- (1.) THE petitioner, a Private Limited Company challenges the validity of the notifications dated January 30, 1989 and January 25, 1990, issued by the State of Haryana under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, i894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')- Copies of these notifications have been produced as Annexures P-l and P-2. A few facts may be noticed.
(2.) THE petitioner owns 14 kanals 12 marlas of land in village Salokhra, Tehsil and District, Gurgaon. On January 30,1989, the Government of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act expressing its intention to acquire land measuring 210. 28 acres in village Salokhra for the public purpose of developing Sector 30 at Gurgaon. On January 25, 1990, the notification under Section 6 for the acquisition of land measuring 169. 00 acres was issued. Even though 41. 28 acres of land was excluded from acquisition no relief was granted to the petitioner-It is averred that the petitioner's land is bounded with pucca wall of eight feet height and that houses had been constructed thereon before the end of November 1988. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, in not exempting its land from acquisition, the petitioner had filed this writ petition. The action of the respondents has been challenged interalia on the grounds that it is violative of the policy framed by the State Government where-under lands on which construction had been made prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4, are not to be acquired. The action has also been challenged on the ground that no survey of the area as required under Section 8 of the Act was conducted and that the action is discriminatory in as much as the land purchased by M/s Umtech Industries Limited has been exempted from acquisition.
(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been averred by way of preliminary objection that the land in dispute was fully vacant at the time of the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The allegation of the petitioner that the land in dispute was having pucca wall and houses, is totally wrong. The survey was conducted in accordance with law and that there is no illegality in the action of the respondents. On merits, it has been inter alia averred that "there is no general policy not to acquire land having construction over the same. " Further, it has been stated that the land "owned by M/s Unitech Company Limited for which it had got licence to develop the residential colony. . . . . was left out of the acquisition. " Rest of the averments made in the petition have also been controverted.;