HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Reserved on 24.01.2019 Delivered on 19.07.2019 Court No. - 34 1. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 428[SECTION] of 2010 Petitioner :- [ENTITY] Respondent :- [ENTITY] And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- [ENTITY] [ENTITY],[ENTITY],[ENTITY], [ENTITY],[ENTITY],[ENTITY] Counsel for Respondent :- [ENTITY].[ENTITY], [ENTITY],[ENTITY] 2. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23947 of 2010 Petitioner :- [ENTITY] And Ors. Respondent :- [ENTITY] And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Ms. [ENTITY], [ENTITY],[ENTITY] 3. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31592 of 2010 Petitioner :- Smt. [ENTITY] Respondent :- [ENTITY] And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Ms. [ENTITY], [ENTITY],[ENTITY] 4. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31597 of 2010 Petitioner :- Smt. [ENTITY] And Others Respondent :- [ENTITY] And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- [ENTITY], [ENTITY] Counsel for Respondent :- [ENTITY]. [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] 5. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41232 of 2010 Petitioner :- Smt. [ENTITY] And Others Respondent :- [ENTITY] And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- [ENTITY],[ENTITY], [ENTITY] Counsel for Respondent :- [ENTITY]. [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] [SECTION]. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 51[SECTION]4[SECTION] of 2010 Petitioner :- [ENTITY] Respondent :- [ENTITY] And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- [ENTITY], [ENTITY] Counsel for Respondent :- [ENTITY]. [ENTITY], [ENTITY],[ENTITY] 7. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 744[SECTION]3 of 2010 Petitioner :- [ENTITY] Respondent :- [ENTITY] And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- [ENTITY], [ENTITY] Counsel for Respondent :- [ENTITY]. [ENTITY], [ENTITY],[ENTITY] Hon'ble [ENTITY],J.
Hon'ble [ENTITY]-IV,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble [ENTITY],J.)
1. Writ Petition No.428[SECTION] of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "First Petition") under Article 22[SECTION] of [ACT] of India has been filed by five petitioners namely [ENTITY], Smt. [ENTITY], Smt. [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] praying for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing notifications dated 23.7.2009 issued under [SECTION] of [ACT], [SECTION] (hereinafter referred to as "Act, [SECTION]"), and, dated 24.12.2009 issued under [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION] in respect of Arazi No.103M area 0.2904 Hectares, situated in Village Barhpura, [ENTITY] and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar; another sets of notifications issued under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION] on the same date i.e. 23.7.2009 and 24.12.2009 respectively but therein different numbers of Gatas in respect of Khasra No.774, area 0.2020 Hectares, situated in Village Dadri, [ENTITY] and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. A further writ of mandamus has been prayed commanding respondents not to interfere in peaceful possession of petitioners over land in dispute and not to demolish construction raised over the said land.
2. The facts in brief giving rise to First Petition are that Khasra No.103, situated in village Barhpura and Khasra No.774, situated in Village Dadri are border plots, in a situation where both constitute a large single plot and the same were in possession and ownership of Smt. [ENTITY], grand mother of petitioners. Smt. [ENTITY] was also recorded as owner of said plot in Revenue records. Smt. [ENTITY] executed a Will dated 15.10.2008 in favour of petitioners and after her death, land in question was succeeded by petitioners and their names were mutated in Revenue record in respect of Khasra no.774 area 0.5190 hects., Village Dadri and Khasra No.103 area 0.3[SECTION][SECTION]7 hects. situated in village Barhpura. Order of mutation was passed by [ENTITY] on 19.8.2009 and entries were made in Revenue record on 28.10.2009/0[SECTION].10.2009. There existed petitioner's commercial establishment on disputed land namely M/s Baba Auto Mobiles, which is a dealership of Sonalika Tractors. It comprises of a showroom, workshop, service hall and other constructions. A Farm House namely Suraj Farm House and a Rice Mill named Baba Rice Mills are also existing on the said land.
3. A public notice was issued by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "[ENTITY]") notifying various land including disputed land of petitioners, proposing to acquire the said land by mutual negotiations with land owners. It was also stated in the advertisement that if any person has objection, he may file the same before Chief Executive Officer of [ENTITY]. Since petitioners' grand mother was alive at the time of publication of above notice and in the said notice name of petitioners' grand mother was mentioned, she filed objection dated 24.[SECTION].2008 stating that entire land is occupied by business establishments, therefore, she is not interested to sell it to [ENTITY]. No decision taken by [ENTITY] was ever communicated to petitioners' grand mother or petitioners. Thereafter, following notifications were issued under [SECTION], [SECTION] and declaration under [SECTION] proposing acquisition of disputed land for the benefit of [ENTITY] were published :
Sl. No. Notification No. Section under which it has been issued Plot No. 234[SECTION]/77-3-2009-171 Arjan/09 dated 23.07.2009 [SECTION] and [SECTION] 103M area 0-2904 hects., Village Badhpura, [ENTITY] and Tehsil Dadri, District G.B.Nagar 41[SECTION]1/77-3-09-171 Arjan/09 dated 24.12.2009 [SECTION] 103M area 0-2904 hects., Village Badhpura, [ENTITY] and Tehsil Dadri, District G.B.Nagar 2347/77-3-2009-173 Arjan/09 dated 23.07.2009 [SECTION] and [SECTION] 774M (area 0-2020 hects.), 775M (area 0-1389 Hects.), 907M (area 0-[SECTION]75 Hects.), 909M (area 0-3270 hects.), 910M (area 0-0253 Hects.), 917M (area 0-1840 hects.), 918 (Area 0-2[SECTION]40 hects.) and 919 (area 0-2[SECTION]40 hects.) Village Dadri, [ENTITY] and Tehsil Dadri, District G.B.Nagar 41[SECTION]0/77-3-09-173 Arjan/09 dated 24.12.2009 [SECTION] and [SECTION] 774M (area 0-2020 hects.), 775M (area 0-1389 Hects.), 907M (area 0-[SECTION]75 Hects.), 909M (area 0-3270 hects.), 910M (area 0-0253 Hects.), 917M (area 0-1840 hects.), 918 (Area 0-2[SECTION]40 hects.) and 919 (area 0-2[SECTION]40 hects.) Village Dadri, [ENTITY] and Tehsil Dadri, District G.B.Nagar
4. Purpose of acquisition, as stated in above notifications was "Planned Industrial Development in district Gautam Budh Nagar" through [ENTITY].
