JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vineet Saran, J.—This is a bunch of writ petitions challenging the notifications dated 24.11.2005 and 23.6.2006 issued under Sections 4 and 6 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. We have heard Sri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri G.K. Singh; Sri U.N. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vivek Saran; and Sri S.K.Tyagi on behalf of the petitioners. Dr. Y.K. Srivastava has appeared for the State and Sri Ashwani Kumar Misra for Hapur-Pilakhuwa Development Authority. For the purposes of convenience, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37893 of 2006 is being treated as the leading writ petition. 3. The undisputed facts of these cases are that for establishment of a Textile Centre Yojna (scheme) for giving encouragement to Textile industry of the country, a proposal was initiated by the Central Government. Sites from all over India were considered and on 15.3.2005 a decision was taken by the Central Government to establish a Textile Centre Yojna at Pilakhuwa, which was amongst the two sites for such purpose in the entire country. Pursuant thereto an undertaking was given by the State Government on 15.5.2005 that the project would be completed by the executing body i.e. Hapur-Pilakhuwa Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Development Authority’) within one year. After completing the formalities, on 3.6.2005 the Development Authority forwarded the proposal for acquisition of 45.273 hectares of land. After recording the reasons for urgency in the matter and that the land was required for public purpose, the Collector came to the conclusion that urgency provisions were required to be invoked for acquisition of land and also recorded his satisfaction about dispensation of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Such proposal was forwarded by the Collector to the State Government on 4.8.2005, along with the certificate that part of the acquisition cost and compensation payable, had already been deposited in his office. Considering the extreme urgency involved in completion of the scheme within a period of one year and the assurance extended to the Central Government in this regard, the State Government accepted and endorsed the certificate of the Collector about the urgent public purpose involved in the acquisition of land as well as the need to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act after invoking the urgency clause. In turn, the State Government, on the basis of material available and after recording its satisfaction of the urgency that the land was required for public purpose, issued the notification dated 24.11.2005 under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17 (4) of the Act. Thereafter efforts were made for settlement on the basis of the U.P. Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1997’). A report of such exercise was given by the Collector and the same along with approval of the Commissioner were together forwarded to the State Government, along with other relevant material. On the basis of such record, the State Government formed its opinion that the land was needed for public purpose and that urgency provisions were required to be invoked and enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was to be dispensed with. The State Government thus issued the notification dated 23.6.2006 under Section 6 read with Section 17(1) of the Act. 4. Although large number of persons had entered into agreements under the Rules of 1997 and subjected themselves to the acquisition at the agreed rate, but a few land owners did not agree and challenged the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 read with Section 17 of the Act by filing these writ petitions. Interim order staying the dispossession of the petitioners in the leading writ petition was passed on 19.7.2006 and similar stay orders were passed thereafter in other petitions. The State Government, as well as the Development Authority, filed their separate counter affidavits with applications for vacating the stay orders. At this stage, since the pleadings between the parties were complete, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, all these writ petitions have been heard finally at the admission stage. 5. The submissions of Sri R.N. Singh and Sri U.N.Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, are three fold : Firstly, there was no urgency to invoke the provisions of Section 17 of the Act and dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. 5. The submissions of Sri R.N. Singh and Sri U.N.Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, are three fold : Firstly, there was no urgency to invoke the provisions of Section 17 of the Act and dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Secondly, the satisfaction of the State Government was not recorded and there was no sufficient material before the State Government for invoking such urgency clause; and thirdly, the role of the Development Authority comes only after the land was acquired and possession handed over to them and that involvement of the Development Authority during the process of acquisition vitiates the entire acquisition process. 6. On facts it has been urged that the petitioners were either running their small scale textile units or were holding vacant land which was being used for the purposes of their textile units or some of the petitioners were having their residential houses and the land was Abadi land and thus the same could not have been acquired. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners who were running their textile units or using the land for the purposes of textile units, that since they were using the said land for the same purpose for which their land was being acquired, the same should not be acquired. Others who were using the land for residential purposes have contended that since the land was in Abadi area, their land should be exempted from the acquisition process. 