JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners in these seven cases impugn the notifications dated December 21, 1998 and December 20, 1999 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Copies of these notifications have been placed on the record of C.W.P. No. 6318 of 2001 as Annexures P-8 and P-11 respectively.
(2.) WE have heard Mr. Shailendra Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioners in these cases. He has made a two-fold submission. Firstly, it has been contended that the public purpose as disclosed in the impugned notifications cannot be achieved as the land which had been acquired on earlier occasions for development of residential and commercial area was in fact available. The authorities had used it for a different purpose. It indicates that no land is needed for residential and commercial use. Secondly, it has been contended that the action of the respondents in not exempting the land of the petitioners is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as the land of Maruti Udyog (a service station) and certain other industrial units has been excluded from acquisition in the notification under Section 6 of the Act. On these two grounds, learned Counsel submits that the impugned notifications are liable to be set aside. As for the first contention, it may be noticed at the outset that the counsel concedes that the earlier notifications have not been placed on record. There is nothing to indicate as to what was the public purpose for which the land had been acquired. There is nothing to indicate as to what was the location of the land and why was its user changed. The mere fact that the land acquired under an earlier notification was used for a purpose other than the declared one, cannot be a ground for the quashing of the notifications impugned in the present case. So far as these notifications are concerned, the land is being acquired for the purpose of developing commercial and residential areas. Normally, the competent authority is the judge of its needs. If on the basis of the factual position it comes to the conclusion that land is needed for construction of houses or commercial complexes, this court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the authority especially when nothing has been placed on record to conclusively show that there is no need for development of residential or commercial areas. In fact, shortage of residential accommodation is a known reality. If the Government is trying to develop areas for residential accommodation, it cannot be said that it is not serving a public purpose. Thus, the first contention is rejected.
(3.) MR . Jain contends that the notifications suffer from the vice of discrimination. He contends that a strip of land belonging to 'Maruti Service Station' has been excluded from the notifications. Similarly, he contends that the land belonging to M/s. Atam Surgical Centre which is manufacturing surgical equipment has been excluded. The action of the Government in not excluding the land of the petitioners, the counsel submit, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.;