VINEET Saran, J. - (1.) This is a bunch of writ petitions challenging the. notifications dated 24. 11. 2005 and 23. 6. 2006 issued under Sections 4 and 6 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.) WE have heard Sri R. N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri G. K. Singh; Sri U. N. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vivek Sa ran; and Sri S. K. Tyagi on behalf of the petitioners. Dr. Y. K. Srivastava has ap peared for the State and Sri Ashwani Kumar Misra for Hapur-Pilakhuwa Develop ment Authority. For the purposes of convenience, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37893 of 2006 is being treated as the leading writ petition. The undisputed facts of these cases are that for establishment of a Textile Centre Yojna (scheme) for giving encouragement to Textile industry of the coun try, a proposal was initiated by the Central Government. Sites from all over India were considered and on 15. 3. 2005 a decision was taken by the Central Govern ment to establish a Textile Centre Yojna at Pilakhuwa, which was amongst the two sites for such purpose in the entire country. Pursuant thereto an undertaking was given by the State Government on 15. 5. 2005 that the project would be com pleted by the executing body i. e. Hapur - Pilakhuwa Development Authority (here inafter referred to as the 'development Authority') within one year. After complet ing the formalities, on 3. 6. 2005 the Development Authority forwarded the proposal for acquisition of 45. 273 hectares of land. After recording the reasons for urgency in the matter and that the land was required for public purpose, the Collector came to the conclusion that urgency provisions were required to be invoked for acquisition of land and also recorded his satisfaction about dispensation of en quiry under Section 5 -Aof the Act. Such proposal was forwarded by the Collector to the State Government on 4. 8. 2005, along with the certificate that part of the acquisition cost and compensation payable, had already been deposited in his office. Considering the extreme urgency involved in completion of the scheme within a period of one year and the assurance extended to the Central Govern ment in this regard, the State Government accepted and endorsed the certificate of the Collector about the urgent public purpose involved in the acquisition of land as well as the need to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5 -Aof the Act after invoking the urgency clause. In turn, the State Government, on the basis of material available and after recording its satisfaction of the urgency that the land was required for public purpose, issued the notification dated 24. 11. 2005 under Sec tion 4 (1) read with Section 17 (4) of the Act. Thereafter efforts were made for settlement on the basis of the U. P. Land Acquisition (Determination of Compen sation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules of 1997' ). A report of such exercise was given by the Collector and the same along with approval of the Commissioner were together forwarded to the State Government, along with other relevant material. On the basis of such record, the State Government formed its opinion that the land was needed for public purpose and that urgency provisions were required to be invoked and en quiry under Section 5 -A of the Act was to be dispensed with. The State Govern ment thus issued the notification dated 23. 6. 2006 under Section 6 read with Section 17 (1) of the Act. Although large number of persons had entered into agreements under the Rules of 1997 and subjected themselves to the acquisition at the agreed rate, but a few land owners did not agree and challenged the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 read with Section 17 of the Act by filing these writ petitions. Interim order staying the dispossession of the petitioners in the leading writ petition was passed on 19. 7. 2006 and similar stay orders were passed thereafter in other petitions. The State Government, as well as the Development Authority, filed their separate counter affidavits with applications for vacating the stay orders. At this stage, since the pleadings between the parties were complete, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, all these writ petitions have been heard finally at the admission stage.
(3.) THE submissions of Sri R. N. Singh and Sri U. N. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, are three fold : Firstly, there was no ur gency to invoke the provisions of Section 17 of the Act and dispense with the enquiry under Section 5 -A of the Act. Secondly, the satisfaction of the State Government was not recorded and there was no sufficient material before the State Government for invoking such urgency clause; and thirdly, the role of the Development Authority comes only after the land was acquired and possession handed over to them and that involvement of the Development Authority during the process of acquisition vitiates the entire acquisition process. On facts it has been urged that the petitioners were either running their small scale textile units or were holding vacant land which was being used for the purposes of their textile units or some of the petitioners were having their residen tial houses and the land was Abadi land and thus the same could not have been acquired. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners who were running their textile units or using the land for the purposes of textile units, that since they were using the said land for the same purpose for which their land was being acquired, the same should not be acquired. Others who were using the land for residential purposes have contended that since the land was in Abadi area, their land should be exempted from the acquisition process.;