By the Court.—Heard Sri M.D. Singh “Shekhar”, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri R.D. Tiwari, learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioners, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned Advocate on behalf of respondent-New Okhala Industrial Development Authority and Smt. Subhash Rathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the State-responses.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by 12 petitioners challenging the notification issued under Section 4 of the U.P. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1894”) dated 13th June, 2008 as well as the notification issued under Section 6 of Act, 1894 dated 26th March, 2009.

3. During the pendency of the present writ petition, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have expired. Their legal heirs have been substituted under the order of the Court dated 15th October, 2015.

Facts relevant for deciding the present writ petition are as follows:

Plot No. 579, village Chhalera Banger (Sector-39 NOIDA), Tehsil Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar is subject-matter of dispute in the preset writ petition.

4. Petitioners, before this Court claim to be the recorded tenure holders of the said plot. Area of 13090 square meters of the said plot No. 579 is subject-matter of acquisition proceedings under the aforesaid notifications.

5. According to the petitioners, the same land was earlier subject-matter of acquisition proceedings in the year 1988. The purpose for acquisition as disclosed was for construction of approach link road to Okhla Bairaj. These acquisition proceedings had to be dropped for non-deposit of the money by the authority for which land was proposed to be acquired.

6. A proposal in respect of the acquisition of the same land was submitted by the New Okhala Industrial Development Authority (for short “NOIDA”) on 29th September, 2006. Survey was done in the respect of the land in question and ultimately after more than one and half years to be precise on 13th June, 2008 notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 after invoking the powers in exercise of powers under Section 17 of Act, 1894 was published, which was followed by notification under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act, 1894 dated 26th March, 2009.

7. According to the petitioners there was no justification for exempting the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act, 1894 in the facts of the case for two reasons:

(a) same land was proposed to be acquired for construction of a road in the year 1988 and for nearly 18 years no attempt was made by the State Government to acquire the land afresh and the proceedings were dropped with reference to the notification of 1988 and

(b) proposal in respect of acquisition in question was submitted in the month of September, 2006. It took nearly one year and nine months for the State Government o came out with notification under Section 4 of Act, 1894 and thereafter ti took another nine months time to issue notification under Section 6. The purpose disclosed for the acquisition of the land under notifications is planned development of the area sought to be acquired through NOIDA.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the facts as noticed above, clearly demonstrate that there was absolutely no urgency for the acquisition of the land, and therefore, invocation of the power under Section 17 of Act, 1894 was totally uncalled for.

Learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for the NOIDA in reply to the said contention raised on behalf of the petitioners point out that after the acquisition in the year 1988 the road had been constructed but the completion thereof had to be dropped because of acquisition proceedings could not be completed. It is then stated that time taken between the notification issued under Section 4 of Act, 1894 and the notification issued under Section 6 of Act, 1894 is admittedly 9 months and there was an urgency in the matter of providing a bye-pass from NOIDA t