongly invoked and Section 5A has been wrongly dispensed with. It has further been contended that there was no material evidence on record which could support the dispensation of Section 5A of the Act and the same has been wrongly dispensed with. In this regard, the original record with regard to both the notifications have been produced before this Court and the same have been duly perused by the Court.
(3.) The first record is with regard to the notification under Section 4/17 of the Act dated 24.8.2009 with regard to 204.6120 hectare in the Inner Ring Road Project. A perusal of the first record shows that the contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that there has been no application of mind while invoking Section 17 of the Act is misconceived.;