Surya Kant, J. - (1.) This order shall dispose of the instant writ petition (CWP-22441- 2012) and the suo motu review proceedings as well as criminal contempt of Court proceedings initiated by this Court vide order dated 25.08.2015. It will be fruitful to reproduce the order dated 25.08.2015, which reads as follows: "The petitioners, claiming ownership of land measuring 285 kanal 17 marlas in the revenue estate of village Naharpur Kasal, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, challenged the notifications dated 17.9.2004 and 25.11.2011 under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 in the present writ petition. The petitioners have made a reference to CWP-1003 of 2006 filed on 17.1.2006. A perusal of the said writ petition shows that the said writ petition was filed by all the 14 petitioners. The said writ petition was allowed on 28.1.2011 along with LPA No.504 of 2010 and other cases. It also transpires that the petitioners, except two, also filed another CWP No.7966/2006 in respect of land measuring 285 kanal 17 marla including the land which is subject matter of the present writ petition. The said writ petition was dismissed earlier on 16.4.2009. A perusal of the record shows that no LPA was filed against the order of learned Single Judge against the order of 16.4.2009 though the writ petitions CWP No.7996/2006 filed by the petitioners was dismissed. We find that the petitioners have concealed material facts while filing the writ petition, one after another, without disclosing the filing of the earlier writ petition. CWP No.7966 of 2006 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge but the decision of the learned Single Bench was not brought to the notice of LPA Bench when CWP No.1003 of 2006 was taken up and decided. In the present writ petition, the petitioners have disclosed only filing of CWP No.1003 of 2006 and not of CWP No.7996 of 2006. We find that the petitioners are prima-facie guilty of concealing and misrepresenting the material facts. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to issue show cause notice as to why contempt proceedings may not be initiated against them. Ms. Manu Chaudhary, learned counsel assisting the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, accepts notice and seeks some time file reply to the above facts. May do so within two weeks. List on 11.9.2015. Still further, we find that the conduct of the petitioners has led to contradictory decision in respect of same acquisition, i.e., order passed in CWP 7966/2006, which has attained finality, and also the order passed in CWP 1003/2006 on 28.1.2011, whereby, the writ petition is allowed. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to post the matter before an appropriate Bench for considering as to whether the subsequent order dated 28.1.2011 in CWP 1003/2006 passed by Division Bench warrants recall. List on 5.10.2015 after obtaining the orders from Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice for consideration of suo motu review before an appropriate Bench." [Emphasis by us]
(2.) A brief reference to the facts is necessitated.
(3.) State of Haryana issued notification dated 17.09.2004 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,'the 1894 Act') proposing to acquire more than 956 acres land spread over the revenue estate of five villages including Naharpur Kasan, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The proposed acquisition included about 249K land of the petitioners also. Declaration under Section 6 was notified on 27.10.2004, which too included the petitioners' land.;