D.P. Mohapatra, J. - (1.) IN this bunch of writ petitions challenge has been raised against the notifications dated 27.7.1995, 18.4.1996 and 13.6.1996 (Annexures VIII, IX and XI) issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act) on several grounds.
(2.) THE main grounds of challenge are that it was not open to the State Government to issue notifications under Sections 4 and 6 simultaneously and that there was no basis for issue of notification under Section 17(1) of the Act since there was sufficient time lag between the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, that possession of the land could not be taken over before payment of compensation to the owner etc. All these questions were considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23997 of 1996 A.P. Sareen and Ors. v. State of U.P., through the Secretary Incharge Greater Noida, Ghaziabad and Ors. decided on 9.12.1996. This Court dismissed the writ petition relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Jan Kalyan Samiti, Sheopuri, Ghaziabad and Ors. : JT 1996 (1) SC 568. The said judgment was challenged by the Petitioners before the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 168 of 1997 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24685 of 1996, decided on 16th January, 1997. The Supreme Court construing the provisions of Sections 4(1), 17(1), 5A and 17(4) of the Act and after noticing the decisions of the Court in two cases viz., Ghaziabad Development Authority (supra) and Mohan Singh and Ors. etc. v. International Airport Authority of India and Ors., JT 1996 (10) SC 311, disposed of the appeal declining to interfere with the notification issued under Section 4(1) and the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act. However, the Court directed the Respondents not to destroy the standing crops and permitted the Appellants to cut and harvest the standing crops within four weeks.
(3.) ON perusing the writ petitions and the counter -affidavit filed in the present bunch of cases, we find that most of the points of challenging stated in the writ petitions are covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in A. P. Sareen's case (supra).;