Urgency clause challenge in industrial land acquisition failed; relief was limited to enhanced compensation and developed land allotment.

Acquisition for planned industrial development was not to be quashed merely because invocation of the urgency power was challenged, where the record showed substantial development on the acquired land, including roads and infrastructure, and most landowners had already received compensation. The earlier ruling in Savitri Devi and the Full Bench decision on the same acquisition regime for village Chhapraula were applied to limit relief to enhanced compensation and allotment of developed land. On that basis, the notifications were upheld and quashing was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquisition notification was liable to be quashed on the ground that invocation of the urgency power was unjustified, or whether the matter was covered by the earlier ruling in Savitri Devi so that the landowners were only entitled to enhanced compensation and allotment of developed land.

Analysis: The acquisition was for planned industrial development, and the record showed substantial development over the acquired land, including roads and infrastructure, with a large percentage of landowners already having received compensation. The earlier Full Bench decision concerning the same acquisition regime for village Chhapraula had upheld the acquisition in similar circumstances and limited relief to enhanced compensation and allotment of developed plots. The judgment in Savitri Devi had also recognised that, even where the urgency clause was found unwarranted, quashing was not appropriate where substantial development had already taken place, and that equity required compensation to be enhanced and land to be allotted instead.

Conclusion: The challenge to the acquisition did not warrant quashing of the notifications. The respondents were entitled only to the reliefs granted in Savitri Devi, namely enhanced compensation and allotment of developed land.

---