JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Mr Y.K. Sinha and Mr Nikhil Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners in this bunch of writ petitions. We have also heard learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State, Mr Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr Anurag Singh and Mr Safdar Kazmi, Advocates on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and Mr Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel on behalf of Ghaziabad Development Authority. 2. This bunch of writ petitions has been filed challenging the Notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as the Act) dated 20.12.2010 and 10.10.2011, respectively, with a further relief of a mandamus to be issued commanding the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners over their land holding. The petitioners before this Court are recorded tenure holders of the land subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act referred to above. 3. According to the petitioners, the Notifications, which are subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition, have been made in colourable exercise of powers for conferring uncalled for benefits upon a private developer. It is their case that the State and its authorities have resorted to proceedings under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act only for the purpose of providing land to a private developer. Such mala fide exercise of powers by the State is legally not sustainable. 4. According to the petitioners, earlier also a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in respect of the same land holdings on 6.6.2008, but such proceedings were dropped midway without disclosing any reasons. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that prior to issuance of the Notifications impugned in the present writ petition, development of the land had already taken place and a colony was constructed prior to 2005. 6. The petitioners had filed objections under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, which have been ignored without any justification in a mechanical manner. 7. In response to the writ petition so filed two counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of Ghaziabad Development Authority. A short counter-affidavit has been filed by the State Government and affidavits have been filed by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The stand taken in the counter-affidavit in short is as follows: 8. 7. In response to the writ petition so filed two counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of Ghaziabad Development Authority. A short counter-affidavit has been filed by the State Government and affidavits have been filed by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The stand taken in the counter-affidavit in short is as follows: 8. That on 21st of May, 2005, the State Government came out with the policy decision of providing land to private developers so as to implement housing schemes in urban areas with the help of private investment. Copy of the Government Order dated 21st May, 2005 has been enclosed alongwith counter-affidavits filed by the Ghaziabad Development Authority and the State Government. It is contemplated that developers should first get themselves registered with the concerned Development Authorities/Local Bodies in any of the three categories, A-category, B-category and C-category, having regard to their financial status and experience of having executed works of like nature. Such registered developers alone would be eligible for making an application for developer’s licence under the said scheme. The land was to be allotted to Private Developers under two modules. (A) Bulk Land Allotment Module: the Government agency (Development Authority) will acquire the land under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and compensation shall be determined as far as possible under the Karar Niymavali 1997 through negotiation with land owners. It will thereafter prepair a layout plan for integrated development with land modules ranging from 25 acres to 100 acres, a reserved price for the land will be determined and Development Authority will invite financial bids from developers for allotment of various modules. The land shall be allotted to the highest bidder on agreement to develop on lease basis. The developers shall then submit a Detailed Project Report to the Development Authority alongwith land use plan and implementation schedule which shall be approved by Development Authority. An agreement had to be executed thereafter. The Government Agency shall carry out external development works for which the developer shall pay external development charges. The developer shall be responsible for the execution of internal development works. (B) Development License Model: The Government Agency will grant permission to registered private developers to purchase and develop minimum 50 acres of land on license basis on payment of prescribed license fee. Such license for development shall be valid for two years and shall be renewable for another one year. (B) Development License Model: The Government Agency will grant permission to registered private developers to purchase and develop minimum 50 acres of land on license basis on payment of prescribed license fee. Such license for development shall be valid for two years and shall be renewable for another one year. On grant of license, the Government Agency will issue notification for acquisition of land under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or under the relevant provisions of U.P. Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973/U.P. Housing Development Board Act, 1965 for which the developer shall deposit the requisite advance money as compensation alongwith administrative charges. The developer shall assemble at least 60 percent of the total land requested for the scheme and Government Agency will acquire remaining 40 percent of the land under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. The developer shall bear the cost of land so acquired also and pay the Stamp Duty etc., as per relevant Government Orders for assembling the development land under this model. The land which presently vests with Gram Samaj/Local Bodies will be resumed following the prescribed procedure and transferred to the registered developer on requisite Stamp Duty etc. being paid. The developer shall carry out both internal and external development works at its own expense after approval of DPR and execution of agreement document. 9. This Government Order dated 21.5.2005 was further modified by the Government Order dated 3 August 2005 the categorisation of registered developers in category A, B & C as mentioned herein above was further clarified. In clause 1, it is stated that registration of private developers shall be done either as a company, or as a partnership firm or a sole proprietorship firm or as a Consortium of companies. The minimum turn over required for category A, B & C registration was also specified. The license fee, besides the registration fee as a developer was also specified as 10 percent of the circle rate of the land proposed to be allocated for development. External Development Charges were also specified, for the land allotted. 10. The Government Order dated 3.8.2005 was further modified under Government Order dated 29.12.2005 and to encourage private investment and to avoid difficulties being faced by development Authorities, in calculation of license fee on the basis of prevailing circle rate of the land to be so developed by the licensee. External Development Charges were also specified, for the land allotted. 10. The Government Order dated 3.8.2005 was further modified under Government Order dated 29.12.2005 and to encourage private investment and to avoid difficulties being faced by development Authorities, in calculation of license fee on the basis of prevailing circle rate of the land to be so developed by the licensee. It was now provided that the license fee shall be determined for lands falling under Municipal Corporations at the rate of Rs 40 thousands per acre and for other Town Areas, the license fee was fixed at Rs. 20 thousands per acre. 11. In the said Government Order dated, 29.12.2005, it was specified that, in case for a particular urban area, request for developer’s license is received from more than one developers then preference would be given to a developer, who had assembled minimum 60 percent of land proposed to be developed through its own resources i.e. by private negotiation through sale-deeds with tenure holders. In case no developer would accumulate 60 percent of the land as required then license fee was to be determined on the basis of auction with minimum reserved value being determined on the basis of type of city/town, in which such development was proposed to take place. 12. In the Government Order dated 29.12.2005, detail guidelines not only for fixing license fee, but also city development charges, external development charges etc. under the developer’s license model were provided. Only those developers could be considered for grant of license, who had assembled a minimum of 60 percent of the land proposed to be developed through their own resources. After assembly of this 60 percent of land through private efforts, the Government would consider issuance of notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for remaining 40 percent of the land or carry out resumption proceedings in case of Gram Samaj land. 13. By means of the said Government Order, it is provided that to bring uniformity in the matter of registration of the Developers with various Development Authorities, a document called the Document for Registration of Private Developers has been prepared and that every Developer shall have to first get itself registered in the proforma prescribed after deposit of requisite fee. It had been clarified that while making an application for grant of Developer’s Licence, the details of Registration had to be necessarily supplied. 14. It had been clarified that while making an application for grant of Developer’s Licence, the details of Registration had to be necessarily supplied. 14. We may record that necessary documents for registration of private developers referred to as Annexure 4 in the Government Order dated 29.12.2005 is part of the counter-affidavit of the Ghaziabad Development Authority and is enclosed at pages 57 to 78. It provides for various informations to be supplied in format 1 to format 5. It is only on satisfaction of the requirements mentioned in the said formats that a Developer can be registered, which is a condition precedent for maintaining an application for grant of developer licnece besides deposit of the requisite fee. 15. It is provided that the private developer had to assemble at least 60% of the land after issuance of such license to develop and if despite its best efforts, it is not able to assemble the remaining land (i.e. 40% of total land required), the Development Authority is to acquire the remaining land under the Provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The private developer was to bear the cost of land to be so acquired and pay necessary charges for the same as also Stamp Duty at the prevailing rate. Any liability arising out of dispute relating to land acquisition or increase of compensation by any Court in future would rest with the said developer. 