Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 14.2.2005 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) read with Section 17(1) and Section 17(4) published in newspaper on 19.3.2005 as well as notification dated 16.3.2006 issued under Section 6 of the Act for acquisition of plots No. 416, 427, 428, 457, 458 & 461 having an area of 0.911 hectare for construction of 80 ft. wide road.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

3. Factual matrix of the case giving rise to the dispute are as under :

4. A notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued for alleged public purpose i.e. planned development by construction of 80 ft. road, in the official gazette of the State of Uttar Pradesh dated 14.2.2005 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act invoking the urgency clause and dispensing the filing of objection under Section 5A of the Act. The substance of the said notification was published in Hindi newspaper ‘Dainik Aaj’ on 19.3.2005. Declaration under Section 6 was published in the official gazette on 16.3.2006. The substance of the said notification was published in local Hindi newspaper ‘Dainik Jagran’ on 22.3.2006.

5. The petitioners claim that they are owners in possession of the land sought to be acquired and having purchased the same, have constructed their residential house about two decades ago and are living with their family members.

6. The acquisition is sought to be challenged on several grounds including the following :

(I) That the the petitioners have already constructed dwelling house and as per the policy of the State Government, the residential structure are exempted from acquisition.

(II) That the State Government has arbitrarily invoked Section 17(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Act and deprived them from raising objection under Section 5A of the Act.

(III) That the alleged public purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired is non-existent inasmuch as by invoking Section 17(1) read with Section 17(4) dispensing of filing the objection, they have been deprived of a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to establish that there is no need of acquiring the land in dispute.

(IV) That there is already existence of 150 ft. wide road known as ‘Awas Vikash - Panki Kalyanpur Road and parallel to the said road, Kanpur Development Authority itself has constructed a 20 ft. wide road inside the colony known as ‘Canal Road’ and just after the 20 ft. road, 80 ft. road has been proposed for which acquisition is being made and thus the same is useless for the purpose

7. In support of the challenge to invoking the provisions of Section 17(1) & (4) of the Act, the petitioners have made detailed averments in the writ petition and raised specific grounds, which are extracted below :

“7. That there is no occasion to invoke the urgency clause and to apply the provisions of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The only purpose of invoking Section 17 is to deprive the valuable rights under Section 5-A of the Act and thereby escaping the obligation to consider the objections against the proposal for acquisition.

8. That the plea of urgency is belied by the fact that even though the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was on 8.3.2004 but was issued in Gazette Notification on 14.2.2005 and published in Dainik Aaj Newspaper on 19.3.2005, although the time for filing objection was only 21 days under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by U.P. Act No. XXII of 1954 and likewise notification under Section 6 was issued after about a year. Thus the aforesaid notifications are tainted with malafide and uncalled for the showing purpose of acquisition.

9. That mere existence of urg