5. As a matter of fact, acquisition was proposed for constructing a Bye-pass road from G.T.Road to [ENTITY]. It is pleaded that disputed land of petitioners is already divided between them and they are running their commercial institutions for earning their livelihood. [ENTITY], which came into existence in 1991, has acquired huge land since then and [SECTION]0 percent of such acquired land is either unused or undeveloped. The inquiry under [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION] was dispensed with while notification under [SECTION] was issued without giving any reason and wholly arbitrarily. There was no urgency so as to justify dispensation of inquiry under [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION]. The land of other tenure holders have been left, only to discriminate petitioners, and map has been prepared for constructing Bye-pass road in such a way so as to cause acquisition of petitioners' land, which is already developed, therefore, it is only petitioners' who are to sustain loss on account of this arbitrary action of respondents. [ENTITY] is not proposing to construct Bye-pass road as a straight road but has given curves so as to give undue advantage to other land owners particularly owner of a Children Public School. The amount proposed to be paid as compensation has not been transferred by [ENTITY] to Collector and still inquiry under [SECTION] has been dispensed with. State Government has not recorded any independent satisfaction of existence of condition precedent for invoking [SECTION] and to dispense inquiry under [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION].
[SECTION]. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed counter affidavit collectively stating that at the time of initiation of acquisition proceedings, Khasra No.103M and 774M had no construction existing thereon. Land was proposed to be acquired for development of Railway Over Bridge (hereinafter referred to as "ROB"), which is to be developed by [ENTITY]. Possession of land sought to be acquired under notification, impugned in writ petition, was taken on 03.02.2010 and Special Land Acquisition Officer/Additional Collector (Land Acquisition), [ENTITY], Gautam Budh Nagar has already declared award dated 19.02.2011 proposing compensation at the rate of Rs.240.15 per Sq.Meter, besides other statutory benefits like 12 percent additional compensation, solatium and interest etc.
7. On behalf of [ENTITY], respondent 3, a separate counter affidavit has been filed sworn by Sri [ENTITY], [ENTITY] in [ENTITY]. Besides giving historical backdrop of [ENTITY] Industrial Area Development Act, 197[SECTION] (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 197[SECTION]") , which came into force on 01.04.197[SECTION]. Referring to some of the provisions thereof, it is said by [ENTITY] in its counter affidavit that body itself was constituted by notification dated 28.01.1991 and various villages including village Badhpura were notified as part of industrial development area within the jurisdiction of [ENTITY]. Before acquisition proceedings were initiated, a survey was conducted by a team of officers of [ENTITY] and Revenue Department, who submitted report giving details of actual possession of land at the time of survey including constructions, if any, existing on the land, proposed to be acquired. Consequently, notifications dated 23.7.2009 under [SECTION](4) were issued followed by declaration under [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION] vide notification dated 24.12.2009. Full compensation amount was deposited in the office of Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) and proposed acquisition was also notified on the village notice board and [ENTITY] was also carried out. Possession of entire land was taken on 03.02.2010 and on the same day, transferred to [ENTITY]. The proposed connecting road will connect ROB to Dadri-Surajpur-Chhalera road on one side and [ACT] the other side. The purpose of acquisition is "public purpose" for development of area under [ENTITY]. By various acquisition notifications in different years, a large area of land has been acquired from time to time and details of the same are given in para [SECTION] of the counter affidavit.
8. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed stating that for development of area under [ENTITY], it has to provide requisite infrastructure also in the form of road and ROB, inasmuch as G.T.Railway line running from Delhi to Kolkata and other Railway lines pass through locations within the area under [ENTITY]. For smooth passage of traffic, development of infrastructure including ROB was considered necessary and since [ENTITY] lack technical experience on the matter, it appointed M/s RITES Ltd. (a Government of India Enterprises) for the said purpose. In August, 200[SECTION], M/s RITES Ltd. submitted its Project Report. The said report gave details of land required to be acquired to execute the said project. It is in furtherence thereof, that decision was taken by [ENTITY] for acquisition of required land and request was made to Government to acquire land and provide at the earliest since project was to be executed without much delay.
9. [CASE NUMBER] (hereinafter referred to as "Second Petition") has been filed by four petitioners namely [ENTITY] son of [ENTITY], [ENTITY] son of [ENTITY], [ENTITY] son of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] son of Late [ENTITY] assailing acquisition notifications dated 23.7.2009 issued under [SECTION] read with [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION] and declaration under [SECTION] dated 24.12.2009 insofar as the same pertain to Khasra No.775M, Village Dadri, [ENTITY] and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
10. Both these notifications are also challenged in First Petition and grounds are broadly same.
11. Petitioners in Second Petition state that their land is a Abadi land and falls within the jurisdiction of Dadri Nagar Palika. They also relied on Government Order dated 8th August, 1997 directing all Commissioners and District Magistrates in State of Uttar Pradesh not to acquire land in a village which is Abadi and if there is no option but to acquire such land then owner of land should be allotted an equal area of land in the same scheme so as to avoid displacement of such person.
12. The grounds on which notifications, above mentioned, are challenged are that inquiry under [SECTION] has been arbitrarily dispensed with; Notification under [SECTION] has been issued after more than six months from the date of notification issued under [SECTION], which shows that there was no urgency; no scheme has been displayed by [ENTITY] showing urgency of matter; land is Abadi and could not have been acquired in view of Government Order dated 13.08.1997 (correct date is 8.8.1997) and in case it is unavoidable, then petitioners are entitled for equal area of land in the same scheme; petitioners have filed objection after publication of notification under [SECTION] vide letter dated 22.03.2010 but it is not being paid any attention; no notification under [SECTION] has been issued till the date of filing of writ petition and that no compensation has been given to petitioners, instead respondents are in haste to demolish the construction.
13. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 3 in Second Petition, stand taken is the same as in the First Petition.