16. As per Section 5 of the Document under the Terms and Conditions of the Registration, a developer could be eligible for registration under the Development License Model, if he was a registered company, a registered partnership firm or a sole proprietorship firm or a Consortium of companies. Clause 12 and 13 of Section 6 of the said Document with the heading ‘Information And Instructions, to Private Developers’ read as under: “12. Registered Private Developer may withdraw his name from the registered list by giving application for the same. On acceptance of application, his name will be removed from the registration and mailing lists. All facilities and approvals given to Private Developer shall automatically terminate on withdrawal of his name from the registered list. If he again applies for registration then this shall be considered as an application for new registration. On acceptance of application, his name will be removed from the registration and mailing lists. All facilities and approvals given to Private Developer shall automatically terminate on withdrawal of his name from the registered list. If he again applies for registration then this shall be considered as an application for new registration. If any action is pending against the Private Developer, then decision on withdrawal of his name from registered list shall remain pending till the disposal of the matter against him.” “13. The Document for Registration is non-transferable.” 17. Meaning thereby that if the registration by a Private Developer is cancelled, terminated or withdrawn, then all benefits, which have been granted to the said developer shall stand terminated. 18. Reference may also be had to the Government Order dated 28th April, 2006, wherein in paragraph 3, the evaluation of the DPR submitted by the Developers, and the Developers being compulsorily registered under the Companies Act, has been specifically provided for. It has further been directed that for such Developers, the land can be acquired by resorting to the provisions of Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Section 41 of the said Act deals with acquisition of land for companies under Part VII of Land Acquisition Act. 1894. 19. During the course of hearing of these cases, we had summoned the original records from the Ghaziabad Development Authority. On examination of the same in the presence of the counsel for the parties, we had recorded in our order dated 4.11.2016 that application for Registration as a Private Developer was made by the Company-Respondent No. 5 only in February 2006. The details of property available was also furnished. On examination of same by Officers of Ghaziabad Development Authority, it was found that the available land as disclosed in the application, in fact belonged to 8 different Companies. Upto that stage there is no mention of any application having been filed by any Consortium nor it could have been so mentioned, as Memorandum of understanding for formation of the Consortium itself had been executed on 9.5.2006 (the M.O.U. is on record). 20. Upto that stage there is no mention of any application having been filed by any Consortium nor it could have been so mentioned, as Memorandum of understanding for formation of the Consortium itself had been executed on 9.5.2006 (the M.O.U. is on record). 20. An affidavit has been filed by the Chief Town Planner of Ghaziabad Development Authority on 1st December, 2016, wherein, it has been clearly stated in paragraph 3 that the recommendation for grant of developer’s licence in favour of the Consortium was made on 13.5.2006 by the Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 12th January, 2006 by the Board of the Ghaziabad Development Authority on 25.5.200. No fresh application was ever made by the consortium, of which M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. was the lead Company. 21. We notice that in the counter-affidavit filed by the Ghaziabad Development Authority in paragraphs 31 and 34, it has been stated thus: “31. That accordingly the old registration of “Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd.” was cancelled and in its place the new certificate of registration was issued. A true copy of the new certificate of registration dated 29.5.2006 to “Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd.” registered as Category A with the Development Authority is already on record of the affidavit filed by the Secretary, Housing and Urban Planning,* Government of U.P., dated 10.11.2016.” “34. That it is specifically stated here that instead of requiring the fresh application from the “Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. the Committee has only required “Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd.” to have a registration in the name of “Consortium”. The matter of grant of licence was therefore proceeded once the name of the “Consortium” was the same as of the company namely M/s “Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd.” and their claim was also on the basis of association of companies and as such it transpires that no fresh application was obtained by the Committee. 22. We, therefore, inquired as to in what manner the Committee requested for a new registration in the name of the Consortium, no reply could be furnished. It reflects that private negotiations had taken place between five members committee and the officers of respondent No. 5. 23. 22. We, therefore, inquired as to in what manner the Committee requested for a new registration in the name of the Consortium, no reply could be furnished. It reflects that private negotiations had taken place between five members committee and the officers of respondent No. 5. 