Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—These two writ petitions have been filed challenging the notifications dated 22nd May, 2006 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) as well as declaration dated 31st May, 2006 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for acquiring the agricultural land of the petitioners situate in village Benasirpura alias Ghatampura, Tehsil Sadar, District Rampur.

2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged in Writ Petition No. 31224 of 2006 which is being treated as leading writ petition.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the writ petitions are; a notification under Section 4(1) read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act was issued proposing to acquire 3.989 hectares of land situate in village Benasirpura alias Ghatampura for public purpose, namely, sewage treatment plant in district Rampur. The notification was published in Hindi Daily “Amar Ujala” on 24th May, 2006 and also in in Urdu Daily. The declaration under Section 6 was issued on 31st May, 2006. The notice under Section 9 of the Act was issued on 3rd June, 2006 inviting objections to be filed by 17th June, 2006 regarding the land of which possession is proposed to be taken. On 14th June, 2006 notice was issued offering 80% of compensation for the land acquired and the tenure holders were asked to appear on 17th June, 2006 and receive 80% compensation. The possession of the land was taken and handed over to the acquiring body i.e. Construction Unit of U.P. Jal Nigam, Rampur on 19th June, 2006 for construction of sewage treatment plant (STP). Immediately after taking possession, the Construction Unit of Jal Nigam proceeded for construction in Zone-I and started laying sewer line in various localities of district Rampur. The petitioner filed the present writ petition in this Court in which an order was passed on 6th July, 2006 directing the parties to maintain status quo. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit were exchanged. This Court directed the State Government to produce the record of land acquisition proceeding in question. Learned Standing Counsel has produced the original record of the State Government pertaining to the land acquisition proceeding which were perused by this Court.

4. We have heard Sri K. Ajit and Sri Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned counsels for the petitioners, Sri R.K. Chaubey, learned Standing Counsel has been heard for the State and Sri Krishnaji Khare has appeared for the U.P. Jal Nigam.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners challenging the notification issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4), has contended that there was no such urgency in the matter so as to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. It is submitted that sewage treatment plant could be constructed only when sewer pipeline are laid in the entire district. The laying of sewage pipeline takes sufficiently long time, hence there was no occasion for dispensing the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act since there was no material with the State Government that the sewage pipeline in the district has been laid down. It is submitted that invoking the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act being without any material, the entire proceedings are vitiated and are liable to be struck down. It is submitted that inspite of the order of status quo passed on 6th July, 2006, the respondents proceeded with construction, hence a contempt petition was also filed. It is further submitted that hardly 1-2 kilometers sewer pipeline have been laid down and all things have come to stand still. It is submitted that construction of sewage treatment plant is not a project of such extreme urgency that inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act should be dispensed with.

6. Learned counsels for the petitioners in support of their submissions have placed reliance on judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Om Prakash and another v. State of U.P. and others, (1998)6 SCC 1, Union of India