By the Court.—We have heard Shri N.P. Singh and Shri K.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh appears for Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority.

2. The petitioners are Bhumidhars of land in revenue estate of Village Makaura, Pargana Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. By these writ petitions, they have challenged the notifications dated 12.3.2008 published in official Gazettee of Uttar Pradesh under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) with the opinion of the State Government that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act are applicable, and that the land is urgently required for the ‘Planned Industrial Development’ in District Gautam Budh Nagar through Greater Noida, and in order to eliminate the delay likely to be caused for an enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act are invoked and that the provisions of Section 5A of the Act shall not apply. The notification dated 12.3.2008, was published in daily newspapers ‘Amar Ujala’ and ‘Rashtriya Sahara’ on 18.3.2008. The notification under Section 6 read with sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act was issued on 19.11.2008, and was published in daily newspapers ‘Dainik Jagaran’ and ‘Rashtriya Sahara’ on 27.11.2008.

3. The petitioners have challenged notifications on the ground that the compulsory acquisition of the land is not for any public purpose. The plans of the alleged ‘Planned Industrial Development’ have not been notified and does not conform to the ‘Master Plan 2021’ in which the land is reserved for residential purposes. There was no urgency much less extreme urgency to dispense with provisions of Section 5-A of the Act invoking sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act to the acquisition. The entire acquisition proceedings are tainted with malafides. The notifications have been issued in abuse of the powers vested in the respondents. The mandatory provisions of law have not been followed. Section 5A of the Act instructs the decision making authority with regard to need of particular land for a public purpose and also for safeguarding the authority against any ill formed action. Ordinarily the procedural requirements under Section 5A must be followed as has been recognised by the Apex Court in the case of Nandeshwar Prasad v. Government of U.P., AIR 1964 SC 1217 upto the judgments in Union of India v. Mukesh Hans, (2004) 8 SCC 14.

4. It is stated in the writ petition and has been argued vehemently that there are extensive constructions on the abadi site owned by the petitioners. They have their houses and are using the land both for residence and for keeping their cattle and agricultural produce. The acquisition of land is confiscatory and leave the petitioners home less to accommodate others violating Articles 14, 19 and 300A of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have relied upon judgments in Om Prakash and another v. State of U.P. and others, (1998) 6 SCC 1; Union of India and others v. Mukesh Hans, (2004) 8 SCC 14; Union of India and others v. Krishan Lal Arneja and others, (2004) 8 SCC 453; Essco Fabs Private Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, (2008) XII AD (SC) 481, Mahendra Pal and others v. State of Haryana, 2009 (4) AWC 3464, and the latest decisions in Babu Ram and another v. State of Haryana and another, (2009) XI AD (SC) 37 delivered by the Supreme Court on 7.10.2009. It is submitted that in Om Prakash (supra) the land was acquired for ‘Planned Development of City or Town’. It was held that ground of possibility of encroachment with the area is not a good ground to dispense with the enquiry and that where there are extensive constructions and residential houses, the powers under Section 48 of the Act may be invoked for withdrawing from acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken. In Krishan Lal Arneja and Mukesh Hans (supra) t