AJAI LAMBA, J. - (1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of 11 writ petitions viz. CWP No. 2722 of 2004 titled M/s. Balwant Singh Sher Singh Rice Mills Karnal v. State of Haryana and another; CWP No. 1956 of 2004 titled M/s. Sharma Agro Industries, Karnal v. State of Haryana and another; CWP No. 660 of 2005 titled Inder Chaudhary v. State of Haryana and another; CWP No. 7144 of 2005 titled Ranjit Singh v. State of Haryana and another; CWP No. 8884 of 2005 titled Harjinder Pal Singh v. State of Haryana and another; CWP No. 1812 of 2005 titled Mandeep Singh v. State of Haryana and others; CWP No. 6299 of 2004 titled M/s. Indian Discs Corporation, Karnal v. State of Haryana and others; CWP No. 13062 of 2004 titled Harbhajan Singh v. State of Haryana and others; CWP No. 8924 of 2005 titled Harminder Singh v. State of Haryana and others; CWP No. 1706 of 2005 titled Kanwarjit Singh v. State of Haryana and others and CWP No. 2723 of 2005 titled Vijay Kumar Singla and another v. State of Haryana and another as they involve common facts and questions of law as the same acquisition proceedings have been challenged.
(2.) THE petitions have been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing Notification dated 27.11.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act issued on 14.11.2003. Vide the said Notifications, the respondents have notified the land for acquisition for a public purpose; namely, for the construction and development of Industrial Estate, Karnal, and laying of Sewerage and Storm Water Drainage in Sector 3, Karnal. The land falls in Kasba Karnal, Tehsil and District Karnal. In challenge to the acquisition proceedings, the first argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Land Acquisition Collector had recommended release of land while dealing with objections under Section 5-A of the Act, which have not been accepted, therefore, the acquisition of land i.e. declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act is liable to be quashed.
(3.) THE second argument raised is that the public purpose itself does not exist and has already been achieved as a sewerage treatment plant already exists. In support of this argument, lay out plan has been referred to, to say that no sewerage treatment plant is shown in the plan. It has also been argued that the action of the respondents is totally whimsical, without any application of mind and without any executive exercise, therefore, the same is rendered arbitrary and is liable to be quashed. The petitioners have been running various kinds of industry, commercial establishments, Auto repairs shops, etc. The purpose of acquisition viz. setting up of an Industrial Estate, already stands achieved. The existing industry would be displaced by the impugned action, as such, the same is arbitrary.;