23. From perusal of the records made available by the learned counsel for the Ghaziabad Development Authority, it clear that respondent No. 5 was registered as a developer ‘A’ category with Ghaziabad Development Authority on 10.2.2006. It made an application dated 17.2.2006 for Developer’s licence, stating that it had already assembled 79.7052 acres directly from tenure holders. On examination of the said application, it was found that the Company had indeed not purchased the entire land. The land in fact belonged to eight different companies. It had only 41.3831 acres of land as its own (mentioned as 39.9416 acres in the file noting dated 9.5.2006) and not 79.705 acres as was stated by the Company in its application. 24. Under the Government Orders dated 21.5.2005, 3.8.2005 and 29.12.2005 a company had to have purchased/assembled at least 60% of the land required before it could apply for Developer’s Licence under the Developer’s Licence Model mentioned herein above. 25. At this stage counsel for the Respondent No. 5 tried to be explained that a fresh application for grant of developer’s licence was filed on 4.4.2006. As per the amended Integrated Township Housing Policy as revised under the Government Order dated 28.4.2006., the Company was eligible for developer’s licence with only 41.3831 acres of land in its name. The application for licence submitted by it earlier could be treated as competent under the revised policy dated 28.4.2006. 26. The application dated 4.4.2006 has been examined by us. The name of the developer Company is mentioned as M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. and mentions that a demand draft of Rs. 61, 20,000/-(rupees sixty one lakh twenty thousand only) only dated 3.4.2006 as licence fee is enclosed alongwith the said application. It is evident that this application for grant of licence was also made in the name of M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., the Developer Company and not in the name of the Consortium. 27. 61, 20,000/-(rupees sixty one lakh twenty thousand only) only dated 3.4.2006 as licence fee is enclosed alongwith the said application. It is evident that this application for grant of licence was also made in the name of M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., the Developer Company and not in the name of the Consortium. 27. A fresh application for grant of developer’s licence dated 5th May, 2006 is also on record, which again mentioned the same details and in fact is a duplicate copy of the application made on 4.4.2006. It is stated that alongwith this application the Demand Draft dated 3rd April, 2006 for Rs. 61,20,000/- (rupees sixty one lakh twenty thousand) only as licence fee was enclosed. 28. This application is a cover of letter dated 5.5.2006 submitted by the Developer in response to a letter sent by the Ghaziabad Development Authority dated 3.5.2006. It was stated that the Company had already submitted a proposal for grant of licence, which was received in the office of Ghaziabad Development Authority on 18th February, 2006, and also a revised application was submitted on 4.4.2006. It is said that now in response to the letter dated 3.5.2006 sent by Ghaziabad Development Authority another application for issuance of licence on prescribed proforma enclosed with Government Order dated 28.4.2006 is being submitted with a request that licence be issued in favour of M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. This application also does not mention any where that the eight Companies whose lands respondent No. 5 had mentioned as its own lands in its earlier applications had decided to form a Consortium. 29. On the office Note dated 9.5.2006 a legal advise was sought for. 30. From the record it is evident that on 11.5.2016 legal advise was tendered by the Law Officer of the Ghaziabad Development Authority, in which he says that in case the Company wishes, it can apply for Developer’s Licence with regard to the lands owned by these eight companies only if it expresses its willingness to form a Consortium and a Memorandum of Association is submitted by these eight companies. 31. The records show that in between 4th May, 2016 i.e. when the revised application was submitted and the date of the legal advise i.e. 11.5.2016, a Memorandum of understanding for forming the Consortium was made on 9th May, 2016. 32. 31. The records show that in between 4th May, 2016 i.e. when the revised application was submitted and the date of the legal advise i.e. 11.5.2016, a Memorandum of understanding for forming the Consortium was made on 9th May, 2016. 32. The Consortium Agreement dated 9.5.2006 states that it is an agreement between eight companies and M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. Parties have joined to form a Consortium in the name and style of M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. (The lead party) with the object of development of Integrated Township in the State of U.P. and to approach the Ghaziabad Development Authority for grant of licence to the lead party. That the constituent companies have agreed to name the Consortium as M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. The constituents one to eight shall hand over absolute peaceful possession of their entire land to the Consortium for starting development work and for grant of Developer’s Licence by the Ghaziabad Development Authority and for grant of approval of DPR. The Consortium shall develop the land and the lead company and its authorized signatory, Mr P.N. Mishra shall sign all papers, applications and documents for the purpose of Developers Agreement to be entered into with the Ghaziabad Development Authority. 