High Court
Case Details
1 Court No. - 29 Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:134022-DB Case :- WRIT - C No. - 53553 of 2010 Petitioner :- Sri Achal Agarwal And Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- P.C. Jain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akansh Verma,Anand Prakash Paul,Atul Mehra,Suresh C. Dwivedi Alongwith WRIC/18433/2012,WRIC/58032/2012,WRIC/43799/2012,WRIC/50237/2012,W RIC/52702/2012,WRIC/3148/2011,WRIC/1708/2011,WRIC/12300/2011,WRIC/ 55937/2010,WRIC/59628/2010,WRIC/58007/2010,WRIC/58184/2010,WRIC/59 055/2010,WRIC/59476/2010,WRIC/59981/2010,WRIC/57445/2010,WRIC/6960 5/2010,WRIC/70193/2010,WRIC/75912/2010,WRIC/73894/2010,WRIC/74172/ 2010,WRIC/60678/2010,WRIC/60624/2010,WRIC/60623/2010,WRIC/59950/20 10,WRIC/58439/2010,WRIC/57446/2010,WRIC/60677/2010,WRIC/58122/2010 Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J. 1. Heard Sri Utkarsh Srivastava, holding brief of Sri Ram Bahadur Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Atul Mehra, learned counsel for the respondent-Agra Development Authority and Sri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Apurva Hajela, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The challenge in this batch of writ petitions is to the acquisition notifications dated 11.09.2008 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the declaration dated 26.08.2010 under Section 6 read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred 2 as to the Act). 3. The challenge is primarily on the ground that there was no justification for invocation of Section 17(4) to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The impugned notification and declaration suffers from illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety and power to issue the same has not been exercised fairly and reasonably. The chronological events placed before us are that the impugned notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette on 11.09.2008, whereafter it was published in the newspaper 25.09.2008, i.e. within 2 weeks, but no munadi or local declaration was effected for a long time, i.e. for about 10 months on 14.07.2009. This fact itself belies the existence of any urgency of the nature so as the require the dispensation of the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, which prescribes period of 30 days for making objection to the proposal under Section 4 of the Act 1894. 4. It was submitted that in the resolution of the Board of Agra Development Authority, Agra (in short referred as development authority) in its meeting held on 31.03.2005, though proposal of acquisition was mooted and adopted by the establishment of new Transport Nagar (II Phase), but it nowhere provided that the purpose was so urgent that the land was immediately needed and request be made to the State to acquire the land invoking the urgency. Moreover, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was notified on 26.08.2010, which is much beyond the period of one year prescribed under the Act and is, thus, hit by the explanation (ii) to the first proviso to sub Section (1) of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The delay in making declaration under Section 3 6 further demonstrates that there was no urgency so as to invoke the provisions of Section 17(4) to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. 5. It was further argued that there was no material before the State for recording any satisfaction and no satisfaction at all has been recorded by the State that the acquisition was for urgent purpose and it requires dispensing of the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act. The notification containing declaration under Section 17(4) is altogether perverse, erroneous and without jurisdiction. It was urged that the Land Acquisition Act being expropriatory legislation, its provisions have to be strictly construed and the prescribed procedure cannot be relaxed or any deviation from prescribed procedure would hit the notification in view of the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. To exercise the right of Eminent Domain, the State has to comply with the procedure of law, strictly and cannot act arbitrarily and unreasonably to deprive the citizen of his property. 6. The entire exercise undertaken by the respondents for acquisition by the impugned notification and declaration is vitiated for the reason of procedural irregularity, non application of mind, absence of public purpose and actions amounting to fraud on the power of the State at the ends of both the State of U.P., i.e. respondent no.1 and the Agra Development Authority, Agra, i.e. respondent no.2. 