14. A supplementary affidavit filed by petitioner sworn on 31.12.2015 has stated that under the acquisition notification, Gata No.775M area 0.1389 Hectare has been notified but in Khatauni of Village Dadri issued on 2[SECTION].12.2015, there is no such Gata No.775M in village Dadri. [ENTITY] sought to negotiate with petitioners since due to interim order, project of ROB could not proceed, hence, it was offered that petitioners may be given land at another place and this was mentioned in the minutes of meeting held on 01.[SECTION].2015, pursuant whereto, petitioners also submitted their affidavits but no decision has been taken by respondents. Further, on an inquiry made by [ENTITY] as to whether Gata 774M, 775M, 818M, 821M to 82[SECTION]M, 828M, 839M to 8[SECTION]5, 8[SECTION]8M, 879M, 870M, 907M, 909M, 910M, 911M, 912M, 913M, 91[SECTION]M, 917M, 918 and 919 come within notified area of Nagar Palika, Dadri, it has been replied by Execution Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar that as per notification dated 30.12.1985, all aforesaid Gatas are within Pagar Palika Parishad area.
15. Another supplementary affidavit sworn on 22.5.2017 has challenged acquisition of land under [CASE NUMBER] on the ground that it form part of jurisdiction of Nagar Palika Parishad, Dadri, therefore, could not have been acquired by [ENTITY] and for this purpose, notification dated 30.12.1985 issued by Governor in respect of area falling within limit of Nagar Palika Parishad, Dadri is referred.
1[SECTION]. Respondent 2 i.e. [ENTITY] has filed counter affidavit to the supplementary affidavits stating that after publication of notification under [SECTION] in Gazette notification on 23.07.2009, it was also published in two Hindi daily newspapers namely "Rastriya Sahara" and "Navbharat Times" on 30.07.2009. [ENTITY] was carried out on 02.08.2009. After publication of notification under [SECTION] on 24.12.2009, declaration was also published in two daily newspapers namely "[ENTITY]" and "[ENTITY]" on 02.01.2010. Notice under [SECTION] was issued to tenure holders by Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) (hereinafter referred to as "A.D.M.(L.A.)") fixing 02.02.2010 for hearing objections. Possession of acquired land was taken by Government on 03.02.2010 and transferred to [ENTITY] on the same date. The possession of total 1.4727 Hectare was taken which included Gata No.775 M. A.D.M. (L.A.) has also published award determining compensation on 13.01.2012. With respect to part of Revenue villages coming within area of Nagar Palika Parishad, Dadri, it is said that some gatas of acquired land of village Dadri are part of notified area of Nagar Palika Parishad and remaining are within the notified area of [ENTITY]. Acquisition has been made by State Government for construction of link road which is connecting National Highway-91 on one side and Dadri-Surajpur-Challera road to the other side. A railway is passing through Dadri and when trains crosses Dadri, Railway Crossing are closed for the reason whereof people of area faces traffic jams etc. Railway line is running from Kolkata and passes through Dadri, which is a busy line. Further Dadri is main Container Depot of NCR area and trucks, carrying containers also have to pass through Dadri due to which also jam on the roads is a routine affair. Land, therefore, is acquired for approach road, which is connecting three railway over bridges, which have already been constructed and almost 90 percent work on the road has also been completed. Construction of road towards Dadri side, connecting National Highway-91 has been stalled due to interim orders. [ENTITY] is a Nodal Agency for constructing road, which is being carried out as per instructions of M/s RITES and also Indian Railways. As already said, since main Containers Depot in NCR is at Dadri and trucks carrying Containers towards Delhi and onward have to cross Dadri railway crossing and due to busy line, massive traffic jams is a frequent problem. After construction of connecting road and ROBs, people of area will be relieved from problem of traffic jams and no heavy vehicle will be going through Dadri town area.
17. Another supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by respondent 2, annexing copy of detailed project report submitted by M/s RITES Ltd. for construction of ROB near Village Roopvas, Dadri ([ENTITY]) and New Road Linking Dadri-Surajpur-Chhalera (DSC) Road and G.T.Road, to show that in public interest the plan started long back for construction of ROBs and connecting roads for development of area and expert agencies are engaged with work.
18. [CASE NUMBER] (hereinafter referred to as "Third Petition") has been filed by sole petitioner namely Smt. [ENTITY] wife of [ENTITY] and here also notifications under challenge are dated 23.7.2009 issued under [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION] and 24.12.2009 issued under [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION] and relates to [ENTITY].
19. Petitioner is recorded tenure holder of [ENTITY] area 0.0170 Hectares situated in Village Dadri, [ENTITY] and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. According to her, land in question is a Abadi. Rest of the grounds taken in writ petition are similar as taken in First and Second Petition.
20. On behalf of respondents 1 and 3, a counter affidavit has been filed stating that Village Dadri, [ENTITY] and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar is part of notified area under [ENTITY]. For planned industrial development, proposal for acquisition of 1.4727 Hectare of land in village Dadri, was submitted by [ENTITY], which required constructions of approach road to ROB. Before submitting proposal, [ENTITY] got the proposed area surveyed by a team of officers of [ENTITY] and Revenue Department. As per survey report, actual position of Abadi/construction etc., and land usage was recorded and report was submitted to the office of Collector, Gautambudh Nagar alongwith proposal for acquisition of land. Copy of said proposal letter dated 20.10.2008 is Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit. It was also proposed that land is required urgently, therefore, [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION] need to be invoked so that earliest possession of land be transferred to [ENTITY]. Thereafter, Collector vide letter dated 0[SECTION].0[SECTION].2009 forwarded the matter to Director (Land Acquisition) and also recommended invocation of [SECTION] for early possession of land proposed to be acquired. He was also satisfied that all formalities as contemplated in Directorate's letter dated 7.12.2004 have been fulfilled. Justification for invoking provision of [SECTION] alongwith notification issued under [SECTION] was also appended with letter and it is Annexure 3 to the counter affidavit. After notifications were issued under Act, [SECTION], possession of acquired land was taken on 03.02.2010 and copy of possession memo has been filed as Annexure C.A.4 to the counter affidavit. It is also said that as per Khatauni of 1411-141[SECTION] Fasli, petitioner's land is recorded as agricultural land and not Abadi, as claimed by petitioner. At the time of survey, no construction was found on the land in question. [ENTITY] deposited 80 percent (which includes 10 percent before [SECTION]) of the compensation amount, as required under Rules and amount of money required for rehabilitation of affected tenure holders before sending proposal for declaration under [SECTION]. Its complete record was placed before State Government and after consideration of material, State Government was satisfied to invoke urgency clause under [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION] and approval was granted for issue of notification under [SECTION] read with [SECTION], which was published accordingly.