33. On 13th May, 2006 a meeting of the Committee of five officers of the Ghaziabad Development Authority including Vice-Chairman, Chief Town Planner, Finance Controller, Chief Engineer took place. In the said meeting after noticing that the registration and the application for grant of developer’s licence was in the name of M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd., which has now produced a Memorandum of Understanding of forming a Consortium of companies, it was decided that the registration of M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. be cancelled and a new registration in the name of Consortium be issued. Thereafter, it was decided that a developer’s licence be granted in favour of M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd., Consortium, (herein after referred to as “Consortium”). It is with reference to this developer’s licence granted in favour of the Consortium that the impugned Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act have been published for the purposes of acquiring the land of the petitioners. 34. It is with reference to this developer’s licence granted in favour of the Consortium that the impugned Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act have been published for the purposes of acquiring the land of the petitioners. 34. On behalf of the respondents, it is sought to be suggested before us that non-registration of the Consortium as A, B or C category Developer with the Ghaziabad Development Authority, non-making of the application by the consortium for grant of developer’s licence is only a technical lapse, and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the acquisition proceedings on that ground. 35. It is stated that the grant of Developer’s licence is not under challenge in the present writ petition and therefore, this Court may not enter into the correctness or otherwise of the Developer’s licence granted to the Consortium. 36. It is also stated that the land has been acquired under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for the Ghaziabad Development Authority and therefore, the petitioners are not justified in contending that there has been colourable exercise of powers by the State or that the land in fact was acquired for a private company. After the land was acquired by the State Government, it was transferred to Ghaziabad Development Authority, which in turn has provided the same to the private developer i.e. the Consortium for development of housing scheme, which is a public purpose. Therefore, no fault can be attributed to such acquisition. 37. Shri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of consortium and M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. further stated that a huge amount of Rs. 61,20,000/- (rupees sixty one lac twenty thousands) was deposited by the Company on 3.4.2006 for the application being treated as one that was made by the Consortium and that the company has made huge investments during the pendency of the writ petition and therefore, this Court in the larger public interest may not interfere with the acquisition. 38. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jal Mahal Resorts Private Ltd. v. K.P. Sharma and others, 2014 (8) SCC 804 , specifically paragraphs 114, 115 and 116. Reference has also been made to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Gajraj and others v. State of U.P., 2011(11) ADJ 1 (FB). Reference has also been made to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Gajraj and others v. State of U.P., 2011(11) ADJ 1 (FB). It is contended that this Court may mould the relief if required. Instead of quashing the acquisition proceedings as has been done in the case of Gajraj and others (supra) grant other reliefs. 39. We may at the very outset record that the State, which is represented by the learned Standing Counsel was asked as to whether it was legally permissible under the scheme notified under the Government Order dated 21st May, 2005 followed by clarificatory Government Orders dated 3rd of August, 2005, dated 29th December, 2005 and dated 28th of April, 2006, for a developer’s licence being granted in favour of Consortium, which had not made any application for registration in the prescribed proforma and the eligibility of such Consortium for registration had never been examined in absence of details in Format 1 to Format 4, referred to in the Government Order dated 29th December, 2005, (annexure 4) Titled ‘Document for Registration of Private Developers’ and as to whether cancellation of the registration of M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd., which is a private company and simultaneous grant of registration in the name of the Consortium is legally permissible or not. 40. It has been stated before us that as per the Government Orders, such registration and grant of license could not have been made in favour of the consortium as it was under a legal obligation to get itself registered first as a Developer and thereafter, to make an application for grant of developer’s licence, which has not been done. 41. It is, therefore, admitted on record that whatever has been done by the five members committee in its meeting held on 13th May, 2006 while cancelling the registration of M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. and at the same time directing registration of the Consortium as developer with the Development Authority is per se contrary to the Government Order dated 21st May, 2005 read with Government Order dated 29th December, 2005. The same is based on non-compliance of the requirements of Annexure-4 to the Government Order dated 29.12.2005. 