- (1.)HEARD Shri Anurag Pathak learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Alok Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Rajesh Tripathi, appearing for the respondent No. 4.
(2.)LEARNED Standing Counsel has produced the original records of the State Government in pursuance of earlier orders passed in this case.
By this writ petition, petitioners have prayed for quashing the notifications dated 29.6.2007, issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17 (1) and 17(4) and the notification dated 22.7.2008, issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the "Act, 1894"). The affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.

The brief facts of the case as emerge from the records are: A request was submitted by the officers of the respondent No. 4 to the Collector, Agra for acquisition of 1.389 hectare of agricultural land in Village Poiya for construction of 132 KV Sub Station, Dayalbagh. Zila Bhoomi Upyog Samiti held its meeting on 4.10.2006, and approved the proposal of acquisition looking into the importance of establishment of 132 K.V. Sub Station, Dayalbagh. On 14.11.2006, amount of 10 % of the proposed compensation was deposited by the respondent No. 4. The proposal was forwarded to the State Government by the Collector for acquisition of Plot Nos. 1329 area 0.698 hectare and 1339, area 0.691 hectare along with all necessary reports and certificates. A letter dated 28.6.2007, was faxed by the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Agra to the Secretary Energy that in Taj Trepazium area, rostering of electricity is being done, hence immediate steps be taken for construction of 132 K.V. Sub Station, Dayalbagh by issuing notification under Section 4(1)/17. A notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894, was issued on 29.6.2007, which was published in the extraordinary U.P. Gazettee on 29.6.2007, for acquisition of above mentioned 2 plots in Village Poiya being Plot Nos. 1329, area 0.698 and 1339 area 0.691 total area 1.389 hectare for public purpose namely: "For construction of 132 K.V. Sub-station Dayal Bagh, Pilipokhar Mauja - Poiya, District, Agra". The substance of the notification was published in the news paper "Amar Ujala' and "Dainik Jagaran' on 12.8.2007, and publication by munadi was made on 29.9.2007.70% of the total compensation namely: 1,00,85,599/- was deposited on 29.1.2008, towards compensation. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894, was published on 22.7.2008, and amount of Rs. 28,81,600/- was again deposited by the respondent No. 4 towards compensation on 9.9.2008. Notice under Section 9 of the Act, 1894, was issued on 10.10.2008, to the tenure holders which was served on the petitioners on 24.10.2008, which was also replied by the petitioners vide letter dated 31.10.2008. The notification under Section 6 of the Act, was also announced in the prominent places of the village on 1.10.2008. This writ petition was filed by the petitioners on 20.11.2008, challenging the aforesaid notifications, however, no interim order was passed in the writ petition. The petitioner No. 1 is a co-sharer of plot No. 1339 of Khata No. 471, to the extent of 1/3 share and petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are co-sharer of plot No. 1329 of Khata No.00789.

(3.)THE Division Bench of this Court, while hearing the writ petition on 2.7.2010, directed the learned Standing Counsel to produce the original records.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, challenging the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 submitted that there was no such urgency in the matter which required dispensation of inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. It is submitted that the notification issued under Section 4 was published on 29.6.2007, substance of which was published in the newspaper on 12.8.2007, and thereafter about one year period was taken in issuing declaration under Section 6 on 22.7.2008, which clearly proves that it was not a case of such urgency that inquiry under Section 5- A of the Act, was to be dispensed with. It is submitted that after issuance of notification under Section 6, the possession was taken by the Corporation in July, 2009, and thereafter construction could be started in another period of one year. It is submitted that the post notification delay clearly indicates that it was not a case of such urgency which required dispensation of inquiry under Section 5-A. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Om Prakash and another v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1998 SC 2504, Essco Fabs Pvt Ltd and another v. State of Haryana and another, 2009 (2) SCC 377 and Mahender Pal and others V. State of Haryana and others, 2009 (107) RD 784.