ARUN TANDON, REKHA DIKSHIT,JJ. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the notification dated 26.02.2009 issued under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 17 (1) of the same Act as well as notification dated 19.02.2010 issued under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 17 (4) of the same Act.
(2.) The petitioners are the recorded tenure holders of the land which is subject matter of notifications under challenge in the present writ petition. The basic ground for challenge of the aforesaid land acquisition notification in the present writ petition is that in the facts of the case, invocation of the urgency clause with the help of sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act and thereby dispensing with the opportunity of hearing to the recorded tenure holders before acquisition as contemplated by Section 5 is wrong.
(3.) It has been stated that from a simple reading of the notifications under Section 4 and Section 6, it is clear that the land in question was proposed to be acquired for planned development of the area by Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority. According to the petitioner, there was no material with the State Government for invoking the urgency clause and further that the controversy with regard to invocation of the urgency clause in the matter of acquisition of land for planned development by the development authorities has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of 'Radhey Shyam v. State of UP' 2011 (5) SCC 553 . Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that in the facts of the case, the acquisition notifications are liable to be quashed. Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Suresh Singh and Sri Krishna Aggarwal on behalf of the Development Authority contended before us that the land was required for the planned development of the area to be undertaken by the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority. The records reflect that the urgency clause was invoked as delay in the acquisition would have resulted in unauthorized occupation/encroachment of the land holdings. It is further contended that nearly 1500 farmers were to be displaced because of the acquisition and hearing of such large number of farmers would have delayed the project. Therefore, invocation of the urgency clause with the help of Section 17 cannot be faulted with.;