42. The same is based on non-compliance of the requirements of Annexure-4 to the Government Order dated 29.12.2005. 42. We have been informed that there is nothing on record, to establish that any application was made by the Consortium in the prescribed proforma either for getting itself registered as Developer or for grant of any developer’s licence in its favour. At least no document in that regard has been brought to our notice, despite the original record having been summoned by this Court. 43. In the prescribed formats 1 to 5 to Annexure 4 of Government Order dated 29.12.2005 referred to herein above, the Registration Number of the private developer/company with the Registrar of the Companies had to be disclosed. This means that if a Consortium (Respondent No. 6) was to apply for registration then it had to be registered under the Companies Act with the Registrar of the Companies as an association of companies for a common purpose as mentioned in Section 3 (definition clause) of this Document. 44. Since respondent No. 5 Company had applied for registration with the Ghaziabad Development Authroioty in February 2006 and was granted such registration on 10.2.2006 as a Private Developer Company, under the Government Order dated 29.12.2005, it had to necessarily possess at least 60 percent of the land required for housing scheme to be developed, before its developer’s licence application could be considered as competent. 45. From the file noting dated 9.5.2006 it is clear that that respondent No. 5 had applied for developer’s licence alleging that it had assembled a total area of 73.0469 acres of land, however, on examination of the sale-deeds, the details of which had been given by respondent No. 5, it was found that from serial No. 1 to 36 there were sale-deeds in favour of the eight different companies. The total area of land assembled by the Respondent No. 5 Company in its name by private negotiation was 39.9146 acres only. It was less than the 60 percent required under the existing Government Order dated 29.12.2005. 46. Later on, the Government policy was modified by Government Order dated 28.4.2006 by means of which the minimum required assembly of land was reduced from 60% to 25%. It was suggested before us that under the revised policy issued on 28.4.2006, the application of respondent No. 5 could be considered independently. 47. 46. Later on, the Government policy was modified by Government Order dated 28.4.2006 by means of which the minimum required assembly of land was reduced from 60% to 25%. It was suggested before us that under the revised policy issued on 28.4.2006, the application of respondent No. 5 could be considered independently. 47. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that respondent No. 5 was a Private Developer. It had made an application for Developer’s licence on 3.4.2006 alongwith a draft of Rs. 61,20,000/- (rupees sixty lakh twenty thousands). This application when it was made for grant of developer license was incompetent because it was found on examination that instead of a total area of 73.0469 acres mentioned in the application to have been assembled by respondent No. 5, only 39.9146 acres was actually assembled by it through private negotiation. The remaining was the property of eight different companies, which had sale-deeds from tenure holders in their favour. 48. On the recommendation of the five members Committee, a registration as developer is alleged to have been granted in favour of the consortium and thereafter, a developer’s licence was granted by the Board in its meeting on 25.5.2006 without the Consortium having ever applied for registration in the prescribed proforma and without it having made any application for developer’s licence in prescribed proforma. 49. We may not enter into the issue as to whether developer’s licence so granted in favour of consortium be quashed or not as no prayer for quashing of the said developer’s licence has been made, but we are definitely of the view that the grant of developer’s licence to the Consortium is bad and contrary to the scheme floated under the Government Order dated 21st May, 2005 followed by the clarificatory Government Orders as detailed above. What logically follows is that the acquisition of the land for such a developer would be per se illegal. We have examined the issues raised in that back groud only. 50. We are constrained to record that in absence of any Registration application having been made by the Consortium and in absence of any application having been made by the Consortium for grant of developer’s licence, the entire exercise undertaken by the Ghaziabad Development Authority in the matter of grant of such Developer’s Licence is rendered illegal. 50. We are constrained to record that in absence of any Registration application having been made by the Consortium and in absence of any application having been made by the Consortium for grant of developer’s licence, the entire exercise undertaken by the Ghaziabad Development Authority in the matter of grant of such Developer’s Licence is rendered illegal. As a result the acquisition resorted to for providing remaining land through Resumption and Acquisition to the said Developers under the scheme notified under the Government Order dated 21st May, 2005 is rendered bad. 51. We may also record that under clause 12 and 13 of the Document, registration has been made non-transferable. The impact of the aforesaid provisions on the application of M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. after its registration is cancelled would necessarily create a situation where its application for grant of developer’s licence would be rendered a waste paper and no action could have been taken thereon. On this ground also the decision of five members Committee for granting Developer’s licence is rendered illegal. 