7. In support of their contention that there was no urgency in the matter or that there was no material before the State Government for recording its satisfaction regarding urgency, the petitioners have contended that the only communication on the basis of which such satisfaction has been recorded is an annexure to the letter dated 5.5.2005 of the Principal Secretary to the State Government which states that in case if there was any delay in acquisition of land, there was possibility of unauthorized constructions being made on the land in question. It has thus been submitted that because of their own incompetency in stopping the unauthorized constructions, the State could not take this as a ground for invoking the urgency clause. 8. It has thus been submitted that because of their own incompetency in stopping the unauthorized constructions, the State could not take this as a ground for invoking the urgency clause. 8. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 24.11.2005 and the subsequent notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued nearly seven months later and during this period the hearing of the objections, as required under Section 5-A of the Act, could have taken place and thus also there was no necessity of invoking the urgency clause. With regard to the role of the Development Authority it has been contended that it is not the State Government but the Development Authority which has been in the forefront of the acquisition process and that the involvement of the Development Authority vitiates the whole process of acquisition. 9. In support of their submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on Om Prakash v. State of U.P., 1998 (6) SCC 1 ; Union of India v. Deepak Bharadwaj, 2004(13) SCC 85 ; Ram Chandra Keshav Adke v. Govind Joti Chavare, AIR 1975 SC 915 ; Zora Singh v. J.M.Tandon, AIR 1971 SC 1537 ; Smt. S.R.Venkataraman v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 49 , and Kasama Sahakari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2006 (7) ADJ 133 . 10. On the other hand Sri Ashwani Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the Development Authority has submitted that there was enough material before the State Government to show that there was extreme urgency for acquiring the land. The annexure to the communication dated 5.5.2005 mentioning that in case of delay, there could be unauthorized constructions on the land in question, could not be read in isolation. The covering letter itself has also to be considered, which categorically states that the executing body (i.e. Development Authority) has given an assurance to complete the project within one year, and on such basis an undertaking was also given by the State Government. The covering letter itself has also to be considered, which categorically states that the executing body (i.e. Development Authority) has given an assurance to complete the project within one year, and on such basis an undertaking was also given by the State Government. With regard to the nature of the project, Sri Mishra has submitted that the Project (scheme) has been initiated at the instance of the Central Government with the objective to promote textile industries which, according to the report of the meeting of the empowered committee of Textile Centres Infrastructure Development (TCID) and Projects Approval Committee of the Apparel Parks for Export (APE) schemes, could be achieved only when the State Government ensures expeditious completion of infrastructure, and such projects which show no progress would be cancelled. Such decision was taken by the committees in the meeting dated 15.3.2005 and Pilakhuwa, in district Ghaziabad of the State of U.P. was one of the two sites in the entire country which was found viable by the committee for sanction of the project, subject to the commitment from the State Government that the project would be completed within a period of one year. It is in this backdrop that an undertaking was given by the State Government as well as the Development Authority on 5.5.2005 that the project would be completed within one year. A recommendation was then made by the Development Authority on 3.6.2005 for acquiring the land and vide communication dated 4.8.2005 a further recommendation was made by the Collector for invoking the urgency clause and dispensation of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. It was only after considering all such documents and reports that the State Government issued the notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Act on 24.11.2005. 11. As regards the time gap between the issuance of the notification under Section 4 and under Section 6 of the Act, Sri Mishra has submitted (on the basis of record placed along with the counter affidavit), that as per the Government Order dated 29.9.2001 the Development Authority, as well as the State, were making efforts for amicable settlement of rate of compensation by resorting to the provisions of the Rules of 1997 which provides for settlement of the rate of compensation by negotiation. It was in this regard that immediately after the notification under Section 4 of the Act, efforts were made for settling the rate of compensation for acquisition of land by negotiation, for which several meetings were held at different levels. Ultimately in the meeting of some tenure holders, as well as the officers of the Development Authority and the State Government, held under the Chairmanship of the Collector, Ghaziabad on 22.1.2006 a large number of tenure holders consented to the negotiated compensation of Rs. 240/- per square meter. A detailed report in this regard was submitted by the officials of the State Government and the Development Authority, to the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut who, in turn, vide his communication dated 18.3.2006 granted his approval to the negotiated rate of Rs. 240/- per square meter for acquisition of land of the tenure holders. On the basis of the same, a large number of tenure holders subjected themselves to acquisition on the basis of agreement in terms of