Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Shwetashwa Agarwal, learned Counsel for petitioner, Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shivam Yadav, Advocate, for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “NOIDA”); and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

2. Petitioner, Upbhokta Sanrakshan Evam Awas Vikas Samiti, Hajipur, District Gautambudh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as “Society”) is a Society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1860”). It purchased 49 bigha land bearing Khatas No. 103, 275, 276, 280, 281, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452 and 463 vide various sale-deeds of the same date, i.e., 22.10.1981, from different farmers. Society requested NOIDA, a body constituted under U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1976”), to grant no-objection so that land purchased by petitioner may be allotted to its members. NOIDA did not act on the said request and on the contrary, on a request made by NOIDA, State Government issued Notification dated 28.11.2001 under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) proposing to acquire 205-625 acres of land in Village Hajipur, Tehsil and Pergana Dadari, District Gautambudh Nagar, which included petitioners’ land also. State Government also exercised its power under Section 17 (1) and (4) of Act, 1894 stating that there is an urgency, therefore, enquiry under Section 5A shall stand dispensed with. Thereafter, declaration under Section 6 was issued vide Notification dated 26.2.2002. Both these Notifications have been challenged on the ground that dispensation of enquiry under Section 5A is illegal, there existed no urgency and there is no material to justify the same. It is further said that land was purchased by petitioner for the purpose of allotting the same to its members for constructing residential buildings, and, that being so, there was no justification for respondents to acquire the said land for the same purpose.

3. A Bench constituting of Hon’ble P.C. Verma and Hon’ble Rajesh Chandra, J.J. disposed of this Writ Petition of vide judgment dated 10.12.2009 referring to decision in Ghaziabad Sheromani Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. and another etc. v. State of U.P. and others, 1990 (1) SCC 583 and directing respondents to allot 90 square meters of land to each member of petitioner-Society in any Housing Scheme, convenient to them, after verifying correct number of genuine members in accordance with bye-laws and regulations. This order was passed on a statement made by learned counsel for petitioner that he is waiving all the reliefs sought in the writ petition except that members of Society (210 in all) be allotted land in any other scheme of NOIDA. This judgment was taken in appeal by NOIDA, i.e. Civil Appeals No. 10119-10120 of 2011. Supreme Court vide judgment dated 25.11.2011 has set aside the aforesaid judgment observing as under:

“We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. In our view, the direction given by the High Court for allotment of 90 sq. mets. plots to all the members of respondent No. 1 is legally unsustainable. Admittedly, the State Government had acquired the land for Planned Industrial Development. The development plan prepared by NOIDA does not envisage allotment of plots for residential purposes. Therefore, the High Court was not at all justified in ordaining allotment of plots to the members of respondent No. 1.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that if this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders, liberty may be given to his client to press its challenge to the acquisition proceedings on merits. Learned counsel for the appellant says that he does not have any objection if leave is granted to respondent No. 1 to resurrect its challenge to the acquisition proceedings.

In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugne