Rakesh Garg, J. - (1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of nine writ petitions bearing Civil Writ Petition Nos. 5231, 5232, 5454, 6244, 6242, 7085, 7018, 6987 and 7368 of 1990, as prayer to quash the proceedings to acquire the land of the Petitioners in all these petitions has been made on similar grounds. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CWP No. 5231 of 1990.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 issued notification dated March 08, 1989, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(in short 'the Act') proposing to acquire an area measuring 146.44 acres, situated in Gurgaon Hadbast No. 55, for the development and utilisation of land for residential and commercial area in Sectors 9, 9 -A and 10 at Gurgaon. The Petitioners filed objections to the proposed acquisition stating that they had raised construction over the land in dispute and the same be not acquired. Similar objections were filed by other right holders. After requisite enquiry by the Collector, an area measuring 134.57 acres including the vacant lands of the Petitioners was ordered to be acquired and accordingly a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued vide notification dated March 07, 1990. Hence this writ petition. The Petitioners are the owners of small plots. It is their grievance that despite policy in existence in that regard, construction raised by the Petitioners has not been exempted from acquisition, whereas benefit of exemption was granted to many other similarly situated plot holders.
(3.) DURING the course of hearing, Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana submitted before this Court that the impugned notifications have been upheld by this Court in titled as 'Birinder Singh v. State of Haryana Civil Writ Petition No. 13539 of 1990 ' decided on June 30, 2010 and therefore the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. It has been further submitted that Petitioners have not stated true facts as there was absolutely no construction over the plots of the Petitioners No. 2 to 9 which were lying vacant and the constructed portion of Petitioner No. 1 was not acquired.;