YASHPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Salil Kumar Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Yashwant Verma, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5, Sri Ramendra Pratap, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 as well as learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents No. 1, 2 and 4. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notifications dated 25.6.2009 (issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894) and the notification dated 9.9.2009 (under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894) in so far as they relate to plot Nos. 31-M, 164-M and 166-M situate in village Hajipur Kheda, Tehsil and Pargana Etmadpur, District Agra.

(2.) Brief facts of the case which emerged from the pleadings of the parties are; the State of U.P. established an authority namely Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority for construction of the expressway along the river Yamuna from Greater N.O.I.D.A. to Agra and development of hi-tech cities/township adjoining the aforesaid expressway. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority was earlier named as Taj Expressway Industrial Development Authority for which earlier the State Government acquired land in the year 2007. The State Government had conceived of Taj Expressway Project and subsequently renamed as Yamuna Expressway Project as a joint venture project. Proposals were invited by issuing advertisements. Advertisement provided that the expressway would pass through virgin area along the river yamuna and a band of 500 meters width of land would be offered along the corridor for commercial, amusement, industrial, institutional and residential development. The contract was awarded to J.P. Industries Ltd. in pursuance of which a concession agreement dated 7.2.2003 was executed. Through different notifications, the State Government acquired land for construction of expressway and for development (in five pockets). Reference has been made to the notification dated 31.3.2009 under section 4 and notification dated 2.6.2009 under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The notifications were challenged by bunch of writ petitions, leading writ petition being Writ Petition No. 29682 of 2009, Narendra Road Line Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others. The bunch of writ petitions were dismissed by the judgment and order dated 2.7.2010 upholding the acquisition for expressway and for land development. Special leave petition has been filed against the said judgment which is pending consideration before the Apex Court. The petitioners' plots were also acquired for construction of expressway but the petitioners did not challenge the acquisition. A notification dated 25.6.2009 was issued under section 4 declaring that land specified in the notification are needed for construction of toll plaza in Expressway Project. The State Government has also exercised its power under section 17(4) dispensing with the inquiry under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The notification under section 6 was issued on 9.9.2009. The petitioners, whose plots were included in the aforesaid notifications have come up in this writ petition challenging the acquisition.

(3.) Sri Salil Kumar Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the acquisition contended that dispensation of the inquiry under section 5A by the State Government in issuing the notification under section 4 is illegal there being no such urgency in the matter so as to dispense with the inquiry. It is contended that the State Government has not applied its mind before dispensing with the inquiry hence, the entire proceedings are liable to be set aside. It is further contended that excess land has been acquired to the extent of 20.8825 hectares for Toll plaza. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that although in the writ petition it was pleaded that land acquired through notification are not within 500 meters width and are beyond 1.5 Kms. away from the expressway but in view of the map of the toll plaza filed along with counter affidavit of respondent No.-5, it does not appear that the said ground is available to the petitioner in view of the fact that width of toll plaza is much within 500 meters. Learned Counsel sought to contend that concession agreement envisaged acquisition of two types of land one for construction of expressway that was in the band of 100 meters and other for land development in the band of 500 meters whereas the acquisition in question for toll plaza is not acquisition for land development and is beyond 100 meters. It is further submitted that under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Sate Government was required to obtain the clearance for which, it was necessary to hear the affected parties since by acquisition of land whole demography of the area shall be changed. The petitioners and other persons would become landless labourers which necessitated for holding an inquiry under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the concession agreement toll plaza could have functioned only after the expressway is substantially completed hence, there was no urgency for acquisition of land for toll plaza and further the concession period granted to the respondent No. 5 could have also been extended which suggest that there was no urgency in the matter for dispensing with the inquiry under section 5A.