Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - (1.) The Bar Association, Panipat, filed a writ petition with a prayer that the State Government be directed to construct a judicial complex. This Civil Writ Petition No. 204 of 1998 was disposed of by a Bench vide order dated December 20, 1999. In pursuance to the interim orders passed by the Court, a piece of land was identified and considered suitable for the construction of the Complex. However, it was found that it belonged to the Ministry of Defence, the Bench by an interim order of May 18, 1999 had directed the Government of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, "to identify any suitable land for the Ministry of Defence near Ambala Cantonment or anywhere else in the State of Haryana..." in exchang for the land at Panipat. The needful was done. On 15-2-2000, the State of Haryana issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, declaring its intention to acquire the land comprised in villages Jantepur, Tundla, and Tundli, Tehsil and District Ambala. A copy of the notification has been produced as Annexure P-1 with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the notification, the petitioners filed objections, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure A-2. The matter was considered by the Collector, who made his report vide Annexure P-3. At this stage, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition. They pray that the Notification dated 3-2-2000, which was published in the Haryana Government Gazette on 15-2-2000 (Annexure P-l with the writ petition) be quashed. It is claimed that the land is not being acquired for a public purpose. The recommendations of the Collector have not been considered. A part of the land is under forest. Permission of the Central Government as required under the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, has not been obtained. The petitioners are small farmers. If they are deprived of the land, they will lose their bread and butter. Thus, the petitioners pray that the impugned notification should be annulled by the issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction,
(2.) The claim made by the petitioners has been controverted. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it has been averred that the land at Panipat belongs to the Ministry of Defence. In pursuance to the directions by a Bench of this Court, the land was being taken over by the State Government for construction of Court Complex etc. Thus, as directed by the Court, the land at Ambala Cantonment is being acquired. The allegations that the land is not being acquired for a public purpose or that the land at Panipat did not belong to the Ministry of Defence have been controverted. Still further it has been pointed out that there is no violation of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Since the land is being acquired for a public purpose, the respondents maintain that no ground for interference is made out.
(3.) The petitioners have filed a replication and reiterated their stand.;