Rules of 1997. However, despite the best efforts of the State Government and the Development Authority, all the tenure holders did not agree. Hence on the basis of the report of the Collector and the Commissioner in this regard, which was sent to the State Government along with all the relevant material, the State Government formed its opinion about the urgency in the matter that the land was needed for public purpose and thus issued the notification under Section 6 read with Section 17(1) of the Act on 23.6.2006. It was thus contended that there was no delay in the issuance of the notification under Section 6 of the Act. 12. It has further been submitted by Sri Mishra that the Textile Centre Scheme at Pilakhuwa is a most prestigious and important scheme for the development of textile centre, which is the only centre chosen in the entire State of U.P. and is one of the two centres chosen in the entire country. The same is because of the geographical position of Pilakhuwa, which lies in the national capital region and is in the neighbourhood of big industrial cities like Meerut, Ghaziabad, NOIDA and Moradabad, and the National Highway 24 passes just adjacent to this town and the main rail line passes just from outside the town, which makes its road and rail link effective. It has also been urged that such scheme was necessitated because there was mushroom growth of textile units in the area which were, though doing good business, could not achieve the best because of lack of infrastructural facilities. The scheme when implemented, would provide all necessary facilities to run the textile mills in an efficient manner, with full utilization of existing resources by setting up integrated textile complex in a well planned manner. It has been stated that the scheme provides for uninterrupted power supply, proper fire safety measures and proper treatment of effluent which is at present discharged in the street drains causing chronic problems in the town, as there is no common effluent treatment plant for the units which are scattered all over the township. The scheme also takes care of providing technical support in terms of testing, design, project development etc. and would thus enhance the sale of textile manufactured by the units in domestic and international market. It has been stated that for such purpose, out of the total cost of Rs. 26.16 Crores, the contribution of the implementing agency is only Rs. 6.16 Crores, whereas the remaining Rs. 20 Crores is to be borne by the Government of India. Sri Mishra submits that although the work on the project has already begun, roads have been partly constructed, some sheds have also come up, but because of interim orders granted by this Court full development has not been possible. 13. On facts of the individual cases, Sri Mishra has submitted that none of the so called textile units of the petitioners are in working condition. Some photographs have been annexed along with the counter affidavit to show that although some constructions are standing but they are in dilapidated condition and no commercial activity is going on there. The open land is over grown with weeds, on which it cannot be said that there has been any activity going on. 14. As regards the submission of the petitioners that the entire acquisition proceedings vitiates because of involvement of the Development Authority, Sri Mishra has submitted that the Development Authority is a local authority and that it is the executing body for the project. It is for the purposes of the Development Authority that such acquisition has taken place. Section 50 of the Act provides for acquisition of land at costs of a local authority or company. It is for the purposes of the Development Authority that such acquisition has taken place. Section 50 of the Act provides for acquisition of land at costs of a local authority or company. Further, Section 17 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act,1973 also provides for acquisition of land for any local authority for the purpose for which land has been acquired, on payment by such authority. It has thus been urged that the involvement of local authority is there under the law and as such the acquisition proceeding cannot be nullified because of its involvement. 15. In support of his submissions, Sri Mishra has relied on Bhagat Singh v. State of U.P., 1999 (2) SCC 384 ; Ved Prakash v. Ministry of Industries, 2003 (9) SCC 542 ; U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi, 1995(2) SCC 326; and Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 1 SCC 134 . 16. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Development Authority stating that on considering the difficulties which have arisen in keeping to the time schedule, the Government of India, Ministry of Textile has enlarged the time of the project till March, 2009 and in case if possession of the land in dispute, regarding which interim stay orders have been granted, is not given to the respondents immediately, the entire scheme will fail, which would cause immense loss and hardship. 17. Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. has adopted the arguments of Sri Mishra and has further submitted that the State Government had come to the conclusion regarding urgency and public purpose on the basis of the material on record and that the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 read with Section 17 of the Act were thus issued for such purpose and that the Textile Centre Scheme at Pilakhuwa was required to be urgently completed and that if the same is not done so within the extended time, there is possibility of the project being withdrawn by the Central Government. He has placed reliance on First Land Acquisition Collector v. Nirodhi Prakash Gangoli, AIR 2002 SC 1314. 18. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. He has placed reliance on First Land Acquisition Collector v. Nirodhi Prakash Gangoli, AIR 2002 SC 1314. 18. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. As regards the first two submissions of the petitioners regarding urgency to invoke the provisions of Section 17 and dispensation of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act as well as the sufficiency of the material before the State Government to invoke such urgency, amongst other factors, what is to be seen is the nature and importance of the project for which land was being acquired, the steps taken by the State Government and the Development Authority in this regard and the time frame within which the project is to be completed. 19. From the record it is clear that the initiation of the project was made on 15.3.2005 when the Central Government came up with its proposal for establishment of a Textile Centre Scheme at Pilakhuwa. Soon thereafter, the Development Authority, on 3.6.2005 forwarded the proposal of acquisition of 45.273 hectares of land for the purposes of the project. The Collector, after considering the various aspects and the material on record, recorded his satisfaction for dispensation of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and forwarded his proposal to the State Government on 4.8.2005. In the meantime the Development Authority had deposited the requisite amount for such acquisition with the Collector. The State Government had already given its commitment to the Central Government for completing the project within one year. After considering all the aspects and the various materials produced before the State Government, the State Government found that there was urgent public purpose involved in the acquisition of land and thus dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act after invoking the urgency clause. It is wrong to say that the urgency clause was invoked only because of a noting that if there was any delay in the acquisition, there could be unauthorized constructions on the land. That may have been one of the factors but the other factors were also material, such as the need for setting up an organized Textile Centre, completion of the project within a time frame etc. The State Government thereafter on 24.11.2005 issued the notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 (4) of the Act. That may have been one of the factors but the other factors were also material, such as the need for setting up an organized Textile Centre, completion of the project within a time frame etc. The State Government thereafter on 24.11.2005 issued the notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 (4) of the Act. Immediately thereafter, the State Government made efforts for settling the rate of acquisition with the tenure holders by negotiation. The same was being done in terms of the Government Order dated 29.9.2001 as well as U.P. Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997. 20. What is to be seen is that a majority of the tenure holders accepted the negotiated and agreed terms of acquisition, which was Rs. 240/- per square meter. Several meetings in this regard were held under the Chairmanship of Collector, Ghaziabad and ultimately a report was sent by the Collector on 22.1.2006 which was accepted and approved by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut on 18.3.2006. On such basis a large number of tenure holders had accepted the agreed terms of acquisition and possession of the land had been taken by the respondents. It was when some tenure holders opted out of such agreement that a report was sent to the State Government along with all the necessary material. After considering the entire circumstances and the material available, the State Government formed its opinion about the urgency in the matter and that the land was needed for public purpose and thereafter, on 23.6.2006, issued the notification under Section 6 read with Section 17(1) of the Act. 21. In the aforesaid facts, we are satisfied that the land in question was required for public purpose and that there was urgency in the matter and that the State Government had acted promptly in either issuing the notifications or taking steps for arriving at an agreement by negotiation in terms of Rules of 1997. 22. While considering the case of this nature this Court has to take into account the larger public interest. The inconvenience which may be caused to some individuals has to be sacrificed for the planned development which is in the interest of the public at large, as well as the industry in particular and the nation in general. 22. While considering the case of this nature this Court has to take into account the larger public interest. The inconvenience which may be caused to some individuals has to be sacrificed for the planned development which is in the interest of the public at large, as well as the industry in particular and the nation in general. From the record it is seen that the township where the textile centre is coming up, is ideally located, as it is well connected by road and by rail and industrial townships are in the neighbourhood. Small scale textile industries which are already existing are in a de-organized manner and their effluent which is discharged in the street drains is creating problem for the citizens in general, as there is no common effluent treatment plant. The recommendation of the Central Government for setting up the Textile Centre and giving an organized shape to the various textile units established in the township and the urgency in the matter is perfectly justified, and the courts of law would not, and should not, be a hurdle in the process of such planned industrial growth which would benefit the public in general and would be in the interest of nation. 