Rakesh Garg, J. - (1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of a bunch of 40 writ petitions i.e. 5065 of 2007, 8545, 12779 of 2004, 11680, 12499, 12218 of 2006, 4577, 6431, 11250, 6409, 9039, 5384, 4815, 11236, 11532, 8689, 6781, 6038, 6780, 759, 11516, 5325, 7829, 4578, 7820, 11447, 6733, 6734, 6784, 6785 of 2007, 6077, 6316, 5802, 5840, 2832, 5192, 6439 of 2008, 2295, 6906, 5880 of 2009 as acquisition of land made by the respondents vide impugned notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') dated 2.8.2006 and 28.2.2007 respectively, (hereinafter mentioned as Phase III acquisition) and notifications dated 1.10.2002 and 29.9.2003 respectively (known as Phase -II acquisition) on similar grounds and facts. However, the facts are taken from CWP No. 5065 of 2007 which has been treated as a lead case vide order dated 27.1.2011. The petitioners are the owners of agricultural land which has been acquired by the respondent -Chandigarh Administration for a public purpose i.e. "the provision of city level infrastructure, the regulated urban development of the area between Chandigarh and Manimajra, the planned development and expansion of Chandigarh Technology Park and the protection of the ecology and environment of the Sukhna Choe watershed". For the above said purpose, Chandigarh Administration issued notification under Section 4 of the Act, dated 26.6.2006, 2.8.2006 and 1.10.2002 declaring its intention to acquire land measuring 104.83 acres, 167.50 acres in Phase -III and land measuring 575 kanals 13 marlas for Phase -II acquisition respectively. Objections were invited under Section 5 -A of the Act from the respective land owners and thereafter, impugned notifications under Section 6 of the Act were issued declaring that the land stood acquired for the aforesaid purposes.
(2.) THE land owners have filed these writ petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings on various grounds. Vide order dated 3.4.2007, notice was issued to the respondent -Administration and dispossession of the petitioners from the land in question was stayed.
(3.) IT may also be relevant to mention that during the pendency of the writ petitions, two awards were passed by the respondents on 7.3.2008 and 26.2.2009 for Phase III acquisition and thereafter, the petitioners amended their writ petitions. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they have not accepted and received the compensation as awarded by the respondent -Administration. Award was passed for the lands under Phase -II acquisition on 15.12.2004.;