7. By placing the minutes of 110th Board meeting dated 17.02.2009, appended as Annexure-'11' to the writ petition, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that it has come to the notice of the petitioners that upon objections being raised about environmental concern on the 4 proposed Transport Nagar Scheme, the Agra Development Authority in principle decided to give up the said scheme and instead change the land use from industrial to residential and approved the proposal at item no.16 in the said meeting. The copy of the agenda item no.16 and the minutes of the Board meeting dated 17.02.2009 have been placed before us to assert that objections taken by the Society known as Mathura road environment society with regard to the location of the land in question, acquired land of 116.055 acres for construction of Transport Nagar, with the categorical stand that no environment impact assessment had been conducted before selection of the land in question. It was pointed out that the land in question was near 'Kitham Lake' and a reserve forest and birds sanctuary are located near the land in question. In the report submitted on the agenda under item no.16, for change of land use of the proposed land in the master plan to residential, it was also noted that for development of Transport Nagar at Gwalior road, proposals have been invited by the State and, moreover, one Transport Nagar was already existing at the Mathura road. 8. Looking to the suggestion given by the Committee agitating the acquisition raising environmental concern, it was proposed that since Section 4 notification had already been published notifying the purpose of acquisition being Transport Nagar Project, the land use could be changed in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of the U.P Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 from Transport Nagar to residential, only after seeking the approval of the State Government and for that purpose, a proposal of the Board was required to be passed. 9. The said report appears to have been accepted in the 5 resolution at item no.'16' wherein it was resolved that the proceedings for change of land use, in accordance with law, would be initiated only after acquisition was completed. It was,
Legal Reasoning
thus, submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that admittedly the change of land use could only be done by the State Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act, (in short Act 1973), according to the procedure where public objections were to be invited and heard before altering the plan. However, from the resolution dated 17.02.2009, it is evident that the Agra Development Authority itself had resolved to give up its plan of developing Transport Nagar on the concern of the Society on environmental aspect. However, the Development Authority did not inform about this development to the State Government and had insisted to proceed with the acquisition in the name of Transport Nagar scheme, which clearly amounts to fraud on the part of the State authority and public at large. 10. In these circumstances, the submission is that the public purpose for which urgency was invoked was for the project of establishment of Transport Nagar in Phase-2. However, with the resolution for change of public purpose, the urgency itself vanished. No environmental impact assessment had been made to assess the suitability of the land before selecting it by the Board by its resolution dated 31.03.2005. No document or substance has been brought on record by the State to establish that there was material to record subjective satisfaction of the State to invoke urgency. There is prenotification delay as the proposal of acquisition was forwarded to the District Magistrate, Agra by the Development Authority on 22.09.2005 and the notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) 6 was published in the year 2008. There is no explanation to the prenotification delay except the communications between the Development Authority and the State. 10% estimated compensation was deposited on 18.07.2006. The proposal of the Agra Development Authority dated 22.09.2005 did not accompany the certificate of the Land Use Committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner and the meeting of the Land Use Committee was held only on 13.03.2008, wherein it was decided that the land would be acquired and used for development of Transport Nagar as per the Master Plan. There were various objections of the State Government to the initial proposal dated 22.09.2005, after which a revised proposal was submitted on 27.12.2006. The Certificate in form 10 issued by the District Magistrate Agra providing justification of invocation of urgency under Section 17(4) of the Act for acquisition of land for development of Transport Nagar (Phase -II) is dated 31.03.2008, which eventually does not provide any justification for invocation of urgency clause. Thus, after almost three years of submission of the proposal by the Agra Development Authority which was defective and rectifications were made over the period of three years, the notification under Section 4(1) read with 17(4) of the Act, 1894 was issued by the State Government for acquisition of 46.986 hectares land for the alleged purpose of development of (new Transport Nagar II). Even after publication of the notification in the official gazette, much time had been taken in publication of the notification in the newspaper and public notice of the same by Munadi/beats of drums. 11. The above chronology of events when taken into consideration, in light of the legal principle pertaining to 7 invocation of urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act 1894, clearly establish that there was no urgency at all. The
Decision