23. The Apex Court in the case of Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 1 SCC 134 has, more than a decade back, observed that “our country is now launched upon an ambitious programme of all-round economic advancement to make out economy competitive in the world market. ..................... It is, however, recognized on all hands that the infrastructure necessary for sustaining such a pace of progress is woefully lacking in our country.” While keeping the above in mind, it was observed by the Apex Court that affected persons challenge the acquisition proceedings in Courts by filing writ petitions but has observed that “a time has come where the Courts should keep the larger public interest in mind while exercising their power of granting stay/injunction and that such power should be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. While interfering in such matters the Courts have to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226. While interfering in such matters the Courts have to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226. (Emphasis supplied)” In the present case the Textile Centre Scheme at Pilakhuwa is in the larger public interest, and even though certain persons affected may face inconvenience, but the process of acquisition should not be stalled merely because of that, as the public purpose for which it is being acquired has to be considered, which undoubtedly is laudable, as it is a programme for all-round economic advancement of the textile industry of the area, as well as of the nation. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash v. State of U.P. (supra) to the effect that possibility of encroachment over the area cannot be considered to be a germane ground for invoking urgency powers for dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. In that case the Supreme Court had, in the facts of the case, permitted the land owners to move the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act for withdrawal of their plots of land from acquisition under Section 48 of the Act. However, the said observation of Hon’ble S. B. Majmudar, J. in the aforesaid case was later clarified by His Lordship in the case of Bhagat Singh v. State of U.P., (1999) 2 SCC 384 . In paragraph 24 of the said judgment it has been stated that “In our opinion, the procedure adopted in Om Prakash cannot be treated as a precedent in all land acquisition cases where the Section 5-A inquiry is dispensed with. The procedure adopted in that case is based upon the special circumstances obtaining there.” Thus, it is true that possibility of encroachment alone may not be a sufficient clause for invoking such urgency powers but coupled with other factors, as are there in the present case, the urgency clause could certainly be invoked. 25. The procedure adopted in that case is based upon the special circumstances obtaining there.” Thus, it is true that possibility of encroachment alone may not be a sufficient clause for invoking such urgency powers but coupled with other factors, as are there in the present case, the urgency clause could certainly be invoked. 25. With regard to dispensation of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, the petitioners have placed reliance on the case of Union of India v. Deepak Bhardwaj, (2004) 13 SCC 85 wherein the Apex Court has held that “If the Government cannot ensure that inquiry be expeditiously held by the Collector under Section 5-A, it has to blame itself and it cannot thrust the adverse consequences in this behalf on the landowners by depriving them of their rights guaranteed under Section 5-A.” The said observation of the Court was made in the facts of that case where the question was of creating necessary infrastructure in rural areas and it was considered by the Court that such works keep going on as the society grows and that these are long-term measures. However, in the present case, the land has been acquired for a particular purpose, which was a project to be completed within a time frame. After taking into account the minor bureaucratic delay, the State Government in the present case has acted promptly and it cannot be said that there was any delay in the matter or that the land was not required for public purpose or that there was no urgency. 26. In the case of Kashama Sahakari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2006 (7) ADJ 133 a Division Bench of this Court has held that there must be something on record to show that the opinion of the Collector or Government, while invoking the emergency provisions of the Act dispensing with the enquiry contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act, has been formed on the basis of material on record and is not arbitrary and that the subjective satisfaction of the Government has to be on the basis of material available on record. The observations made by the Division Bench are well settled principles of law but each case has to be seen in the light of the facts of that particular case. The observations made by the Division Bench are well settled principles of law but each case has to be seen in the light of the facts of that particular case. In the present case, as we have already held earlier, there was sufficient material for the Collector and the State Government to form its opinion regarding urgency in the matter. 27. In the case of First Land Acquisition Collector v. Nirodhi Prakash Gangoli, AIR 2002 SC 1314 the Supreme Court observed that the delay between the decision of the State Government to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A and the making of a declaration under Section 6 of the Act is not fatal. The Apex Court further observed that “The question of urgency of an acquisition under Section 17 (1) and (4) of the Act is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the Government and ordinarily it is not open to the Court to make a scrutiny of the propriety of that satisfaction on an objective appraisal of facts. In this view of the matter when the Government takes a decision, taking all relevant considerations into account and is satisfied that there exists emergency for invoking powers under Section 17 (1) and (4) of the Act, and issues notification accordingly, the same should not be interfered with by the Court unless the Court comes to the conclusion that the appropriate authority had not applied its mind to the relevant factors or that the decision has been taken by the appropriate authority mala fide. Whether in a given situation there existed urgency or not is left to the discretion and