MR.AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI,J. - (1.) The present writ petition arises out of land acquisition proceedings under the then provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority. The acquisition appears to have been undertaken in different phases in respect of the village in question namely village Sultanpur Pargana and Tehsil Dadri district Gautam Budh Nagar. The dispute in the present writ petition is confined to certain area alleged to have been purchased by the petitioners out of plot no. 625 of the said village.
(2.) The acquisition without effecting plot no. 625 was initially undertaken by the issuance of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 respectively on 02.05.2003 and 29.05.2003 for an area of about 13.5 hectares. The next phase began with the notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 19.09.2008 where also plot no. 625 was not included. The said notification under Section 4 of the Act however, did not result in a final notification but the respondent/NOIDA authority was pursuing the State Government for acquisition. The petitioners claimed that on having come to know of the said proposed acquisition proceedings, since they had already purchased the land prior to plot no. 625 being included in the acquisition proceedings, a preemptive application was filed before the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 12.02.2009 indicating that in the survey that had been carried out, the construction of the petitioners and their tenements, had not been been indicated and therefore an appropriate survey be carried out and the land purchased by them through the respective sale deeds be excluded. The petitioners also claimed to have got their names mutated for which they have placed reliance on the relevant revenue extracts that have been filed as Annexure-32 to the impleadment and amendment applications dated 20.11.2011.
(3.) The petitioners contend that upon the application being moved on 12.02.2009 the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) submitted a report on 18.02.2009 about the objections raised by the petitioners and also indicated that the matter should be re-examined keeping in view the claim of the tenure holders.;