JUDGMENT

SABYASACH1 MUKHARJI, J. :— These appeals by special leave arise from the decision of the High Court of Allahabad. These involve common question. It would however. be appropriate to deal with the facts of Civil Appeal No. 1845 of 1986 which is an appeal from the decision of the High Court of Allahabad in writ petitions Nos. 8145 and 8146 of 1985 decided on 20th November, 1985 (reported in AIR 1987 All 113). The other two Civil Appeals deal with identical questions. In order to appreciate the controversy involved it would be necessary to refer to certain facts of the case.

2. Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act was enacted by the U.P. Legislature in 1973. On or about 1lth of September, 1974, Lucknow had been declared to be a development area by a notification. On or about 24th of September, 1984 Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 was made effective subsequent to the 24th of September, 1984. On the 8th of December, 1984 a Notification under Section 4(1) and a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to asthe Act) in respect of Ujariyaon Housing Scheme (Gomti Nagar) Phase-11 was published. On the 28th December, 1984 Notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act in respect of L D. A. Office/ Nagar Maha Palika Office and other offices on B. N. Road was published. On the 2nd January, 1985 Notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act in respect of Dalibagh Housing Scheme was published. On the 4th of February, 1985 Notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act in respect of Extension of Kursi Road upto Mahanagar through Vishnupuri was published. On 2lst February, 1986 Notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act in respect of Ujariyaon Housing Scheme (Gomti Nagar), Phase-111 was published. In respect of the several of these matters on diverse dates several writ petitions had been moved and orders were passed by the High Court staying taking over of possession of the diverse lands, if not already taken over, in case notifications under section 4(1) and section 6 of the Act have been passed simultaneously.

3. As mentioned hereinbefore, we are concerned in these appeals with the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad dated 20th Novernber, 1985 in Writ, Petitions Nos. 8145 and 8146 of 1985 (reported in AIR 1987 All 113). The petitioners before the High Court and the respondents herein are owners of plots situated in village Sonera, Telisil Richha, District Nainital. Their land was being acquired under the provisions of the Act. A Notification under the said Act was issued on 6th of May, 1985 declaring that the land in question including the respondents land was needed for a public purpose, namely, for construction of market yard for the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Richha, The Notification further contained a declaration that since there was urgency for the acquisition, the provisions of Section 17(1-A) and Section 17(4) of the Act shall apply and the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act shall not apply. On the same day, that is to say, on 6th of May, 1985 another Notification was issued by the State Government under Section 6 of the Act making declaration that the land in dispute was required for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of market yard for the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Richha. That Notification also contained a direction as contemplated by Section 17(1) and (I-A) of the Act authorising the Collector to take possession of the land even before the declaration of the award under Section 11 of the Act. Both the aforesaid notifications were published on the same day, namely, the 22nd of May, 1985. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed two Writ Petitions. challenging the validity of the said notifications.

4. It was urged on behalf of the respondents before the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad that in view of the