52. Another aspect of the matter, which requires to be mentioned by us is that under the Government Orders dated 21 May 2005 and on 3rd August, 2005, two modes for providing land to the private developer have been provided for namely (A) Bulk Land Allotment Model and (B) Developer’s Licence Model. 53. From the reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Government Order, it would be apparent that either the Developer could be provided the land, which has already been acquired and has been developed by the Development Authority by the method of auction or else, The Development Authority could resort to acquiring the land for a private developer on its having purchased 60% (now 25%) of the total land to be utilized for Integrated Township through its own efforts. 54. No other mode of providing land to the private developer has been provided for. 54. No other mode of providing land to the private developer has been provided for. It is, therefore, clear that the acquisition under the Integrated Township scheme had to be done for a private developer of specified areas after it collected/assembled prescribed percentage of the total land for the housing scheme and it is for this reason that in the Government Order dated 28th April, 2006, in paragraph 3 of clause titiled the DPR Approval, it has been provided that while acquiring the land for the private developer, proceedings under Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act would be necessary. For ready reference, clause 3 of the Government Order is hereby quoted as under: ^^¼3½ Mh-ih-vkj- dk vuqeksnu ykblsal iz.kkyh ds v/khu 'kkldh; vfHkdj.k ,oa fodkldrkZ ds e/;e gksus okys MsoyiesaV ,xzhesaV ds vuqlkj 'kr&izfr'kr Hkwfe dz;@vlsEcy dj ysus ds i'pkr~ gh Mh-ih-vkj- ftlds vUrxZr ys&vkmV Iyku Hkh 'kkfey gksxk ij vuqeksnu iznku fd;s tkus dh O;oLFkk gSA ijUrq Hkwfe vf/kxzg.k esa pwafd vf/kd le; yxrk gS] vr% ;kstukvksa dk fdz;kUo;u ;Fkk'kh?kz izkjEHk djus ds n`f"Vxr Mh-ih-vkj- dk vuqeksnu fodkldrkZ ds ikl 60 izfr'kr Hkwfe dh jftLVªM lsyMhM gksus ij fd;k tk;sxk] vo'ks"k 40 izfr'kr Hkwfe dk yS.M ;wt Iyku n'kkZ;k tk;sxk ftlds vUrxZr 40 izfr'kr Hkwfe fodkldrkZ ds i{k esa vf/kxzghr gksus ij 'ks"k Hkwfe dk ys&vkmV Iyku vuqeksfnr fd;k tk;sxkA mDr ds vfrfjDr Hkwfe vf/kxzg.k vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr~ le>kSrs ds vk/kkj ij ftykf/kdkjh tks Hkh nj fu/kkZfjr djsaxs mldh /kujkf'k Hkh fodkldrkZ }kjk ns; gksxhA ,slh Hkwfe mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&41 ds v/khu fodkldrkZ ds i{k esa vftZr dh tk;sxh rFkk bl gsrq fodkldrkZ@ dU'kkflZ;e dks dEiuh vf/kfu;e ds v/khu dEiuh ds :i esa iathdj.k djkuk vfuok;Z gksxkA fodkldrkZ dks viuh ;kstukarxZr Hkw[k.Mksa@ Hkouksa@ySV~l@lEifRr;ksa ds vkcaVu ds dz;@fodz; vFkok vfxze /kujfk'k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkj izFke Qst ds ys&vkmV Iyku dh Lohd`fr ,oa MsoyiesaV ,xzhesaV lEikfnr gksus ds mijkUr gh izkIr gksxkA** 55. On a simple reading of the aforesaid provision, we come to a conclusion that if the land is to be acquired for a private developer, it has to be acquired by initiating proceedings under Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which at the relevant time dealt with acquisition of land for private Company and not by proceedings under Sections 4 and 6 of the Acquisition Act, 1894. 56. 56. Another aspect of the matter which needs mention is that under Section 44-B land for private companies can be acquired under Part-VII of the Land Acquisition Act only for the purpose mentioned in clause (a) and sub-section (1) of Section 40 i.e. for obtaining land for obtaining land for erection of dwelling houses for workmen employed by the Company or for the provision of amenities directly connected therewith. 57. Such being the scope and purpose of the Government Order dated 21 May, 2005 as explained under the subsequent Government Orders, we have no hesitation to record that in the facts of the case, resorting to acquisition proceedings under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act under Part IV has been a colourable exercise of powers by the State Government only for the purpose of conferring illegal benefits upon a private Developer. 58. Such power exercised by the State Government on the asking of the Ghaziabad Development Authority is not only contrary to the entire scheme as formulated under the Government Order dated 21 May, 2005 explained by the subsequent Government Orders, but it is also found to be a mala fide being tainted with motive to grant illegal benefits in favour of the private company. We are of the opinion that the acquisition in the facts of the case is legally not sustainable and has to be quashed. 59. Now we may consider the case laws which has been referred to by Shri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate for respondent Nos 5 and 6. In the case of Jal Mahal Resorts Private Ltd. (supra), in the paragraphs, which have been referred to us, namely, paragraphs 114, 115 and 116, it has been observed as follows: “114. In support of the submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has cited several authorities of this Court inter alia being BSN Joshi & Sons v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. and others, (2006) 11 SCC 548 and the relevant portion at p. 571, para 66 (v) and (vii) states as follows: “66. In support of the submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has cited several authorities of this Court inter alia being BSN Joshi & Sons v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. and others, (2006) 11 SCC 548 and the relevant portion at p. 571, para 66 (v) and (vii) states as follows: “66. (v) when a decision is taken by the appropriate authority upon due consideration of the tender document submitted by all the tenderers on their own merits and if it is ultimately found that successful bidders had in fact substantially complied with the purport and object for which essential conditions were laid down, the same may not ordinarily be interfered with; (vii) where a decision has been taken purely on public interest, the Court ordinarily should exercise judicial restraint.” 