The main legal point established in the judgment is that land for planned industrial development serves a public purpose, and the court should not interfere in administrative matters related to exemption from acquisition proceedings.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition and Writ Petition Nos. 29029, 29033 and 29152 of 2003, are being disposed off by a common judgment.

( 2 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel, and Shri Vinod Misra for noida.

( 3 ) ON 30. 3. 2002, a notification Under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17 (1) of the Land acquisition Act was issued proposing to acquire 779. 55 Acres of land in Village Sadarpur, tahsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar (NOIDA) for the benefit of New Okhla Industrial development Area (hereinafter referred to as the NOIDA ). True copy of the notification is annexure 1. The petitioners have alleged that they have their abadi in that area. It is alleged in para 6 that although one year has passed no notification has been issued Under Section 6 and this shows that there was no urgency. It is also submitted that the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad has issued a letter dated 29. 12. 81 to the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA requesting him not to acquire abadi plots as desired in the order the dated 29. 8. 78. True copy of the said letter dated 29. 12. 81 is Annexure-3. In Para 18 it is stated that the petitioners have their constructions over the land in dispute. It is alleged in Para 19 of the petition that a policy decision has been taken not to acquire the abadi land vide Anncxure-4, and some plots have been exempted vide paragraphs 19 to 21 of the writ petition. Hence, this writ petition.

( 4 ) IN our opinion, there is no merit in this petition. From a perusal of the notification Under section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act (Annexure 2 to the petition), it is evident that the land is needed for a public purpose, viz. , for planned industrial development in District Gautam Budh nagar through NOIDA. In our opinion, this need is clearly for a public purpose, as held by this court in Kunwar Lala v. State of U. P. , (1989) 1 UPLBEC 772, wherein it was held that setting up of industries is clearly in the national interest. In Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor, Delhi, AIR 1974 sc 2077, planned development of Delhi was held to be for a public purpose.

( 5 ) AS regards the question of urgency it was held by a Division Bench of this Court in Ram narain Rai v. UP. , 1991 (1) AWC 340, (Per G. P, Mathur, J.) that the question of urgency is matter for the subjective satisfaction of the Appropriate Government, and it is not open to the court to examine the propriety or correctness of the satisfaction on an objective considerations of facts.

( 6 ) AS regards the submission that the land is abadi and hence cannot be acquired, it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Manvir Singh v. State of UP. , 2003 (1) AWC 116, that abadi land can also be acquired. The definition of land in Section 3 (a) of the Land Acquisition act is a deeming provision. By a legal fiction even buildings and trees standing on the land are deemed to be land. Abadi land is merely land in rural areas set apart for residential and other non-agricultural purpose. There is nothing in the Land Acquisition Act which says that abadi land cannot be acquired. The same view was also taken in another Division Bench of this Court in Horam Singh v. State of U. P. , in Writ Petition No. 24670 of 2003, decided on 2. 7. 2003.

( 7 ) IN Kashi Nath v. State of U. P. , 1993 ALT 154, a Division Bench of this Court following the supreme Court decision in Bai Malimabu v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1978 SC 515, held that the word land in Section 3 (a) includes the superstructures on the land. In Damodar Das v. State, air 1939 Alld. 104, a Division Bench of this Court held that the word land includes a bungalow. Thus, we are of the firm view that abadi land can be acquired and so can land on which there are structures. Of course, compensation must be paid for there structures, but that cannot mean that the land cannot be acquired.

( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that a policy decision has been taken to exempt abadi land. In this con