MAHESH GROVER, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the acquisition proceedings initiated by the State. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued on 24/1/2001 followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 22/1/2002. The acquisition was for a public purpose, namely, for the development of an industrial area in village Kassar, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar. The petitioner claims that he was earlier carrying on an industry in Delhi and in pursuance to the directions of the apex court some industries of Delhi were closed and were directed to be relocated in the National Capital Region of Delhi.
(2.) The petitioner had purchased some land measuring 60 Kanals in village Kassar vide registered sale deed dated 14/3/1996 and mutation was accordingly sanctioned in his name. The principal grievance of the petitioner against the acquisition proceedings is that he has been uprooted from Delhi once and now when he was intending to start his industry on the area which he had purchased, he would be uprooted once again since this area is subject-matter of the two notifications mentioned above under the Act. He also pleaded that the land is required for an industrial purpose which is in conformity with his activities and, therefore, the State's project would not be harmed even if he is permitted to carry out the industry. It was also alleged that the respondents have followed a policy of pick and choose and their action in releasing the land of some of the persons was discriminatory and arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) The respondents in their reply submitted that the notifications had been issued after following the due procedure of law and there has been no violation of any provisions of the Act. The petitioner had preferred the objections under Section 5-A which were duly considered and, therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the notifications on frivolous grounds. It was also pointed out that at the time of acquisition the entire land was vacant except for three rooms which had been constructed in Khasra No.5//25/2. No industry existed at the spot. The notifications were, therefore, in accordance with law and the petitioner had no reason to challenge the same. We have heard the learned counsel and have perused the record as well.;