Right to Property conferred on the writ petitioners under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India has been taken away by the Development Authority as also the State, by denial of opportunity of hearing in an illegal manner. It is a case where fraud on the exercise of power of the State is writ large on the face of the record. Malice in law proved against the respondents would require interference in the action of the respondents in proceeding for acquisition. The post-notification delay is significant from the fact that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act 1894 was published after almost 2 years of the publication of Section 4 notification. The gap of time in two notifications is so deep that it cannot be filled on the explanation given by the respondents. 12. It was, thus, argued that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, there is no justification for compulsory acquisition by invoking the urgency clause. The legal position, in this regard, has been settled by the Apex Court in Radheyshyam vs. State of U.P 1. 13. The recent decision of the Apex Court in Hamid Ali Khan 2 has also been relied upon to assert that the exceptional and extraordinary power of doing away with an inquiry under Section 5-A in a case where possession of the land is required urgently or in an unforeseen emergency is provided under Section 17 of the Act. Such power is not a routine power and save circumstances warranting immediate possession it should not be lightly invoked. The guideline is inbuilt in Section 17 1.(2011) 5 SCC 553 2. 2021 SCC online SC 1115 8 itself for exercise of exceptional power in dispensing with inquiry under Section 5-A. Exceptional the power, the more circumspect the Government must be in its exercise. The Government obviously, therefore, has to apply its mind before it dispenses with inquiry under Section 5-A on the aspect whether the urgency is of such a nature that justifies elimination of summary inquiry under Section 5-A. 14. Reliance has been placed in the case of Deepak Pahwa vs Lt. Governor of Delhi 3 to submit that the pre and post notification delay is fatal. 15. Placing the judgments of the Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation vs Dar ius Shapur Chenai& Ors4 and Lachhman Dass vs Jagat Ram 5, it was argued that the Right to Property vested in Article 300-A of the Constitution of India being a constitutional right can only be taken away by adopting due process of law. Moreover, the Right to Property is alleviated to the status of a human right. It is held by the Apex Court that right to hold property cannot be taken away except in accordance with the provisions of statute and if a superior right to hold a property is claimed, proposal, thereof, must be complied with. In the case of Union of India vs Deepak Bhardwaj 6 the Apex Court had quashed the notification invoking urgency under Section 17(4) dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A, on the ground of total absence of material for the said decision. It was noted that works creating infrastructure are long term measures and such works keep on going as the society grow and there must be justification in law 3. AIR 1984 SC 1721 4.(2005) 7 SCC 627 5(2007) 10 SCC 448 6. AIR 2004 SC 3289 9 for denying the opportunity of hearing to the owner to protect his property and canvass his grievances before the State against the acquisition. 16. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Union Of India, Etc. vs Nand Kishore7 to argue that in the said judgment, the question as to whether the Government can change the purpose of acquisition of the land and acquire it for purpose other than that declared by it under Section 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was examined. It was held therein that satisfaction of the State Government, though subjective, cannot be transferred from one public purpose to another public purpose. There can be no transferred satisfaction. The Government cannot change the original public purpose till the acquisition is complete and it must adhere to the original purpose. If they want to depart from the original purpose, only course open is to start fresh acquisition proceedings. However, after the land has vested in it, the Government has a right to change the use to which it will put the land. It was considered therein that Section 17 of the Act 1894 confers extraordinary power on the Government. The statutory powers must be exercised subject to the conditions and limitations laid down by the statute. The major condition is that the Government must be satisfied that there is a situation, grave and sudden, which calls for an immediate action. The theory of Section 17 is that the taker of the land has to be satisfied that there is an emergency, an unforeseen combination of circumstances, which calls for immediate action. The Government must strictly adhere to the purpose for which the emergency powers were given. The emergency, whether foreseeable or unforeseen, must exist 7.AIR 1982 Delhi 462 10 before action can be taken by the Government under Section 17. The words employed in Section 17 postulate the continued existence of emergency. The acquiring authority has to be satisfied about it. The satisfaction can be reached on the circumstances existing at the time the notification under Section 17 is issued. It must also be shown to exist at the time of taking possession of the desired lands. The object of Section 17 is to regulate the rights of the subject and the obligations of the executive when lands are taken on the occasion of a public exigency. If there is no emergency, the Government has no power to dispense with the formalities of the normal statutory procedure prescribed by the Act. An urgency justifying resort to Section 17 is justiciable. 