115. Similarly reliance was also placed in Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works and others, (1991) 3 SCC 273 , wherein this Court held that: “6..... As a matter of general proposition it cannot be held that an authority inviting tenders is bound to give effect to every term mentioned in the notice in meticulous detail, it is not entitled to waive even a technical irregularity of little or no significance.” Thus, it was held that minor technical irregularity and deviation from non-essential or ancillary/subsidiary requirement can be waived and the Government would be justified in waiving technical compliance with a tender condition. 116. The thrust of the aforesaid case law cited is to reinforce the submission that when there is substantial compliance of the terms of tender, the Government is entitled to waive any non-essential term in the tender for the bona fide reasons and in public interest. In any case, since the project in terms of the RFP had to be executed through a SPV and the appellant being as such SPV, then the vehement insistence by the respondent that the lead member must be a company is not a violation of a substantial condition of the tender. In conclusion therefore it had to be held that there was no mala fide in the decision making process and the finding given by the High Court is perverse and cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.” 60. In conclusion therefore it had to be held that there was no mala fide in the decision making process and the finding given by the High Court is perverse and cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.” 60. It will be seen that the Apex Court itself clarified that if there are technical defects, the Court may not interfere and there can be waiver of non essential conditions. This judgment does not support the case of the Respondent No. 5 and 6, inasmuch as we have already noticed that the five members Committee acted illegally in cancelling the registration of Respondent No. 5 Company and thereafter in directing registration in favour of Consortium respondent No. 6, and grant of developer’s licence without it having made any application for the purpose. Moreover acquisition if any in the facts of the case could have been under Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act. There is a patent non-compliance of essential conditions of the scheme. 61. We further find that resorting to provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in facts of the case is also bad as the land if any could be acquired under Section 41 of the Act 1894 only. Judgment in the case of Jal Mahal Resorts Private Ltd. (supra) is, therefore, clearly distinguishable. 62. So far as the Full Bench judgment in the case of Gajraj and others (supra) is concerned, we may record that in Special Leave Petition filed against the said judgement, the Apex Court in the case of Savitri Devi v. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 21 , has held that the said judgment is not to be treated as a precedent. 63. We are more than satisfied that grave injustice has been done to the tenure holders in facts of the case only because of the arbitrary acts of the officers of Ghaziabad Development Authority in collusion with the private developer. Therefore, we see no reason as to why the land of the land holders may not be restored back to them after setting aside the acquisition proceedings. 64. So far as the money spent by the Developer is concerned, we only record that the writ petition was filed before this Court on 17.1.2012, the possession was transferred to GDA on 30.8.2013 and it was transferred in favour of the Developer only on 4.12.2013. 64. So far as the money spent by the Developer is concerned, we only record that the writ petition was filed before this Court on 17.1.2012, the possession was transferred to GDA on 30.8.2013 and it was transferred in favour of the Developer only on 4.12.2013. Therefore, the Developer was all along aware of these writ proceedings and yet it has decided to make investment at its own risk. No benefit can be drawn by the developer because of its own acts. 65. If we accept the case of the State that the land was acquired for Ghaziabad Development Authority then in accordance with the Module A mentioned herein above in Government Order dated 21.5.2005, such land could have been allotted by GDA to Developers by inviting tenders to the highest bidder and not to respondent No. 6 under Module B i.e. for developer’s license. 66. At this stage, counsel for the respondent No. 5 submitted that it had deposited the money with Ghaziabad Development Authority for the purpose of payment of compensation to the tenure holders in terms of the acquisition. We provide that it shall be open to the Developer to make an application for refund of the money with the Ghaziabad Development Authority which shall be decided in accordance with law at the earliest possible. 67. The writ petition is allowed. 68. The original records may be returned.