21. [CASE NUMBER] (hereinafter referred to as "Fourth Petition") has been filed by two petitioners namely Smt. [ENTITY] wife of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] son of [ENTITY]. Here also notifications dated 23.7.2009 issued under [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION] and 24.12.2009 issued under [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION] have been challenged and land in dispute is Khasra No.919 area 0.2[SECTION]40 Hectares situated in Village Dadri, [ENTITY] and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The said land was purchased by petitioners vide sale deed dated 23.5.200[SECTION] for commercial purposes and it is said that a building has been constructed thereon. Rest of the grounds taken in writ petition are similar as involved in earlier petitions, therefore, we are not repeating the same. Stand of respondents is also the same and hence is not being repeated.
22. [CASE NUMBER] (hereinafter referred to as "Fifth Petition") is at the instance of three petitioners namely Smt. [ENTITY] wife of [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] both sons of [ENTITY]. It pertains to Khasra No.775-Dha area 0.0410 hectares situated in Village Dadri, which has been sought to acquire vide notifications dated 23.7.2009 issued under [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION] (hereinafter referred to as "Act, [SECTION]") and 24.12.2009 issued under [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION]. It is said that land is not agricultural but situate at G.T.Road and have several constructions thereon. The grounds taken in writ petition challenging said notifications are same as raised in earlier referred writ petitions and stand of respondents are also common, hence we are not repeating the same.
23. Writ Petition No.51[SECTION]4[SECTION] of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "Sixth Petition") has been filed by sole petitioner namely [ENTITY] son of [ENTITY] challenging notifications dated 23.7.2009 and 24.12.2009 issued under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION] and it relates to [CASE NUMBER] area 843 Sq.Meter situated in Village Dadri. He has also claimed that house is also constructed over disputed land and the land is Abadi. The grounds taken in writ petition to challenge aforesaid notifications and stand taken by respondents are same as already referred to in earlier writ petitions therefore we are not repeating the same.
24. Writ Petition No.744[SECTION]3 of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "Seventh Petition") has been filed by sole petitioner namely [ENTITY] son of [ENTITY] challenging notifications dated 23.7.2009 and 24.12.2009 issued under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION] and it relates to [CASE NUMBER] area 0.0[SECTION]75 Hectare, situated in Village Dadri. He has also claimed that residential house is also constructed over disputed land and the land is Abadi. The grounds taken in writ petition to challenge aforesaid notifications and stand taken by respondents are same as already referred to in earlier writ petitions, therefore, we are not repeating the same.
25. Sri [ENTITY], Advocate assisted by Sri [ENTITY] and Sri [ENTITY], Advocates have appeared and advanced submissions on behalf of petitioners, Ms. [ENTITY], Additional Chief Standing Counsel has made her submissions on behalf of [ENTITY] and its authorities and Sri [ENTITY], Advocate has put in appearance of behalf of [ENTITY] and advanced submissions.
2[SECTION]. The three issues need to be considered in these writ petitions, in the light of rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and also various judgments placed before this Court are:
A. Whether dispensation of opportunity under [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION] is justified in the case in hand?
B. Whether land in dispute having been notified under jurisdiction of Nagar Palika Parishad Dadri could have been acquired by [ENTITY]?
C. What relief petitioners in the facts and circumstances of this case are entitled to be granted or can be granted or should be granted?
27. We propose to deal question (B) first. Though petitioners' claim that Village Dadri is not within territorial jurisdiction of [ENTITY] and therefore, at its instance, no acquisition could be made and to that extent, acquisition, vide impugned notifications, of land falling within Village Dadri is without jurisdiction. This fact that entire land in Village Dadri is not within jurisdiction of [ENTITY], has been denied by respondent -[ENTITY].
28. We do not enter into this disputed question of fact at this stage and suffice to assume, to answer question B, that village Dadri, even if does not come within notified area of [ENTITY], still, in our view, acquisition of land at Village Dadri, at the instance of [ENTITY] by State Government would neither be illegal nor arbitrary nor without jurisdiction. [ENTITY] is a statutory body constituted under Act, 197[SECTION] for the purpose of undertaking development in notified area. If, for the purpose of carrying out above statutory function, it finds that some development is further required in nearby areas so as to make development in notified area, accessible, useful and effectively available to the people at large in notified area, in our view, it can always seek acquisition of land for such purpose even if such land is outside the notified area. For illustration, if [ENTITY] decides to develop an industrial area almost at the border of its notified area and finds that in the appurtenant area, surrounding the said project, though technically beyond notified area of [ENTITY], but, unless approach road and other development is made, project will not be viable or effective, in our view, it can always proceed to recommend acquisition of land outside notified area for construction of such approach road etc. and this is nothing but an incidental requirement for which unless prohibited by statutory provision, [ENTITY] has no restriction or prohibition from doing so.
29. Despite query, learned counsel for petitioners could not show any provision contained either under Act, 197[SECTION] or Act, [SECTION] that for the purpose of development in notified area, [ENTITY] can propose to acquire land only within notified area and not beyond that.
30. When we talk of an act wholly without jurisdiction, the person challenging an action on this ground must show that such an act is specifically or by necessary implication is prohibited by statute. In respect of acquisition of land in Village Dadri, advancing contention in this regard, counsel for petitioners have not been able to show any provision which restrains or prohibits [ENTITY] from proposing to acquire land in nearby area of its notified area for the purpose of construction of ROB and approach road etc. so as to make development in notified area, approachable and accessible to the public at large.
31. Question B, therefore, is answered against petitioners and in favour of respondents.
32. Now we proceed to consider questions (A) and (C) together.
33. So far as invocation of [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION] is concerned, while issuing notifications under [SECTION] and [SECTION], dispensing inquiry under [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION], law is now well settled that such dispensation of inquiry should not be lightly, as a matter of course, but, there must exist and available on record relevant circumstances to show urgency justifying dispensation of inquiry under [SECTION] of Act [SECTION].
