Hon’ble Vineet Saran, J.—This is a bunch of writ petitions challenging the notifications dated 24.11.2005 and 23.6.2006 issued under Sections 4 and 6 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2. We have heard Sri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri G.K. Singh; Sri U.N. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vivek Saran; and Sri S.K.Tyagi on behalf of the petitioners. Dr. Y.K. Srivastava has appeared for the State and Sri Ashwani Kumar Misra for Hapur-Pilakhuwa Development Authority. For the purposes of convenience, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37893 of 2006 is being treated as the leading writ petition.

3. The undisputed facts of these cases are that for establishment of a Textile Centre Yojna (scheme) for giving encouragement to Textile industry of the country, a proposal was initiated by the Central Government. Sites from all over India were considered and on 15.3.2005 a decision was taken by the Central Government to establish a Textile Centre Yojna at Pilakhuwa, which was amongst the two sites for such purpose in the entire country. Pursuant thereto an undertaking was given by the State Government on 15.5.2005 that the project would be completed by the executing body i.e. Hapur-Pilakhuwa Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Development Authority’) within one year. After completing the formalities, on 3.6.2005 the Development Authority forwarded the proposal for acquisition of 45.273 hectares of land. After recording the reasons for urgency in the matter and that the land was required for public purpose, the Collector came to the conclusion that urgency provisions were required to be invoked for acquisition of land and also recorded his satisfaction about dispensation of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Such proposal was forwarded by the Collector to the State Government on 4.8.2005, along with the certificate that part of the acquisition cost and compensation payable, had already been deposited in his office. Considering the extreme urgency involved in completion of the scheme within a period of one year and the assurance extended to the Central Government in this regard, the State Government accepted and endorsed the certificate of the Collector about the urgent public purpose involved in the acquisition of land as well as the need to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act after invoking the urgency clause. In turn, the State Government, on the basis of material available and after recording its satisfaction of the urgency that the land was required for public purpose, issued the notification dated 24.11.2005 under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17 (4) of the Act. Thereafter efforts were made for settlement on the basis of the U.P. Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1997’). A report of such exercise was given by the Collector and the same along with approval of the Commissioner were together forwarded to the State Government, along with other relevant material. On the basis of such record, the State Government formed its opinion that the land was needed for public purpose and that urgency provisions were required to be invoked and enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was to be dispensed with. The State Government thus issued the notification dated 23.6.2006 under Section 6 read with Section 17(1) of the Act.

4. Although large number of persons had entered into agreements under the Rules of 1997 and subjected themselves to the acquisition at the agreed rate, but a few land owners did not agree and challenged the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 read with Section 17 of the Act by filing these writ petitions. Interim order staying the dispossession of the petitioners in the leading writ petition was passed on 19.7.2006 and similar stay orders were passed thereafter in other petitions. The State Go