Jasbir Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed with a prayer to lay challenge to a notification, issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) on 17.9.2004 (P2), proposing to acquire a vast tract of land, including 5 kanal 16 marla of land, allegedly owned by the Petitioners, for a public purpose, namely, 'for setting up of Chaudhary Devi Lal Industrial Model Township, Phase -V, Manesar'. Further challenge has been made to a declaration, issued on 27.10.2004, finally ordering acquisition of above said land.
(2.) IT is an admitted fact that the Petitioners laid challenge to the above said notification by filing CWP No. 17460 of 2004. As per facts on record, in that writ petition challenge was raised only with regard to 10 kanal 6 marla of land. The land, which is subject matter of dispute in this case, was not mentioned in that writ petition. The writ petition, along with many other writ petitions, was allowed on 16.4.2009, notifications under Sections 4 and 6 read with Section 17 of the Act were quashed. The State of Haryana went in appeal. A bunch of appeals was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 28.1.2011. Appeals were partly allowed, notification issued under Section 4 was kept intact, opportunity was granted to the land owners to raise objections under Section 5 -A of the Act and liberty was granted to the State to proceed further as per law to acquire the land or otherwise. This writ petition has now been filed by stating that when earlier writ petition was filed, the land measuring 5 kanal 16 marla owned by the Petitioners was in dispute. It is stated in the writ petition that one Uma Shankar Sitani had filed a suit to claim ownership rights in the above said land and on account of that, the Petitioners failed to lay challenge to the acquisition of this land, at an appropriate time. It is further stated that suit was dismissed on 23.2.2010. Appeal was also dismissed on 14.1.2011. Thereafter, this writ petition has been filed.
(3.) IT is contention of counsel for the Petitioners that as the question regarding title has now become final, as such, it is open to the Petitioners to lay challenge to the acquisition, which had taken place in the year 2004.;