HEMANT GUPTA, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in the present petition is to the notifications dated 13.2.2008 (Annexure P-3) under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the 'Act') and the notification dated 31.12.2008 (Annexure P-5) under Section 6 of the Act and to the Award dated 13.7.2009 (Annexure P-6) in respect of land measuring 2746 kanal 8 marla situated in Village Bohar Hadbast No. 68, Tehsil and District Rohtak and Award dated 17.8.2009 (Annexure P-7) in respect of land measuring 2446 kanal 6 marla, sitated in Village Garhi Bohar, Hadbast No. 135/1, Tehsil and District Rohtak.
(2.) PETITIONERS -the five companies, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the '1956 Act') are said to be sister concern of M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited. The aforesaid notifications are challenged on the ground that the petitioners have applied for license for development of the land measuring 137.744 acres, vide the application dated 22.6.2006 and 7.5.2007. As per the final development plan of District Rohtak, the land is situated in Sectors 33, 33-A, Rohtak and falls in the residential zone. While the application was under consideration of the competent authority, the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published. Out of the total land of 137.744 acres, the land measuring 14 acres of land owned by the petitioners is included in the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The land is intended to be acquired for industrial, transport and other public utility services etc. Petitioners filed objections as contemplated under Section 5A of the Act on 10.3.2008 (Annexure P-4). It is alleged that without issuing notice to the petitioners for hearing, Section 6 notification has been published. It is also averred that the petitioners have been granted license No. 36/2010 on 7.5.2010 (Annexure P-6) in respect of the land measuring 118.188 acres falling in the revenue estate of Bohar, District Rohtak for development of a residential plotted colony. It is averred that while the petitioners were developing the licensed area as per the terms and conditions of the licences, they were shocked and dismayed when some of the officials of respondent No.2 i.e. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) started interference in the development work and claiming that respondent No.2 is the owner of the licensed area of the petitioners. Petitioners were informed vide the communication dated 6.10.2010 (Annexure P-9) to refrain from carrying out any construction activities on 14 acres of land in dispute and to remove the encroachments. Petitioners were communicated that FIR shall be lodged if 14 acres of land is not vacated.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has produced number of subsequent communications such dated 23.11.2010 (Annexure P-10), dated 1.12.2010 (Annexure P-11), dated 14.12.2010 (Annexure P-13), dated 3.6.2011 (Annexure P-21), pointing out that the respondent No 2 has been communicating to the petitioners that the land is subject matter of CWP No. 6196 of 2012 -3- acquisition, the vesting of the same and the fact that the petitioners are the encroachers and they should remove the encroachments.;