By the Court.—Heard Sri N.P. Singh for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Pradeep Kumar, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 4.

2. The notifications dated 12.3.2008 and 19.11.2008 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) respectively are under challenge in this petition.

3. The State Government has acquired certain land detailed in the aforesaid notifications, copies whereof have been placed on record as Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition, for planned industrial development in District Gautambudh Nagar through Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, which included plots No. 101, 394 and 399 of the petitioners.

4. The notification dated 12.3.2008 published under Section 4 of the Act further states that the Governor being of the opinion that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act are applicable to the land in question as it is urgently required for the planned industrial development in District Gautambudh Nagar through Greater New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as GNOIDA) and it is as well necessary to eliminate the delay likely to be caused by an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and, therefore, the Governor is pleased to direct under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act that the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act shall not apply. Therefore, the provisions which permits a tenure-holder whose land is sought to be acquired to file an objection so as to pursue the authorities not to acquire his land was dispensed with. The urgency under Section 17(1) was reiterated in the notification dated 19.11.2008 published under Section 6 of the Act stating that the Governor, being satisfied that the case is one of urgency, is pleased under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act to direct that the Collector, Gautambudh Nagar, though no award under Section 11 of the Act has been made, may on the expiration of 15 days from the date of publication of the notice mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 19 take possession of the land mentioned in the Schedule of the said public purpose. It is not disputed that the petitioners plots No. 101, 394 and 399 are mentioned in both the aforesaid notification and, therefore, have been acquired by the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that exercise of power under Section 17(4) of the Act and dispensation of Section 5-A is wholly illegal inasmuch as neither there was any material before the State Government to form its opinion that the urgency exists and it is such which deserves dispensation of Section 5-A nor, in fact, there was any urgency whatsoever. He, therefore, submitted that non-affording of opportunity to file objection to the petitioners is wholly illegal inasmuch the power under Section 17(4) cannot be exercised in a mechanical manner unless there exists appropriate material justifying dispensation of Section 5-A of the Act. He submitted that the right of property is a fundamental right and the land of the tenure-holders cannot be forcibly taken by the State without giving them even a minimum opportunity of hearing, which is contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act by taking recourse to Section 17(4) of the Act unless relevant material is available with the State Government and it has applied its mind thereto. It is further contended that plot No. 394 is an abadi land since residential accommodation has been constructed by the petitioner long back, i.e., for last more than 40 years and they are living with their family therein. In accordance with Government policy, since abadi land is not to be acquired, therefore, the petitioners land in plot No. 394 cannot be acquired contrary to the said Government policy. In support of the aforesaid submissions, he placed reliance on the Apex Courts decision in Om Prakash and another v. State of U.P. and others, 1998 (6