B.S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the land acquisition 'proceedings including the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called 'the Act' dated 14th August, 1987, and declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 4.8.1987, on various grounds.
(2.) HOWEVER , learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Pranav Ojha, has fairly submitted that identical petitions challenging the same notification and declaration have already been decided by this Court and the validity of the notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act have been upheld, therefore, it is not open for him to make any submission on those counts. His limited prayer is that as the land had been acquired for the purposes of establishing residential/ commercial area, it will not serve any purpose demolishing the duly constructed residential house of the petitioner and allot the land to someone else for the same purposes. However, petitioner would be satisfied if his duly constructed house constructed, prior to the issue of notification under Section 4, is saved/exempted from the acquisition proceedings. On the contrary, Sri B. Dayal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, Development Authority and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, have vehemently opposed the writ petition contending, that there is nothing on the record to show as to whether the land in which petitioner's house is situate, has been used for developing the residential area. In absence of any pleading or record, they are not in a position to point out as to how the request made by learned counsel for the petitioner can be considered and, thus, the petition is liable to be rejected.
(3.) WE have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;