17. It was held that the doctrine of Eminent Domain is an aspect of sovereignty. The eminent domain is the highest and the most exact idea of property remaining in the Government or in the aggregate body of the people in their sovereign capacity. It gives a right to resume the possession of the property in the manner directed by the Constitution or the laws of the State, whenever the public interest requires it. In India, the right is regulated by the Act of 1894. The Statute has imposed restrictions and limitations and has attached certain conditions to the exercise of extraordinary power. The Government cannot disregard all these provisions and say that though originally the land was needed for fire station yet construction of staff quarters was as good a public purpose as any other and so the Government can take the land of the owner under Section 17. It was held therein that for such a course, there is no statutory sanction. The right to take private property for public use is a statutory power which the Government can exercise on certain 11 conditions. The seizure and appropriation of private property in a case either where the emergency did not exist or the emergency had ceased to exist before the publication of notice under Section 9, will be wholly illegal and a colourable exercise of power. 18. Reliance is further being placed on the decisions in Ram Dhari Jindal Memorial Trust vs Union of India 8, Darshan Lal Nagpal vs Govt of NCT of Delhi 9, Essco Fabs Pvt Ltd v/s State of Haryana 10, Garg Woollen Pvt Ltd vs State of U.P 11, Devendra Singh vs State of U.P 12, Dev Sharan vs State of U.P 13, Anand Singh vs State of U.P 14, Union of India vs Shiv Raj 15 to substantiate the above submissions. 19. With the above arguments, it was urged that the writ petitions deserve to be allowed with the quashing of the notifications for acquisition under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act read with Section 17 (4) invoking the urgency clause, upholding the right of the writ petitioners to enjoin their land without any restriction. 20. Sri Sanjeev Singh learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Atul Mehra learned counsel for the respondent Agra Development Authority, in rebuttal, placing the counter 8. (2012) 11 SCC 370 9. (2012) 2 SCC 327 10.(2009) 2 SCC 377 11.(2012) 12 SCC 257 12. (2011) 9 SCC 515 13.(2011) 4 SCC 769 14.(2010) 11 SCC 242 15.(2014) 6 SCC 564 12 affidavit of the State submits that the proposal for acquisition for 47.028 hectares of land of Village Runukta Tehsil Kiraoli District Agra, approved at item no.16 in the Board meeting dated 31.03.2005, was forwarded to the District Magistrate Agra vide letter dated 22.09.2005 sent by the Vice Chairman, Agra Development Authority. 21. In the said communication dated 22.09.2005 itself, it was indicated that the land in question was needed for public purpose of construction of new Transport Nagar (Phase II). 22. The Village Runakta is a part of the notified area under Agra Development Authority and after scrutiny of the said proposal the Special Land Acquisition Officer vide letter dated 21.10.2005 had intimated the deficiency in the proposal and asked the development authority to remove the same. Vide covering letter dated 01.02.2006, the spot inspection report of assets found on the proposed land in Prapatra-16 dated 30.01.2006 was appended. The copy of the letter dated 21.10.2006 as well as the covering letter alongwith the list of assets dated 01.02.2006 and 30.01.2006 is appended as Annexure-'2' of the counter affidavit of the State. Vide communication dated 24.01.2006, the Additional District Magistrate/Prescribed Authority, Urban Ceiling Agra had intimated that no land affected by ceiling or Gram Sabha land was included in the proposed land by Development Authority. The Chief Engineer Agra Development Authority forwarded the said information vide communication dated 25.01.2006 to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Agra. Vide letter dated 27.04.2006 the Special Land Acquisition Officer Agra asked the Secretary, Development Authority to deposit 10% of estimated compensation as well as 10% acquisition charges, i.e total 13 amount of Rs.5,33,76,096/- of the proposed land. The said amount was made available vide cheque dated 18.07.2006 and was deposited in the bank on 24.08.2006. The copy of the communication dated 27.04.2006 and 24.08.2006 establishing the said fact are appended as Annexure-CA-4. Revised proposal incorporating the suggestions of the Special Land Acquisition Officer and removal of discrepancies pursuant to the letter dated 27.12.2006 was sent by the Secretary Development Authority to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, appended as Annexure-'CA'-5 to the counter affidavit of the State. On receipt of the same, it was pointed out by the District Collector Agra, vide letter dated 29.12.2007 that the proposal lacks requisite certificate of Land Use Board and asked the authority to submit the same in Prapatra-8, so that the proposal may be forwarded to the State Government without delay. In response to the said query, the Agra Development Authority vide letter dated 25.03.2008 forwarded the minutes of meeting/report dated 13.03.2008 appended as Annexure-CA-'6' to the counter affidavit of the State. It is brought on record of the affidavit of the State that the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) vide letter dated 07.06.2008 asked the Chief Treasury Officer to transfer the 10% acquisition charges to the tune of Rs.2,66,88,048/- in the concerned treasury head, which process was duly completed. After removal of the defects as noted above, on scrutiny of the records, the office of the District Collector, Agra had forwarded land acquisition proposal in three copies to the Director of Land Acquisition, Directorate, Board of Revenue, Lucknow vide communication dated 31.03.2008 with the necessary certificate in Prapatra no.10, recommending for acquisition of land by invocation of Urgency Clause under Section 17. 