M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of three petition* as the common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions. In all the petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of notification dated 28.06.1989 (P -1) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') and a declaration dated 29.06.1989 (P -2) issued under Section 6 of the Act.
(2.) ON 08.09.2011, Mr. T.C. Gupta, Director General, Estate Department had stated before this Court that most of the construction was in existence when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. He was directed to file an affidavit in consultation with the Financial Secretary, Urban Estate Department as to how the construction of the petitioners who appears to be poor persons, could be saved. In the affidavit, it was also to be stated if there was any area in the State of Haryana comprised of green belt which might have been compromised to save the existing building. Mr. Gupta, has assured the Court that the efforts could be made to save most of the construction belonging to the petitioners if the petitioners were to agree with the suggestion made by the Department. Accordingly, the matter appears to have been discussed by the authorities and on 19.12.2011, a communication has been sent by the Director General Urban Estates Department, Haryana to the Advocate General Office to the effect that the Government has decided to release thickly built up area measuring 1.304 acres (excluding the area forming part of the sector road). The site plan has also been placed on record, which is mark 'X' and the release area has been depicted by Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. The site plan has been taken on record to avoid any dispute and confusion and the same has been seen by the counsel for the petitioners who have expressed their concurrence that the thickly constructed area would be excluded from the acquisition but the area forming part of the sector road would continue to be under acquisition.
(3.) IN view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioners do not want to press the writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions have been rendered infructuous and are disposed of as such.;