34. [SECTION] was inserted in Act, [SECTION] as long back as in 1923, by [ACT]. There are minor amendments made subsequently but substance of provision has remained the same.
35. Normal procedure of acquisition is that a proposal of acquisition is published in notification under [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION]. Land owners whose land is proposed to be acquired, are given an opportunity to make their objections. Collector is under an obligation to consider objections and also offer an opportunity of hearing to objectors and thereafter submit report to Government containing his recommendations on the objections, for decision of Government. After considering the report and other material, Government makes declaration that land is proposed to be acquired for public purpose and this is done by publication of notification under [SECTION]. Therefore, there is possibility of some difference in details of land stated in the notification issued under [SECTION] and finally declared land, as acquired for public purpose, detailed in notification under [SECTION].
3[SECTION]. Collector is then authorised to make order for acquisition and under [SECTION] is supposed to mark, measure and plan the acquired land. A notice thereafter is issued under [SECTION] to Land Owners by Collector notifying his intention of taking possession of land and that the claim for compensation be submitted to him. Under [SECTION], Collector makes enquiry for determining amount of compensation payable to land owners, whose land has been acquired, and make award. After payment of compensation, Collector takes possession of land.
37. There is an exception to normal procedure of taking possession which is contained in [SECTION] of Act [SECTION]. It says that in case of urgency, even though no award has been made, Government can direct Collector to take possession of any land, needed for public purpose, and on such possession being taken by Collector, land shall vest absolutely with the Government free from all encumbrances. [SECTION] provides, where such urgency for the purpose of possession is to be acted upon, Government, shall declare that provision of [SECTION] shall not apply.
38. However, right to file objection under [SECTION] against proposal of acquisition of land published under [SECTION] is a substantial right, consistent with principle of natural justice, since forcible acquisition of land, without consent of land owners, is a serious matter. This is the view taken consistently, by Courts.
39. The circumstances, when Government would be justified to dispense with enquiry under [SECTION] while invoking urgency clause under [SECTION], for the purpose of taking possession, have been considered in a catena of decisions in last several decades and it would be useful to refer some relevant authorities in this regard.
40. In Nandeshwar Prasad vs. [ENTITY] Government AIR 19[SECTION]4 SC 1217, Court said :
"the right to file objection under [SECTION] is a substantial right when a person's property is being threatened with acquisition and we cannot accept that that right can be taken away as if by a side wind".
41. In [PRECEDENT], which is a decision of three judges bench, Court stressed upon and emphasized upon an inbuilt legislative recognition of principles of natural justice in [SECTION] and said :
"[SECTION] makes it obligatory on the Collector to give an objector an opportunity of being heard. After hearing all objections and making further inquiry he is to make a report to the appropriate Government containing his recommendation on the objections. The legislature has, therefore, made complete provisions for the persons interested to file objections against the proposed acquisition and for the disposal of their objections. It is only in cases of urgency that special powers have been conferred on the appropriate Government to dispense with the provisions of [SECTION]".
(emphasis added)
42. In [PRECEDENT], it was held that it is fundamental that compulsory taking of a man's property is a serious matter and smaller the man, more serious the matter. Hearing him before depriving him is both reasonable and preemptive of arbitrariness. Denial of this administrative fairness is constitutional anathema except for good reasons. Save in real urgency where public interest does not brook even the minimum time needed to give a hearing, land acquisition authorities should not, having regard to [SECTION], burke an enquiry under [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION]. A slumbering process, pending for years and suddenly exciting itself into immediate forcible taking, makes travesty of emergency power.
43. In [PRECEDENT] reiterating that [SECTION] is mandatory, Court said :
"the proceeding before the Collector is a blend of public and individual enquiry".
44. In [PRECEDENT], Court held that [SECTION] is an exception to normal mode of acquisition. Mere existence of urgency or unforeseen emergency by itself is not sufficient to direct for dispensation of [SECTION] Court reiterated that there must be real existing emergency for which an opinion must be formed by the Government, objectively. Court said as under :
"It requires an opinion to be formed by concerned government that along with existence of such urgency or unforeseen emergency there is also a need for dispensing with [SECTION] enquiry, which indicates that the legislature intended that the appropriate government to apply its mind before dispensing with [SECTION] enquiry. It also indicates the mere existence of an urgency under [SECTION] or unforeseen emergency under [SECTION] would not by itself be sufficient for dispensing with [SECTION] enquiry. If that was not the intention of the legislature then the latter part of [SECTION] would not have been necessary and the legislature in [SECTION] itself could have incorporated that in such situation of existence of urgency or unforeseen emergency automatically [SECTION] enquiry will be dispensed with, but then that is not language of the Section which, in our opinion, requires the appropriate Government to further consider the need for dispensing with [SECTION] enquiry in spite of the existence of unforeseen emergency. This understanding of ours as to the requirement of an application of mind by the appropriate Government while dispensing with [SECTION] inquiry does not mean that in every case when there is an urgency contemplated under [SECTION] and unforeseen emergency contemplated under [SECTION] exists that by itself would not contain the need for dispensing with [SECTION] enquiry. There is need for application of mind by appropriate Government that such an urgency for dispensing of [SECTION] enquiry is inherent ."
45. In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors (2005) 7 SCC [SECTION]27 it was held that the provisions of [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION] must be read consistent with [SECTION] of the [ACT] and it is akin to fundamental right of procedure before depriving a persons of his land, and must be strictly complied with.
4[SECTION]. In [PRECEDENT] it was held that enquiry should not be dispensed with lightly.