14 23. A perusal of the report of the District Magistrate/Collector, Agra in Prapatra-'10' at page-46 of the counter affidavit of the State indicates that only in one line, it was recommended therein that in order to complete the project without any delay, there was a requirement of taking possession of the land immediately and in the event of application of Section 17, the provisions of Section 5-A will be dispensed with. The District Collector, Agra has expressed his consent with the justification for dispensation of inquiry, taking away of the opportunity of hearing to the tenure holders, with the above statement. An assurance was given that on the issuance of notifications under Sections 4 and 6, physical possession of the land-in-question would be provided to the acquiring body, forthwith. 24. On the proposal submitted by the District Magistrate, objections were raised by the Land Acquisition Directorate vide letter dated 20.05.2008, which were removed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Agra vide letter dated 14.07.2008, addressed to the Director and Commissioner, Land Acquisition Directorate, Board of Revenue, Lucknow. 25. On completion of the said proceeding, the State Government had accorded approval to the proposal for issuance of notification for acquisition under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, 1894. 26. It is stated in paragraph-'15' of the counter affidavit of the State that the State Government after due consideration of the entire material placed before it and having subjectively satisfied, it accorded its approval to issue notification dated 11.09.2008 under Section 4(1)/17(4) dispensing with the 15 inquiry under Section 5-A, keeping in view of the urgent requirement of the land for the purpose of the Project namely New Transport Nagar (Phase II) Agra. After publication of the notification dated 11.09.2008, corrigendum dated 09.02.2009 was issued in the official Gazette to make correction in the number of Khasras which were wrongly published in the said notification. The corrigendum was published on 28.02.2009 in two daily newspapers having wide publicity on receipt of the copy of the Gazette notification of corrigendum dated 09.02.2009. The public notice of Section 17(4) and corrigendum notification for general information by pasting on the notice board at conspicuous places in the locality was issued on 14.07.2009 and circulated on 18.07.2009 by the process server. 27. After various correspondence between the development authority and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, on completion of all necessary formalities, a proposal along with the covering letter dated 03.03.2010 was sent to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for issuance of declaration under Section 6(1)/17 of the Act. The said proposal was forwarded by the District Magistrate, Agra through the Land Acquisition, Directorate to the State Government and on approval of the State, the notification dated 26.08.2010 under Section 6(1) read with 17(1) was published in the official gazette dated 26.08.2010. 28. It is contended in the affidavits of the State as also the Development Authority that as per the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Act, the declaration for the land required for public purpose is to be made within one year from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1). The Explanation 16 I of the Section 6 provides that in computing the period of one year referred in first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under Section 4(1) is stayed by the order of the Court, shall be excluded. Further Section 4(1) provides that the Collector shall cause public notice of substance of such notification at convenient places in the locality. The last date of such publication and the giving of such public notice shall be the date of publication of the notification. 29. It is submitted that after publication of public notice of the substance of Section 4 notification on 14.07.2009, a writ petition no.48353 of 2009 was preferred before this Court, challenging the acquisition notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17. By interim order dated 09.09.2009, the directions were issued to maintain status quo. The said writ petition was finally decided on 02.02.2010. As a result, the period of 4 months and 23 days during which the said interim order was operative is required to be excluded as per Explanation I to Section 6. Computing the period between issuance of proposal under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6, by excluding the aforesaid period, the declaration notification dated 26.08.2010 will fall within the period of one year from the date of last publication of notification under Section 4(1) which is 14.07.2009, in the instant case. The submission, thus, is that there is no illegality or delay in declaration under Section 6 which was issued within one year from the last date of publication of Section 4(1) notification. 