M.M.KUMAR,J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of a batch of 10 petitions raising common question of law. The facts in all the cases are similar. For putting the controversy in its proper perspective, we refer the facts from C.W.P. No. 17463 of 2007. The petitioners Hari Chand, Roshan Lal and Jagdish Kumar are petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 and are the owners of the land. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity "the Act") was issued on 13.03.2003 (P-1) recording the satisfaction that the land was required for a public purpose of development of residential and commercial Sectors 49 and 50, Gurgaon as shown in the development plan under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for brevity "the 1977 Act"). All the three petitioners filed their objections as per the stand taken by the respondent in para 2 of their written statement. They personally appeared before the Land Acquisition Collector and were given opportunity of personal hearing, as envisaged by Section 5-A of the Act. After hearing objections, the Collector sent its report to the government for taking further decision. A joint Inspection Committee also sent its report to the government. It was thereafter that the government decided to issue a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 02.03.2004(P-3). Even an award was announced on 20.12.2006 (P- 17).
(2.) IT is pertinent to mention that petitioner No. 4, which is one of the group of companies of Eros Group of Companies, had entered into a Collaboration Agreement with petitioners No. 1 to 3 on 07.03.2004 (P-4) which envisaged the development of the land by constructing a Residential Group Housing Scheme after obtaining requisite licence and approval of plans from the competent authorities. It has been claimed that on 09.02.2004, petitioners No. 1 to 3 also handed over the vacant physical possession of their land to petitioner No. 4 (P-5) and they also executed irrevocable General and Special Power of Attornies (P-6 and P-7 respectively) on 10.02.2004 in favour of petitioner No. 4. The colony was proposed to be developed by petitioner No. 4 in an area measuring 29.14 acres. The case of the petitioners is that they filed an application for grant of licence to establish cyber-Park colony. They deposited the requisite licence fee and even the deficient fee for grant of licence with the third respondent-The Director, Town and Country Planning. When the matter was not being decided and the proceedings for land acquisition have been initiated already, the petitioner and their consortium filed 10 separate petitions bearing C.W.P. Nos. 11517 to 11526 of 2004, which were disposed of vide order dated 16.07.2005( P-8). The afore-mentioned order was passed on the statement made by the Advocate General, Haryana, showing their readiness to constitute a High Powered Committee which was to examine the grievance of the petitioners. In accordance with the statement of learned Advocate General, the petitioners were to file a detailed representation listing their grievances along with supporting documents which was to be considered by the High Powered Committee. The afore-mentioned offer made by the Advocate General was accepted by the petitioners. The counsel for the parties had agreed that the period for which dispossession of the petitioners has remained stayed, was not to be taken into consideration for pronouncement of the award under Section 11- A of the Act by construing it against the petitioners. The other land owners raised no objection with regard to the pronouncement of the award.
(3.) IN pursuance of the afore-mentioned agreed order passed by this Court, the High Powered Committee granted an opportunity of hearing on the representation filed by them on 03.02.2006. It is appropriate to mention that in the representation parties have suggested the plan to establish Cyber-Park Colony. The petitioners were represented through their counsel. The High Powered Committee rejected their representation on the ground that their application for grant of licence for Group Housing had already been rejected and the appeal filed against those orders of the Director were dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Even the subsequent representation was also rejected by the government. In pursuance of the afore-mentioned decision of the High Powered Committee, the Director also rejected the application of the petitioners vide order dated 12/14.05.2008. The Director in his order has noticed that the application for grant of licence has been made for the same land for which group housing licence was earlier refused which would amount to denying acquisition of land for the purpose of development by HUDA. The more significant issue raised by the Director is that the government has limited the area in each sector maximum to the extent of 5% of the sector area for I.T. Activities which has been done with a view to protect the living environment in residential sectors. It is pertinent to notice that the petitioners and its consortium company had put forward the ground of exemption to establish Cyber Park Colony. The Director also noticed that the land has been acquired and rejected their application for grant of licence to establish Cyber Park Colony, especially in view of the fact that the Electronic and Technology Department, which is the nodal department to examine such projects, had also rejected the request of the applicants.;