RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ravi Kant, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri M.C. Tripathi, Additional Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. Shri Navin Sinha, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh appears for Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA).

(2.) THE petitioners are recorded tenure holders of Plot No.230 area.4.9333 hects. of revenue village Birandi Chakresenpur, Pargana Dadri, Tehsil Sadar, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar. They have also constructed houses on the land used as abadi. By this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the validity of the acquisition of their land, by a proposal under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17 (1) dated 19th November, 2008 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act). The notification records the opinion of the Governor of U.P. that the provisions of Section 17 (1) are applicable to the land as land is required for planned industrial development by GNIDA and since the land is urgently required and it is necessary for urgent acquisition of land to dispense with the provisions of Section 5A of the Act, a direction is issued that under the provisions of Section 17 (4) the provisions of Section 5A of the Act, will not be applicable. The notification included plot no.404 area 4.8435 hects. in the same village, for a total area of 9.7768 hects.

(3.) THE petitioners have challenged the acquisition of their land on the ground that the notification under Section 4 was issued without application of mind, as there was no urgency in the acquisition of land. The planned industrial development is not of such nature, for which provisions of Section 17 (1) and (4) of the Act could be invoked dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. In paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 19 of the writ petition, it is stated by the petitioner as follows: -