30. With regard to the stand of the writ petitioners in paragraph-'11' of the writ petition that there was delay in publication of the substance of the notification by public notice 17 in the locality and the directions issued by the Directorate fixing the time period for the same issued vide Circular dated 22.08.1989 had not been complied with, the reply is given in para-'24' of the counter affidavit of the Development Authority. It is stated therein that the proceeding required under law in pursuance of Section 4 of the notification was completed within the time limit of two weeks from the date of notification prescribed by the aforesaid circular, by publication of the notification in daily newspapers on 25.09.2008. 31. However, there was no time limit prescribed for public notice through Munadi or by pasting public notice in the local area. Further, under the Land Acquisition Act also, no time limit has been prescribed for Munadi or public notice through pasting. The public notice by Munadi (beats of drum) was made on 14.07.2009 and the notice of the contents of the notification was pasted on 18.07.2009 at conspicuous places of the local area of the acquired land. Thus, no illegality in issuance of notification under Section 6(1) /17(1) within one year from the date of last publication, made through Munadi on 14.07.2009, by excluding the time period during which the interim order of this Court was in existence. 32. In reply to paragraphs-'13' and '14' of the writ petition, para-'26' of the counter affidavit has been placed before us to assert that for development of new Transport Nagar (Phase II) for which the land was urgently required, the State Government after considering all the relevant material, recorded satisfaction about the urgent need of the land for the Project. 33. On factual aspects of the matter, learned counsel for the writ petitioners relied upon the statements made in the leading writ petition no.53553 of 2010, reply to which in the counter 18 affidavit of the State and the Development Authority have been placed before us by the counsel for the respondents and, as such, the factual statement in this judgment are noted from the averments in the said writ petition and the counter affidavits of the respondents filed therein. 34. As regards the contention of the writ petitioners in paragraphs-'31', '32', '33', '34', in reply to the contents of paragraphs-'31' and '32' of the writ petition with regard to the averments about the change of land use after submission of the proposal under Section 4 during the pendency of the land acquisition proceedings, the attention of the Court was invited to para-'37' of the counter affidavit of the Development Authority, respondent no.2, which reads as under:- “37. That the contents of paragraph nos.31 and 32 of the writ petition as stated are misconceived and incorrect hence not admitted. In reply, it is submitted that the Board in its 110 the meeting as a resolution no.16 decided to change the use of the proposed land in accordance with law after acquisition of the Land in the light of proposal as well as the reports received in respect of changing the use of Land from Transport Nagar to residential use. This fact itself is evident from the resolution dated 17.02.2009 taken in 110 meeting of the Board. Copy resolution dated 17.02.2009 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.C.A-14 to this affidavit. It is relevant to submit here that by its proposal the authority had not committed any fraud or illegal acts. The resolution in A.D.A would take decision in accordance with law in respect of change of use of land after acquisition of the land.” 35. The copy of the resolution dated 17.02.2009 appended as Annexure-'11' to the writ petition is same as that the document appended as CA-'14' to the Counter affidavit of the Development Authority. 36. It is, thus, sought to be submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the Development Authority that in the resolution dated 17.02.2009 of the development authority, only this much 19 was resolved that the decision in respect of change of land use would be taken after acquisition of the land, in accordance with law. 37. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed in July, 2022 on behalf of the development authority, it is stated that the possession of 10.3599 hectares of land, was handed over to the development authority on 24.08.2012. The possession memo in this regard is appended as Annexure SCA-'1'. The award in respect to the acquired land for the total area of 46.9773 hectares out of the acquired area of 46.9860 hectares was declared on 10.10.2012. The possession of the remaining area of 36.6174 hectares of land could not be transferred to the development authority because of the interim order operating in the writ petitions (in this bunch), passed by this Court. The amount of Rs.29,69,93,528/- pursuant to the award dated 10.10.2012 had been deposited by the Development Authority with the balance amount of Rs.1,12,86,856/-which is corroborated from the documents appended as Annexure SCA-'3'. 38. It is, thus, submitted that despite huge investment having been made by the Development Authority, development scheme could not be commenced due to partial possession of the scattered land, on account of pendency of the writ petitions before this Court. 