GAJRAJ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LARGE scale acquisition of agricultural and Abadi land of farmers of different villages of Greater Noida and Noida of District Gautam Buddha Nagar in the name of planned industrial development is the subject matter of challenge in these 471 writ petitions. These writ petitions have been placed before this Full Bench under orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 6.8.2011 on a reference made by a Division Bench in writ petition No. 37443 of 2011 and other connected matters. Writ petition No. 37443 of 2011 challenges the notifications dated 12.3.2008 issued under section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act and notification dated 30.6.2008 by which declaration was made for acquisition of 589.188 hectares land of village Patwari. Similar notifications under section 4 read with Sections 17(1), 17(4) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued with regard to different villages. Several writ petitions were filed challenging the land acquisition which writ petitions came for hearing before the Division Bench on 26.7.2011.

(2.) ONE of the submissions made before the Division Bench was that the State had wrongly invoked the provisions of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act hereinafter referred to as ''Act' and the right of objection under section 5A was wrongly dispensed with hence, the entire acquisition proceedings deserved to be set aside. The petitioners placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 19.7.2011 passed in writ petition No. 17068 of 2009 Harkaran Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others in which judgment the Division Bench of this Court held that invocation of the provisions of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act was not justified and relying on the judgment of the apex Court in Radhey Shyam Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2011) 5 Supreme Court Cases 533 and judgment of the apex Court dated 6.7.2011 in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vs. Devendra Kumar reported in 2011 (6) ADJ 480 quashed the notification dated 12.3.2008 and 30.6.2008. Learned Counsel for the State refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on another Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 25.11.2008 in writ petition No. 45777 of 2008 Harish Chand and others Vs. State of U.P. and others in which judgment invocation of Section 17(1) and 17(4) was upheld and the writ petition was dismissed in which same notifications dated 12.3.2008 and 30.6.2008 were under challenge.

(3.) IN the same order dated 26.7.2011 to protect the interest of the petitioners, the Division Bench passed following order.