Hon’ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.—Since all the writ petitions raise almost common questions of facts and law, therefore they are being dealt with together and decided by common order. In all the bunch cases, writ petition No. 35509 of 2008 is taken up as leading case.

2. In writ petition No. 35509 of 2008, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :

“(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the notification dated 20.6.2007 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act published in daily newspaper namely Dainik Jagran in its issue dated 24.6.2007 and the notification dated 18.6.2008 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act published in daily newspaper namely Dainik Jagran in its issue dated 29.6.2008 in respect of gata No.74 belonging to the petitioners situated at Village Ebadullapur urf Badalpur, Pargana and Tehsil Dadari district Gautambudh Nagar;

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents authority not to dispossess the petitioners from the residential house situated upon the gata No.74 situated at Village Ebadullapur urf Badalpur, Pargana and Tehsil Dadari district Gautambudh Nagar;

(iii) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award the cost of the writ petition.”

3. The facts as enumerated in the present writ petition, referred to above, are that the petitioners are the co-tenure holders of the land in question, which is 400 meters away from the National Highway No. 91, Grant Trunk Road and further the village in which the land in question is situated is only 7 kilometers from Ghaziabad. It is further submitted that the entire land of the village is already converted into Abadi, even the circle rate fixed by the officials and further over which the petitioners have constructed their residential houses and remaining portion of the land is used as Agga Sahan. On the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (In short ‘the Act’), the petitioners along with several villagers whose land were proposed to be acquired, filed objection before the respondents authority. The respondents authority without making any enquiry, mechanically issued another notification under Section 6 of ‘the Act’ and trying to acquire the land in question in the garb of preparing green belt and green buffer or planned industrial development. It is further submitted that the petitioners are still in physical possession over the land in question.

4. The contention advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of ‘the Act’ are wholly illegal and liable to be quashed in respect of the land in question sought to be acquired on the ground that the land in question is Abadi, hence the same cannot be acquired under the provisions of law as well as the village in which the land in question is situated is beyond the notified area of the Greater Noida. Further contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that notification issued under Section 6 of ‘the Act’ shows that the provisions of Section 17(4) of ‘the Act’ are made applicable, meaning thereby the proceeding under Section 5-A of ‘the Act’ has been dispensed with and in fact there is no reason shown in the said notification for attracting Section 17(4) of ‘the Act’ which clearly shows that there is no urgency. It has been further contended that notification under Section 6 of ‘the Act’ has been issued after expiry of one year from the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of ‘the Act’, which is illegal in the eye of law.

5. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents authority, wherein it has been asserted that notification dated 20th June, 2007 issued under Section 4(1)/17 of ‘the Act’ and declaration notification issued in the official Gazette on 18th June, 2008 under Section 6 of