39. In the 2nd supplementary counter affidavit filed on 24.05.2023 during the course of hearing, the resolution no.16 dated 31.03.2005 of the Board of Development Authority has been appended alongwith the minutes of the meeting of District Land Use Committee dated 25.07.2006 and the Divisional Land Use Committee meeting dated 13.03.2008. The copies of the 20 requisite forms submitted with the proposal to the State Government have been collectively appended as Annexure -SCA-'2'. 40. It is further submitted in the said affidavit that the Bird sanctuary is at a distance of approximately 3 kms from the land in question and to demonstrate the said fact, an enlarged map of the Master plan 2001-21 has been brought on record as Annexure-SCA-'5'. 41. It is further submitted that the necessity/urgency arose to develop a Transport Nagar in the outskirts of Agra City, being a heritage city and due to excessive traffic congestion of heavy vehicles and further in view of the decision of the Apex Court to reduce carbon emission affecting the movement Taj Mahal. 42. With these facts placed before us from the affidavits of the Development Authority and the State it was sought to be argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the Development Authority that there was no illegality much less irregularity in the acquisition in question. It was further argued that in order to ease the traffic congestion and ensure that the Transport vehicles do not enter into the city, need for creation of Transport Nagar arose. The survey was conducted to find out suitable land and decision was taken to go out of the city limits. The place where lands were owned by 70 tenure holders was identified by the Development Authority, in the Board meeting dated 31.03.2005, it was resolved that the identified place was the most suitable place for establishment of Transport Nagar. 43. On a pointed query made by the Court as to whether any environmental impact study was conducted by the Development Authority at the time of selection of the land in question, no 21 plausible reply could be given by the learned counsels appearing for the development authority. However, it was insisted by them that since the land-in-question can be demonstrated to be at a distance of approximately 3 kms from the Bird sanctuary from the enlarged map of the master plan, it can also be seen that industries are situated in between the bird sanctuary and the land in question. The ecological concern of the writ petitioners or the Society which raised objection is wholly illusory. 44. Submission, thus, is that from the situation of the land in question, it cannot be said that the Project of Transport Nagar, in any way, cause any damage to the environment of the lake or the bird sanctuary. The environment concern raised by the so called society was only at the instance of the writ petitioners, who are bent upon to stall the Project with vested interest. 45. As regards the Board meeting dated 17.02.2009 with regard to the change of land use, it was vehemently argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the development authority that the reading of the said resolution itself demonstrates that decision was taken to change the land use only after acquisition, after undertaking appropriate legal proceedings for the purpose. The objection of the Committee placed before the Board of Development Authority, in the report appended with the proposal at Agenda item no.'16' (at page-'62' of the writ petition) has been placed before us to assert that the said report only recorded the objections taken by the Committee. The approval of the proposal to change the land use to residential, which could only be undertaken after approval of the State Government, cannot be said to be a decision of the Board to change the land use after acquisition as it could not have been 22 unilateral decision of the Board of the Development Authority. 46. No fraud or any illegal act can be attributed to the Development Authority. It was merely a proposal which could have been acted upon only after the approval of the State Government and, as such, there was no occasion for communication of the same to the State Government. Moreover, it was merely a proposed decision, which was never acted upon as, thus, it can be said that it has met its decent burial automatically. 47. Even otherwise in the master plan, land in question has been proposed for construction of Transport Nagar and the said master plan was finalised after inviting objections of the public at large. It could not be demonstrated by the writ petitioners that, at any point of time, before finalisation of the master plan, at stage of inviting objections, anyone of them had objected to the proposal of establishment of the Transport Nagar in the master plan. 48. Even otherwise, the settled legal position is that the change of land use for which any particular piece of land is acquired, is permitted after acquisition and the owners /land holders cannot raise objection to the use of land after acquisition proceedings are completed. 49. It is further submitted that every claimant was heard by the SLO claimant at the time of making of the award and with the taking of possession of the land not affected by the interim orders and making of the award, the land acquisition proceedings stood concluded. 