Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri H.R. Mishra, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Amit Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent-1 and Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for Varanasi Development Authority.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging notification dated 10th July 1992 issued under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1894’) proposing to acquire a total 147.734 acres of land for planned development at the instance of Varanasi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘V.D.A.’) for constructing residential colony at Village Lalpur, Pargana Shivpur, Tehsil and District Varanasi.

3. The State Government also invoked provisions under Section 17(1) and (4) of Act, 1894 and stated that land is required urgently, hence to eliminate delay likely to be caused by an inquiry under Section 5-A, Governor directs that Section 5-A shall not apply.

4. Petitioners have further challenged subsequent declaration made vide notification dated 8th July 1993 published in the Gazette extraordinary of same date under Section 6(1) of Act, 1894, wherein total land sought to be acquired mentioned is 145.5665 acres.

5. Initially, 24 petitioners joined in writ petition and petitioners-25 to 38 have been impleaded subsequently but in the writ petition detailed facts of only petitioners-1 to 24 have been mentioned in paras 3 and 4 stating that they purchased disputed land vide sale-deeds executed between 1985 to 1992. The land was owned by M/s Shiv Shankar Sahkari Awas Samiti. In small plots land was purchased by petitioners 1 to 24 from said Samiti. Petitioners, belong to middle income group, have invested their life time earning in purchasing plots for raising construction of residential houses. Some petitioners raised constructions also, whereupon V.D.A. issued notices under Section 27 alleging that constructions are unauthorised and those notices were challenged in appeal before Commissioner, which were pending when impugned notifications were issued.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners has challenged aforesaid acquisition notifications, in so far as inquiry under Section 5-A has been dispensed with, contending that there was no actual urgency. No material existed to show that requirement was urgent. One year time was taken by State in issuing declaration under Section 6 after publication of notification under Section 4. Even otherwise there is no application of mind on the part of State on this aspect that there was no urgency whatsoever, hence inquiry under Section 5-A could not have been dispensed with in exercise of powers under Section 17(1) and (4). Making Section 5-A inapplicable to the acquisition proceedings in question is patently illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. Reliance has been placed on law laid down in Radhy Shyam (Dead) through Lrs. and others v. State of U.P. and others, (2011) 5 SCC 553 and a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Gajraj and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2011(11) ADJ 1.

7. On behalf of respondents-2 and 3, a counter-affidavit has been filed sworn by Swami Nath Pathak, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Varanasi. It is said that V.D.A. resolved to construct residential colony namely, Lalpur Housing Scheme Phase-I and on a proposal made by it, Collector recommended acquisition of land at village Lalpur. District Magistrate as well as State Government after preliminary inquiry were satisfied with requirement of V.D.A. Notification dated 10th July 1992 was published in daily newspapers ‘Janwarta’ and ‘Bharatdoot’ on 9.11.1992. It was also given vide publicity locally by beat of drum. Thereafter a corrigendum was published on 28.1.1993, which was also published in newspapers. Declaration under Section 6 was published on 8.7.1993 in daily newspapers ‘Sanmarg’ and ‘Baharatdoot’ on 5.9.1993 and 10.9.1993. V.D.A. had deposited about 73 lacs. towards