47. In [ENTITY] and another vs. [ENTITY] and others (2010) 11 SCC 242 Court considered as to when State would be justified in invoking power under [SECTION] for acquisition of land and dispensing with enquiry under [SECTION] so as to take possession immediately. It is said that power under [SECTION] is not to be exercised in a routine manner. It would be justified only when circumstances warrant immediate possession. It should not be lightly invoked. It is an exceptional power enabling land acquiring body to dispense with enquiry under [SECTION] Government must apply its mind before dispensing with enquiry under [SECTION] whether urgency is of such a nature that justifies elimination of summary enquiry under [SECTION] The mere mention of words in acquisition notification that Government is satisfied about urgency and dispensing with enquiry under [SECTION] may raise a presumption in favour of Government with per-requisite conditions for exercise of such power are satisfied but when challenged, Government has to produce relevant material before Court to show existence of such circumstances, which justify dispensation of inquiry and avail an exceptional power under [SECTION]. Court said :
"upon challenge being made to the use of power under [SECTION] the Government must produce appropriate material before the Court that the opinion for dispensing with enquiry under [SECTION] has been formed by the Government after due application of mind on the material placed before it".
(emphasis added)
48. With regard to judicial review of exercise of power, Court in [ENTITY] and another (Supra) further said in paras 45, 4[SECTION], 47 and 48 as under :
"45. It is true that power conferred upon the Government under [SECTION] is administrative and its opinion is entitled to due weight, but in a case where the opinion is formed regarding the urgency based on considerations not germane to the purpose, the judicial review of such administrative decision may become necessary.
4[SECTION]. As to in what circumstances the power of emergency can be invoked are specified in [SECTION] but circumstances necessitating invocation of urgency under [SECTION] are not stated in the provision itself. Generally speaking, the development of an area (for residential purposes) or a planned development of city, takes many years if not decades and, therefore, there is no reason why summary enquiry as contemplated under [SECTION] may not be held and objections of land owners/persons interested may not be considered. In many cases on general assumption, likely delay in completion of enquiry under [SECTION] is set up as a reason for invocation of extraordinary power in dispensing with the enquiry little realizing that an important and valuable right of the person interested in the land is being taken away and with some effort enquiry could always be completed expeditiously.
47. The special provision has been made in [SECTION] to eliminate enquiry under [SECTION] in deserving and cases of real urgency. The government has to apply its mind on the aspect that urgency is of such nature that necessitates dispensation of enquiry under [SECTION] We have already noticed few decisions of this Court. There is conflict of view in the two decisions of this Court viz.; [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. In [ENTITY] this Court held that decision in [ENTITY] must be confined to the fact situation in those days when it was rendered and the two-Judge Bench could not have laid down a proposition contrary to the decision in [ENTITY]. We agree.
48. As regards the issue whether pre- notification and post-notification delay would render the invocation of urgency power void, again the case law is not consistent. The view of this Court has differed on this aspect due to different fact-situation prevailing in those cases. In our opinion such delay will have material bearing on the question of invocation of urgency power, particularly in a situation where no material has been placed by the appropriate government before the court justifying that urgency was of such nature that necessitated elimination of enquiry under [SECTION]"
(emphasis added)
49. In Radhe Shyam (Dead) through Lrs. and others vs. [ENTITY] and others 2011(5) SCC 553 it was reiterated that property of a citizen cannot be acquired by State without complying with the mandate of [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION]. A public purpose however, loudable would not entitle Government to invoke urgency provisions, since the same have the effect of depriving owner of his right to property and that too without being heard. Only in a case of real urgency, Government would be justified in invoking urgency provisions. [SECTION] must have been invoked only when purpose of acquisition cannot brook the delay of even few weeks or months. The authority must be fully satisfied that time of few weeks or months likely to be taken in conducting enquiry under [SECTION] shall, in all probability, frustrate the public purpose for which land is proposed to be acquired. Satisfaction of Government on issue of urgency is subjective but is a condition precedent to the exercise of power under [SECTION] and can be challenged on the ground that authority did not apply its mind to relevant factors, and on record, there is no material justifying existence of alleged urgency. It also held that exercise of power under [SECTION] necessarily does not result in exclusion of [SECTION], inasmuch as, the person concerned can file objection and is entitled to be heard in support of his objection. The use of word "may" in [SECTION] shows that it merely enables Government to direct that [SECTION] would not apply to the cases covered under [SECTION]. Therefore, mere fact that certain purposes may be treated as public purpose for purpose of acquisition but that by itself would not mean that their exists urgency to dispense with inquiry unless the circumstances actually and really are in existence to show that delay in taking possession would be adverse to public interest. It also held that Court can take judicial notice of the fact that planning, execution and implementation of scheme relating to development of residential, commercial and industrial or institutional areas, Government takes few years, therefore, in such cases private property should not be acquired by invoking urgency clause as denial of Rule of audi alteram partem embodied in [SECTION] is not at all warranted in such cases.
50. In [PRECEDENT] after having retrospection of some of authorities on the subject, Court in para 28 of the judgment, stated as under :
"What needs to be emphasized is that although in exercise of the power of eminent domain, the State can acquire the private property for public purpose, it must be remembered that compulsory acquisition of the property belonging to a private individual is a serious matter and has grave repercussions on his [ACT]al right of not being deprived of his property without the sanction of law - [SECTION] and the legal rights. Therefore, the State must exercise this power with great care and circumspection. At times, compulsory acquisition of land is likely to make the owner landless. The degree of care required to be taken by the State is greater when the power of compulsory acquisition of private land is exercised by invoking the provisions like the one contained in [SECTION] of the Act because that results in depriving the owner of his property without being afforded an opportunity of hearing."
(emphasis added)
51. In Union of India and others vs. Shiv Raj and others 2014 ([SECTION]) SCC 5[SECTION]4, Court in para 15 said that [SECTION] confers a valuable right on the owner of land and it is not an empty formality. It is a substantive right, which can be taken away only for good and valid reasons and within the limitations prescribed under [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION].
52. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties have placed heavy reliance on a Full Bench judgment in [ENTITY] and Ors. Vs. [ENTITY] and Ors. 2011 (11) ADJ1 wherein also this aspect has been considered and discussion, we find from paras 275 to 323
53. It has also been pointed out to us that in respect of acquisition of land in village 'Badpura', there were several petitions before Full Bench also and they were denoted as "Group 32" and reference of Group 32 has been given in para 78 of the judgment, which reads as under :-
"The writ petitions in Group-32 relates to village Badpura. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3[SECTION]047 of 2010 ([ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] and others), pleadings are complete, as such aforesaid writ petition is being treated as leading writ petition for this Group. Aforesaid writ petition has been filed challenging the Notification dated 20.10.2001 issued under [SECTION] read with [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] of plat no. 102 M area 0.7500 acre situated in village Badpura and the declaration under [SECTION] was issued 03.12.2009 issued. Notice was published by respondent no. 2 in the newspaper on 19.0[SECTION].2009 proposing to purchase land on the basis of agreement by tenure holders in which rest of plot no. 102M was notified. Petitioner claims that his land is on the G.T. Road covered with boundary wall and several constructions. Interim order was passed by this Court on 05.07.2011 directing to maintain status quo with regard to possession of land in question. Petitioner filed objection for giving therein market value of the land. Award has been issued on 31.03.2009 fixing Rs. 74.50 per square yard. Award having being made after two years after publication of declaration under [SECTION], as such entire acquisition has lapsed. In the counter affidavit filed by the State it has been stated that possession of the land was taken on 1[SECTION].03.2002. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that land was acquired for Planned Industrial Development more specifically for constructions of approach road, Railway Over Bridge. Urgency clause was rightly invoked. Writ petition has been filed with delay. [SECTION] is not applicable. In the counter affidavit filed by the Authority it has been stated that petitioners themselves have not come forward to accept compensation. Possession of plot in question was taken in the year 2001. Writ petition has been filed with great delay."
54. A perusal of above shows that land acquired therein, which was subject matter of writ petition in 'Group-32' was also for construction of approach road and ROB. Land owners' land primarily was on G.T. Road covered with boundary wall and there existed several constructions.
55. Thus, virtually, issues raised before this Court, where also land has been sought to be acquired for the purpose of construction of approach road connecting ROB, are same as were involved in petition mentioned in para 78 above of the judgment in [ENTITY] and others (supra). Court has answered issue of dispensation of inquiry under [SECTION] referring to material placed before Full Bench, in favour of land owners and against State. However, Full Bench has not quashed acquisition notifications but considering the fact that substantial development had undertaken on acquired land, writ petitions in 'Group 32' have been disposed of with the directions contained in para 482 (3) which reads as under:-
"3. All other writ petitions except as mentioned above at (1) and (2) are disposed of with following directions:
(a) The petitioners shall be entitled for payment of additional compensation to the extent of same ratio (i.e. [SECTION]4.70%) as paid for village Patwari in addition to the compensation received by them under 1997 Rules/award which payment shall be ensured by the Authority at an early date. It may be open for Authority to take a decision as to what proportion of additional compensation be asked to be paid by allottees. Those petitioners who have not yet been paid compensation may be paid the compensation as well as additional compensation as ordered above. The payment of additional compensation shall be without any prejudice to rights of land owners under [SECTION] of the Act, if any.
(b) All the petitioners shall be entitled for allotment of developed Abadi plot to the extent of 10% of their acquired land subject to maximum of 2500 square meters. We however, leave it open to the Authority in cases where allotment of abadi plot to the extent of [SECTION]% or 8% have already been made either to make allotment of the balance of the area or may compensate the land owners by payment of the amount equivalent to balance area as per average rate of allotment made of developed residential plots."
5[SECTION]. A similar issue raising question of dispensation of inquiry under [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION] by invoking urgency clause under [SECTION] again came up for consideration in a follow up bunch of writ petitions decided by Full Bench in Writ Petition No. [SECTION]022 of 2008 (Pratap Singh vs. [ENTITY] and others) and connected writ petitions decided vide judgment dated 17.02.2012. In the aforesaid bunch, Writ Petition No. [SECTION]022 of 2008, Pratap Singh Vs. [ENTITY] and others, and 2[SECTION][SECTION] other writ petitions were placed in "Group-A"; [CASE NUMBER], Khajan Singh Vs. [ENTITY] and others, and 22 connected writ petitions were placed in "Group-B"; and [CASE NUMBER], Deshraj and others Vs. [ENTITY] and others and 1[SECTION] other connected writ petitions were placed in "Group-C".
57. Issue of dispensation of inquiry under [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION] being illegal and without there being any urgency was raised in petition forming "Group-C" and it was argued that urgency clause under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION] has wrongly been invoked. Writ petitions in 'Group-C' vide judgment dated 17.02.2012 have been disposed of in terms of directions in para 482 (3) of Full Bench judgment in [ENTITY] and others (supra).
58. The Full Bench judgment in [ENTITY] and others (supra) has been confirmed by Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT] vs. [ENTITY] and Ors.(2015) 7 SCC 21. However, in para 50 of the judgment, Supreme Court also said that since judgment in [ENTITY] and others (supra) has been given in unique and peculiar/specific background and, therefore, it would not form precedent for future cases. In para 48 of the judgment, while confirming Full Bench judgment, Supreme Court in paras 48.1 to 48.3 accorded benefits to the land owners, which reads as under:
"48.1 increasing the compensation by [SECTION]4.7%;
48.2 directing allotment of developed abadi land to the extent of 10% of the land acquired of each of the land owners;
48.3 compensation which is increased as the rate of [SECTION]4.7% is payable immediately without taking away the rights of the land owners to claim higher compensation under the machinery provided in the [ACT] wherein the matter would be examined on the basis of the evidence produced to arrive at just and fair market value."
59. Again, similar issue was raised in certain writ petitions where acquisition notifications dated 12.03.2008 under [SECTION] and 03.02.2009 under [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION] were challenged relating to village 'Chhapruala' wherein for wrong invocation of urgency clause and dispensation of inquiry under [SECTION], this Court set aside acquisition notification vide judgment dated 30.5.2012 passed in [CASE NUMBER]. [ENTITY] carried the matter to Supreme Court. Same has been decided in Greater Noida Ind. Dev. Authority vs. Savitri Mohan (Dead) through Lrs. And Others, (201[SECTION])13 SCC 210. The judgment of this Court has been set aside and appeal has been allowed and direction contained in para 48.1 to 48.3 of Supreme Court judgment in [PRECEDENT] (supra) has been followed. Court has referred to decision in [PRECEDENT] (supra) and observed that in spite of finding that invocation of urgency clause was uncalled for, relief of setting aside acquisition was not to be granted having regard to development that had already undertaken on substantial part of the land. To balance equities higher compensation and allotment of land was ordered to meet the ends of justice.
