Jasbir Singh, J. - (1.) AN affidavit of the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Haryana, Rohtak, has been filed today in the Court and it is taken on record. A copy of the same is supplied to the counsel opposite.
(2.) BY filing this writ petition, the Petitioners have laid challenge to a notification dated July 8, 2008, issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (in short the Act), proposing to acquire, besides other land, 3 Acres of land situated in village Badkhalsa district Sonepat. Further challenge has been made to a notification issued under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act on July 10, 2008. As per facts on record, the Petitioners are the owners of land falling in Khasra No. 23//13(8 -0), situated in village Badkhalsa. The land was acquired for a public purpose, namely, for construction of a road between Sectors 65 to 68, Sonipat. The Petitioners came to this Court to lay challenge to the above said notifications by stating that there was no urgency to acquire the land and denying opportunity of hearing to them. To say so, reference was made to a notification issued under Section 9 of the Act on May 3, 2010. Taking note of the same, on May 18, 2010, notice of motion was issued in the following terms: Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, inter alia, contends that notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Lnd Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act') and declaration made under Section 6 read with Section 17(4) of the Act were issued on 18.7.2008 and 10.7.2008 respectively. He has further submitted that possession of the land has not been taken till today and a notice under Section 9 has been issued on 3.5.2010 (P -18) for presentation of the claim by the Petitioners on 19.5.2010. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the information furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005, on 14.5.2010 (P -20) shows that the public purpose for which the land was required, namely, construction of Sector road of Sectors 65 to 68 , Sonipat, no longer survives because according to the information given the land in dispute does not fall in the EPE alignment as per approved site plan Annexure P -21 nor does it fall in any sector road as per the approved siteplan. Notice of motion for 14.7.2010. Notice re: stay. Dispossession of the Petitioners shall remain stayed in the mean while. Mr. S.S. Pattar, Sr. DAG, Haryana, who is present in the Court accepts notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Three copies of the paper book shall be handed over to him during the course of the day by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.
(3.) IT is further case of the Petitioners that the land in dispute is no more needed for the public purpose, for which it was acquired. To say so, reference was made to a letter written by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Sonipat, to one of the Petitioners, a reading of which indicates that the land is no more required for construction of a road as stated above and it is being acquired for future planning.;