By the Court.—This bunch of 7 writ petitions has been filed for quashing the notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 17(1) of the Act dated 13.5.2010 and that issued under Section 6 read with Section 17(4) dated 28.7.2010 with a further prayer to restrain the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the plots mentioned in the prayer clause

2. The facts in short relevant for deciding the present writ petitions are as under:

The petitioners in all these writ petitions claim themselves to be the recorded tenure holders of the plots as have been detailed in the body of the petitions situated in village Mirzapur, Pargana Dankaur, Tehsil Sadar, District Gautam Budh Nagar. Some of the petitions are stated to have raised constructions over the land in question.

3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring the land dated 13.5.2010 followed by notification under Section 6 of the same Act dated 28.7.2010. It is the common case of the petitioners that the State Government decided to invoke the powers under Section 17(1) and 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act for dispensing with the opportunity of hearing as contemplated by Section 5 of the Act, while issuing the aforesaid notifications.

4. This exercise of powers under Section 17 by the State Government for dispensing with the opportunity of hearing is alleged to be bad on the ground that under the notifications issued under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Act, the purpose for acquisition was disclosed as planned development of the area by Yamuna Express Way Industrial Development Authority.

5. According to the petitioners the controversy with regard to the invoking of the provisions under Section 17(1) and Section 17(4) for dispensing with the enquiry where land is proposed to be acquired for planned development, has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam v. State of UP and others, (2011) 5 SCC 553, wherein it has been held that in the matter of planned land development of the area invocation of urgency clause cannot be justified.

6. Sri Ravindra Singh on behalf of the development authority and Smt. Suman Rathi on behalf of the State contended before us that the land was gradually being acquired by the State Government on proposals submitted by the development authority for planned development including the construction of residential colonies. In the facts of the case, it cannot be said that there was no urgency so as to invoke the provisions of Section 17 of the land acquisition Act. It is submitted that the development authority has made huge investment for the development of the area running into hundreds of lakhs and that in case the notification are set aside by this Court public money would go waste.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the records of the present writ petitions as well as the original records of the State Government produce by learned standing counsel under the order issued by us dated 19.12.2016.

8. From the records we find that the proposal for acquiring the land of village Mirzapur Pargana Dankaur was submitted by the development authority vide letter dated 26.12.2009. The State Government responded to the same vide letter dated 7.1.2010 requiring the development authority to examine the issues as have been provided for under the circular of the directorate dated 7.12.2004. A reply to the said direction of the State Government less submitted by the development authority on 15.2.2010 and thereafter on 5.3.2010, a letter was forwarded by the development authority certifying the deposit of 10% of the compensation with the Government for the purpose of acquisition. This letter dated 5.3.2010 accompanied a letter of the District Magistrate wherein it was recorded that he was satisfied with the requirement of dispensation of opportunity of hearing and exerci