SURYA KANT, J. - (1.) THE first petitioner is a duly registered Trust while petitioners No. 2 to 5 are its Trustees. The Trust runs a School known as West Academy School at Pataudi, District Gurgaon. Petitioners No. 2 to 5 are owners of the land measuring 43 kanals 1 marla, fully described in Para No. 3 of the writ petition, situated in the revenue estate of Pataudi, which they have leased out to petitioner No. 1 Trust by way of a registered lease deed dated 23rd November, 2000 along with the building from where the above mentioned School is being run.
(2.) THE petitioners' case is that the Site Plan of the School building was duly approved by the Municipal Committee, Pataudi on Rd March, 2000 and the School has been accoRded permission by the District Education Officer, Gurgaon vide Memo dated 29th March, 2004 under the Haryana School Education Rules, 2003 [P -4], followed by permanent recognition by the same Authority vide oRder dated 15th December, 2004 [P -5]. It is averred that the School is recognised up to 8th standaRd and there are 385 students admitted to it. 3. The petitioners being aggrieved at the acquisition of part of their above mentioned land measuring 37 kanals 8 marlas, seek quashing of the notifications dated 06th January, 2004 and 17th December, 2004 issued under sections 4 and 6 read with the notices dated 9th December, 2005 of Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Vide Section 4 notification the land measuring 68.51 Acres in the village Pataudi was proposed to be acquired for development and its utilisation for a new residential, commercial and institutional Sector at Pataudi, out of which finally 57.18 Acres land was acquired vide notification under Section 6 of the Act.
(3.) BEFORE adverting to various pleas taken by the petitioners, we may at the out -set deal with the allegations of mala -fide attributed to respondent No. 4 ­ an Ex. -MLA of Pataudi though the same were not seriously pressed on behalf of the petitioners at the time of final hearing. It is alleged that earlier notification dated 04th November, 2003 was issued under Section 4 of the Act proposing to acquire 250 Acres of land for the new Sectors. The proposed acquisition included the land of the 4th respondent who was a sitting MLA. He, however, allegedly manipulated the exclusion of his land from Section 6 notification. Respondent No. 4 was stated to be inimical towards the petitioners and at his instance FIR No. 30 dated 7th February, 2002 was also registered against the petitioners. The impugned notifications are also said to have been issued at the instance of the 4th respondent only.;