50. Even otherwise, the application under Section 48 of the Act 1894 filed by the writ petitioners to seek release of their 23 lands had been rejected by the State Government with the rejection of the representations vide order dated 26.08.2010, wherein it was noted that the map submitted by the writ petitioners for raising construction over the land in question has been rejected on 02.05.2006, after the land in question was proposed for construction of new Transport Nagar and, moreover, no construction was found on the spot even after the approval dated 04.04.2008 granted by the Development Authority to the proposed map submitted by the writ petitioners. For this reason, the initial resolution of the Board of Development Authority dated 27.01.2007 at item no.25 had been modified/amended with the resolution dated 22.08.2009 of the Board of Development Authority. 51. There was, thus, no justification for release of the land- in-question from acquisition. It is sought to be submitted that all objections taken by the writ petitioners about the suitability of the land-in-question or the decision of the Board to change its land use are wholly without substance and are liable to be repelled having no bearing on the acquisition in question. 52. As regards the pre-notification delay pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the submission of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners is that the Board meeting for passing the resolution to acquire the land-in-question held on 31.03.2005, the proposal was sent to the State Government through the district Magistrate on 22.09.2005. The report with regard to the assets to the acquired land, i.e. things attached to the earth was submitted on 01.02.2006. A correction was required which was made on 22.11.2006, and the proposal of the development authority was processed with the completion of necessary formalities, i.e. appraisal of the same by the Land 24 Use Committee, both at the district level and the divisional level. In any case, the time taken in completion of necessary formalities to process the proposal cannot be termed as pre- notification delay affecting the validity of the acquisition. The notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 was issued on 11.09.2008, after completion of all necessary formalities and the correction which was required and completed in the proposal from time to time. 53. As regards post-notification delay, it is submitted that the acquisition notification under Section 4 was required to be corrected on certain aspects and corrigendum in this regard was issued on 09.02.2009. Section 6 notification was issued within a period of one year from the date of the last publication which is giving of public notice of the contents of the notification at appropriate places. The time taken in the interim order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.48353 of 2009, of about four months and 23 days, has to be excluded from the period of one year. The plea with regard to pre-notification delay, therefore, is wholly misconceived. It is further argued that the decision making process involves a multitear process culminating in the final decision. No infirmity can be found at any stage of the said proceedings. The departmental Secretary who has taken decision was competent to deal with the matter and the final decision has been taken on consideration of all materials relevant to the facts of the case. The plea of the petitioners for holding the acquisition as illegal on the alleged delay at pre and post notification stage is wholly misconceived. 54. A compilation of the judgement has been provided to support the above submissions by Sri Atul Mehra learned Advocate appearing for the respondent Development Authority. 25 Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court Delhi Development Authority Vs. Munni Lal & other16 and State of Uttarakhand & others Vs. Rajiv Berry & others17 to assert that invocation of Section 17(1) & 17 (4) of the urgency provisions was proper as the satisfaction of the State Government was recorded on all relevant aspects. Nothing could be brought before this Court to impress that the notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) & 17 (4) suffer from any illegality. It is further sought to be submitted that from the perusal of the original record of the State, it is more than evident that at each stage of the proceeding, conscious decision had been taken and no fault can be found in the process by which the decision has been arrived at. 55. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Lal Bahadur Vs. State of U.P.18, Bhagat Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others19 and State of Haryana & others Vs. Vinod Oil & General Mills & another20 to assert that it is not mandatory nor contemplated under the land acquisition proceedings to use the acquired land for the same purpose for which it was acquired. The decision of the Apex court in Bhagat Singh (supra) has been placed before us to submit that it is open for the beneficiary of the acquisition to move the competent authority under the Development Act and obtain sanction of the said authority for suitable modification of the Master Plan so as to to permit the use of the land for the public purpose for which it is acquired. The only requirement is that the acquisition must be for public purpose. The change of land use permitted by the Master Plan or Zonal Plan enforced at the time of acquisition is