[SECTION]0. Supreme Court has further given reason as to why despite recording finding that [SECTION] of Act, [SECTION] was wrongly dispensed with, still there was no justification for quashing acquisition notification, and, instead relief was moulded in a different manner. The relevant observations are as under :
"This argument cannot be accepted in view of the fact that Full Bench judgment as upheld by this Court is not based on the extent of delay in individual cases. Consideration for not granting the relief of quashing the acquisition is overall development on substantial part of the acquired land as noted in para 50 of the Full Bench judgment already quoted hereinabove. Filing of prompt petitions by an individual is not the only consideration for grant of relief of quashing acquisition when almost entire land has already been developed. The Full Bench has quashed acquisition only where substantial part of the land had not been developed. The category of the judgment where acquisition has not been quashed covers the entire village where land of the Respondents is located. "
[SECTION]1. Learned counsel for [ENTITY] stated that in a subsequent judgment in [ENTITY] and Ors vs. The [ENTITY] and others, (2018)14 SCC 34[SECTION], claim of allotment of 10 percent land in developed area has been negated by Supreme Court, therefore, petitioners in this case are not entitled for disposal of writ petitions strictly in accordance with [SECTION] of Full Bench judgment in [ENTITY] and others (supra) or paras 48.1 to 48.3 of Supreme Court judgment in [PRECEDENT] (supra).
[SECTION]2. We have examined judgment in [ENTITY] and Ors. (supra) but find that there the cases belong to those land owners who had filed writ petitions much after the judgment was rendered by Full Bench in [ENTITY] and others (supra). Writ petitions were filed for the first time in February, 201[SECTION]. This is evident from para 14 of the judgment in [ENTITY] and Ors. (supra), which reads as under :
"The appellants herein, whose lands were also acquired in these acquisition proceedings, then woke up out of slumber and filed the writ petitions for the first time on 15.02.201[SECTION] in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad out of which these appeals arise." (emphasis added)
[SECTION]3. Court has said that those, who had not filed writ petitions earlier and woke up from slumber much later, would not be entitled for disposal of their matter with all the benefits as allowed by Full Bench in [ENTITY] and others (supra) and Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT] (supra) that is additional compensation at the rate of [SECTION]4.7% and allotment of developed land to the extent of 10% of acquired land subject to maximum of 2500 Sq.Meter for the reason that the said relief was confined to land owners who had filed writ petitions before [ENTITY] and others (supra) was decided by this Court.
[SECTION]4. All the writ petitions with which we are concerned were filed in 2010 and therefore it cannot be said that petitioners in the present case have come subsequently to claim benefit of judgment in [ENTITY] and others (supra), therefore, decision in [ENTITY] and others (supra) has no application to the facts of this case.
[SECTION]5. In these bunch of writ petitions we find that the two documents i.e. report of Survey Committee dated 20.10.2008 and recommendation of Collector dated 04.[SECTION].2009, which have been placed before us, simply show a single line recommendation that urgency clause should be invoked and inquiry should be dispensed with. On one hand, respondents claim urgency in the matter while on the other hand, we find that matter of acquisition was initiated sometime in March, 2000. In April, 200[SECTION], [ENTITY], Government of Uttar Pradesh appointed RITES Ltd. as Consultant for preparing detailed project report etc., whereafter such report was submitted by RITES Ltd. in August, 200[SECTION]. Survey Committee submitted report on 20.10.2008. Collector made recommendation on 04.0[SECTION].2009. Almost nine years were taken in the process, whereafter notification under [SECTION] was issued on 23.7.2009 and declaration under [SECTION] was issued even thereafter almost five months i.e. on 24.12.2009. It shows that respondents acted in their own leisure and in their function did not find any urgency, but when question of inquiry and opportunity to land owners under [SECTION] arose, in a mechanical manner urgency clause was invoked without giving any valid reasons.
[SECTION][SECTION]. We also fined from record that State Government was directed to produce original record for perusal of Court to demonstrate as to what was urgency but neither record has been placed nor any material has come forward to show that urgency actually existed. The general ground that any delay may cause unauthorized encroachment was a ground taken before Full Bench in [ENTITY] and others (supra) also but the same was rejected and Court found that it was not a valid ground to invoke urgency clause. In fact, we find that almost similar defence has also been examined by Full Bench in [ENTITY] and others (surpa).
[SECTION]7. In fact, the fact, involved in the present case were examined by Full Bench also and it did not find the stand taken by respondents, which was similarly before it also as sufficient, adequate and justified to invoke urgency clause by dispensing inquiry under [SECTION] and Full Bench has examined the matter in detail, as we have already said from paras 275 to 323 of judgment and rejected the same. There also it was the case that substantial development has already undertaken and before us also, it has come on record that substantial development is in the process of construction of ROB and substantial part of approach road has already been completed. As per the stand of [ENTITY], 90% construction of ROB was already over and on one side, approach road was substantially complete, which obviously means that substantial investment has already undertaken.
[SECTION]8. In these facts and circumstances and also considering the fact that some parties of village 'Badpura', in similar circumstances, have already got a decision of Full Bench in [ENTITY] and others (supra), wherein instead of quashing acquisition notification, Court decided the matter in a different way, as we have already noticed, by issuing directions as contained in para 482 (3) of judgment in [ENTITY] and others (supra), therefore, present writ petitions, in our view, deserve to be disposed of in terms of the said directions. Questions (A) and (C), therefore, would have to be answered by disposing of these writ petitions in terms of directions contained in Full Bench judgment in [ENTITY] and others (supra), as affirmed by Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT] (supra).
[SECTION]9. Since directions contained in para 482(3) of judgment in [ENTITY] and others (supra) have been affirmed by Supreme Court also in [PRECEDENT] (supra) and similar directions were issued by Supreme Court in its judgment as contained in paras 48.1 to 48.3, therefore, present writ petitions deserve to be disposed of in terms of directions contained in paras 48.1 to 48.3 of Supreme Court judgment in [PRECEDENT] (supra)
70. Consequently, we dispose of all the writ petitions in terms of directions contained in paras 48.1 to 48.3 of Supreme Court judgment in [PRECEDENT] vs. [ENTITY] and Ors.(2015) 7 SCC 21.
Order Date :- 19.7.2019 KA