Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for the quashing of the award on various grounds. Since the issues to be decided are common, all the writ petitions are being decided together. For facility, the facts of Writ Petition No. 22910 of 2016 is being taken into consideration.

2. The petitioner Brahm Pal in Writ Petition No. 22910 of 2016 has filed the present writ petition questioning the validity and legality of the award dated 10th July, 2015 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), District Gautam Budh Nagar in respect of Khasra No. 1092/1356 having an area of 0.2960 hectare, Khasra No. 1149 having an area of 0.1190 hectare and Khasra No. 1187 having an area of 0.2160 in revenue village Patwari, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The petitioner has also prayed for the quashing of consequential action taken by the respondents in respect of the land in village Patwari and has also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to change the nature and possession of the land in question.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that a notification dated 12th March, 2008 was issued by the State Government under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) notifying that the land mentioned in the schedule is needed for a public purpose, namely, for a planned industrial development in Gautam Budh Nagar through Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority. The notification also indicated that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act was applicable, inasmuch as the land was urgently required for a planned industrial development and, therefore, it was necessary to eliminate the delay to be caused by an inquiry under Section 5A of the Act. The notification indicated that the provision of Section 5A of the Act would not apply and the inquiry under the said provision would be dispensed with. The State Government thereafter, proceeded to issue a declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 30th June, 2008 and, being satisfied that the case was one of urgency, directed the Collector to take possession of the land in question.

4. A large number of writ petitions were filed challenging the notifications dated 12th March, 2008 and 30th June, 2008. Writ Petition No. 45777 of 2008, Harish Chandra and others v. State of U.P. and another came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court. The writ Court by a judgment dated 25th November, 2008 dismissed the writ petition and upheld the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act holding that the land was urgently required and there was justification for acquiring the land. Another batch of writ petitions for the same village Patwari came up for consideration before another Division Bench of this Court, the leading case being Writ Petition No. 17068 of 2009, Harkaran Singh v. State of U.P. and others. These batch of writ petition were allowed by a judgment dated 19th July, 2011 and the notification dated 12th March, 2008 issued under Section 4 and the declaration dated 30th June, 2008 made under Section 6 of the Act were quashed. The Division Bench also directed that possession of the land be given back to the land owners. At this stage, it is to be noted that the petitioner Brahm Pal alongwith others had also filed Writ Petition No. 2074 of 2010 challenging the acquisition proceedings, which was clubbed with writ petition of Har Karan Singh and was allowed by the common judgment dated 19th July, 2011.

5. A third batch of writ petitions, Gajraj and others v. State of U.P. and others, namely, Writ Petition No. 37443 of 2011 and other companion writ petitions for the same village Patwari came up for consideration before a third Division Bench. This Division Bench noticed the two conflicting views expressed by two different Division Benches of this Court. This Division Bench passed an orde