decision of the concerned authorities. If an order invoking power under Section 17 (4) is assailed, the Court may enquire whether the appropriate authority had all the relevant materials before it or whether the order has been passed by non-application of mind. Any post notification delay subsequent to the decision of the State Government dispensing with an inquiry under Section 5-A by invoking powers under Section 17 (1) of the Act would not invalidate the decision itself specially when no mala fides on the part of the Government or its officers are alleged. Any post notification delay subsequent to the decision of the State Government dispensing with an inquiry under Section 5-A by invoking powers under Section 17 (1) of the Act would not invalidate the decision itself specially when no mala fides on the part of the Government or its officers are alleged. Opinion of the State Government can be challenged in a Court of law if it could be shown that the State Government never applied its mind to the matter or that action of the State Government is mala fide. Though the satisfaction under Section 17 (4) is a subjective one and is not open to challenge before a Court of law, except for the grounds already indicated, but the said satisfaction must be of the Appropriate Government and that the satisfaction must be, as to the existence of an urgency. The conclusion of the Government that there was urgency even though cannot be conclusive but is entitled to great weight, as has been held by this Court in Jage Ram v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1971 SC 1033 . Even a mere allegation that power was exercised malafide would not be enough and in support of such allegation specific materials should be placed before the Court. The burden of establishing malafides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. When the Court is called upon to examine the question as to whether the acquisition is malafide or not, what is necessary to be inquired into and found out is, whether the purpose for which the acquisition is going to be made, is a real purpose or a camouflage.” As such there being no allegations of malafide or any such contention that the real purpose of acquisition is not for setting up a Textile Centre, we, having already held that there was sufficient matrial for invoking the urgency clause, the acquisition cannot be set aside in the facts of this case. 28. As regards the role of the acquiring agency, Section 50 of the Act read with Section 17 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 make it clear that the land can be acquired by the State Government for the Development Authority. 28. As regards the role of the acquiring agency, Section 50 of the Act read with Section 17 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 make it clear that the land can be acquired by the State Government for the Development Authority. In the case of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi, (1995) 2 SCC 326 it has been held that the acquiring body would be a proper party and would have a right to participate in the proceeding. 29. As regards the facts of individual cases, as per the petitioners, the land which has been acquired was either Abadi land, or was being used for manufacturing textile or for ancillary purposes. Nothing has been shown by the petitioners that Abadi land cannot be acquired under the Act. At best such land owners could be entitled to compensation for their constructions standing thereon. As regards the claim of some of the petitioners that they are already using the land in question for the purpose for which it is being acquired i.e. setting up of a textile unit, what is seen from the record is that there may be some construction on the land in question, but the photographs, which have been annexed, show that the constructions standing thereon are in dilapidated shape and are not in use as there is growth of weeds on open land on all sides of construction, and as such there is no commercial activity therein. Some photographs have been produced by some of the petitioners to show that open land is being used for drying clothes, which according to them are clothes on which printing has been done by the textile units. However, no proof has been given that they have any running textile unit. For such purpose the petitioners could have produced registration certificate of their small scale industry, the details of turn over, the licences obtained from various authorities etc. Nothing of this kind has been produced by the petitioners. It is only their bald statement that they are running textile units, which have been categorically denied in the counter affidavits filed by the State and the Development Authority along with photographs to show that there is no such textile unit being run by the petitioners. Nothing of this kind has been produced by the petitioners. It is only their bald statement that they are running textile units, which have been categorically denied in the counter affidavits filed by the State and the Development Authority along with photographs to show that there is no such textile unit being run by the petitioners. As such, we are not much impressed by such submission of the petitioners that their land cannot be acquired as they are running their textile units on such land. 30. In view of the aforesaid, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned notifications dated 24.11.2005 and 23.6.2006 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively read with Section 17 of the Act. We are of the clear opinion that there is sufficient material before the State Government to show that the land was being acquired for public purpose and that there was urgency in the matter to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. 31. These writ petitions are devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. 32. Let photostat copies of this Judgment be placed on the records of Civil Misc. Writ Petitions No. 16718 of 2006; 37174 of 2006; 37176 of 2006; 587 of 2007; 51589 of 2007 and 2020 of 2008. ————