- (1.) The petitioners pray for quashing the notifications issued under section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, "the Act"), dated 15.12.2006 and 14.12.2007 and the order dated 19.5.2016, Annexure P.12 passed by respondent No.3 rejecting their claim for release of the land, Annexures P.1, P.2 and P.12 respectively.
(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. Petitioner No.1 had earlier filed CWP No.5035 of 2008 before this Court impugning the above mentioned notifications for acqusition of land situated in the revenue estate of Village Bhayan Pur, Hadbast No.74, Sector 36A, Tehsil and District Rohtak, for a public purpose, namely public, semi public and residential under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. Petitioner No.1 had constructed a shop, temple and residence over the land. The respondents released 1 biswa land of petitioner No.1. Consequently, the said writ petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.10.2008, Annexure P.3. Petitioner No.1 thereafter filed review application which was also dismissed vide order dated 23.1.2009. The SLP filed by petitioner No.1 was also dismissed vide order dated 31.10.2012, Annexure P.4. In the meantime, petitioner No.l had transferred his shop in the name of petitioner No.2 vide registered sale deed dated 15.10.2007. Some of other similarly situated persons had also impugned the same notifications by way of CWP No.4585 of 2009 and other connected petitions on the ground of various reasons including discrimination. The said writ petitions were disposed of vide judgment dated 29.8.2013, Annexure P.5 with certain directions to the respondents. It is not disputed that covered area measuring 40'x22' including two rooms, kitchen and one toilet used as residence by the petitioners has been released but the petitioners cannot properly utilise and enjoy the part of the land released as after the construction of proposed road and green belt, there will be no approach road to the land of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 submitted representation dated 5.10.2013 to respondent No.1 for release of land in parity with other persons whose land was either released or was under consideration for release. Respondent No.1 did not take any action on the said representation. Thereafter, the petitioners filed CWP No.24958 of 2014 to seek parity in view of judgment dated 29.10.2013 in CWP No.4585 of 2008. The said writ petition was dismissed as premature vide judgment dated 14.11.2013, Annexure P.6 observing that the petitioners can only seek parity in case some affirmative action is taken by the respondents in favour of similarly placed land owners. According to the petitioners, they are in possession of the land. They have not received the compensation. The respondents have not deposited the amount with the reference court. It is lying with the Land Acquisition Officer. Thus, provisions of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (in short, "the 2013 Act") would apply. The owner of the land adjoining the land of the petitioners sought quashing of the entire acquisition proceedings including the notifications challenged in the present writ petition by filing CWP No.21140 of 2014 in which notice of motion was issued and status quo was ordered to be maintained vide order dated 13.10.2014. Thereafter, the petitioners filed CWP No.9737 of 2015 for quashing the notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act. Vide order dated 7.10.2015, Annexure P.10, the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioners made a detailed representation dated 4.12.2015, Anenxure P.11 to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 passed order dated 19.5.2016, Annexure P.12 rejecting the claim of the petitioners for release of the land. Hence the instant writ petition by the petitioners.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners.;