MAHAVIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Shri N.P. Singh and Shri K.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh appears for Greater Noida Industrial DevelopmentAuthority.

(2.) The petitioners are Bhumidhars of land in revenue estate of Village Makaura, Pargana Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. By these writ petitions, they have challenged the notifications dated 12.3.2008 published in official Gazettee of Uttar Pradesh under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') with the opinion of the State Government that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act are applicable, and that the land is urgently required for the 'Planned Industrial Development' in District Gautam Budh Nagar through Greater Noida, and in order to eliminate the delay likely to be caused for an enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act are invoked and that the provisions of Section 5A of the Act shall not apply. The notification dated 12.3.2008, was published in daily newspapers 'Amar Ujala' and 'Rashtriya Sahara" on 18.3.2008. The notification under Section 6 read with sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act was issued on 19.11.2008, and was published in daily newspapers 'Dainik Jagaran' and 'Rashtriya Sahara' on 27.11.2008.

(3.) The petitioners have challenged notifications on the ground that the compulsory acquisition of the land is not for any public purpose. The plans of the alleged 'Planned Industrial Development' have not been notified and does not conform to the 'Master Plan 2021' in which the land is reserved for residential purposes. There was no urgency much less extreme urgency to dispense with provisions of Section 5-A of the Act invoking sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act to the acquisition. The entire acquisition proceedings are tainted with malafides. The notifications have been issued in abuse of the powers vested in the respondents. The mandatory provisions of law have not been followed. Section 5A of the Act instructs the decision making authority with regard to need of particular land for a public purpose and also for safeguarding the authority against any ill formed action. Ordinarily the procedural requirements under Section 5A must be followed as has been recognised by the Apex Court in the case of Nandeshwar Prasad v. Government of U.P., AIR 1964 SC 1217 upto the judgments in Unionof India v. Mukesh Hans, (2004) 8 SCC 14.