V. K. Khanna, J. - (1.) THESE are three batches of Writ Petitions raising common questions of law as to the validity of acquisition of lands by Moradabad Development Authority for construction of residential houses for the house less residents of Moradabad.
(2.) THE lands in question are scattered in three different villages. THE lands concerned in the first batch of Writ Petitions (Writ Petitions No. 14719/84 etc.) are located in village Mukarrabpur Mustehkam. THE lands concerned in the second batch of writ petitions (Writ petition Nos. 15373/83 etc.) are situated in village Bhainsia. THE lands in the third batch of writ petition (Writ petition No. 11453/85 etc.) are situated in village Sonakhur. All are adjacent villages in the Moradabad. The notification issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (called shortly as the Act) in respect of these lands are of different dates. The dates may not be relevant, but what is important to note is that the provisions of section 17 of the Act have been invoked. The enquiry contemplated under section 5-A of the Act has been dispensed with. It has been stated that the acquisition of lands was urgently necessary for the purpose of construction of residential houses. In the village Mukarrabpur Mustehkam, the total extent of land acquired was 22.45 acres the possession of which was said to have been taken on September 22, 1984. In the village Bhainsia a large extent of 72.81 acres has been acquired. It is said that the possession of that land was taken on November 24, 1982, still a large extent of land measuring about 96 acres has been acquired in the village Sonakhur, the possession of which was also said to have been taken. The owners of all those lands have not challenged the acquisition. Only some of them have preferred the writ petition.
(3.) IN these cases, leading arguments were addressed by Sri V.D.Singh counsel in writ petition No. 14719 of 1984 and Shri Sunil Gupta counsel in some other cases. The contentions of both the counsels ultimately had only one point, that is, as to the validity of dispensing with the compliance of section 5-A of the Act. It was rested on a two-fold submission (i) that there was no urgency justifying the elimination of enquiry prescribed under section 5-A of the Act ; (ii) that it would be for the State to satisfy the court with acceptable material that there was such an urgency even to eliminate the enquiry under section 5-A of the Act and there is a lack of evidence in regard to this aspect. The counsel also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 183 in support of the contentions. Sri Rishi Ram, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has placed reliance on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pista Devi, 1986 AWC 1027 = AIR 1986 SC 2025. He urged that since the lands have been acquired for providing housing accommodation which is a dire need of the people, the dispensing with the enquiry contemplated under section 5-A of the Act cannot be doubted or denied. He also urged that the Government on the material on record was justified in dispensing with the compliance of section 5-A. He went a step further and said that this court should take judicial notice of the population explosion and the acute shortage of housing accommodation in Urban areas in U. P. State.;