- (1.) The petitioners have challenged notification dated 21.12.2005 (P-3), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act) and declaration dated 29.12.2006 (P-4), issued under Section 6 of the Act. It has been alleged that the land comprised in Rectangle No. 74, Khasra No. 21, Rectangle No. 81, Khasra No. 1, 10, 11/1 in village Sersa, total measuring 17 Kanals 19 Marlas, which has been purchased by the petitioners for setting up of Concrete Batching Plant, vide registered sale deed dated 7.4.2000 (P-1) has been acquired.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that they are civil engineers and Government contractors. The petitioners have further claimed that in order to setup a Concrete Batching Plant there is no requirement of obtaining permission for change of land use from the Director Urban Estate Department, Haryana as also there is no requirement of taking no objection certificate from the State Pollution Control Board for the said project. In June 2006, the petitioners got a canal contract in Sonepat-Delhi Border. The site of the project is stated to be adjacent to the land belonging to the petitioners where they propose to set up Concrete Batching Plant, which in turn would be beneficial for the petitioners. However, due to issuance of notification dated 21.12.2005 (P-3), the petitioners could not set up their project. It has also been alleged that the respondents have released substantial land from acquisition belonging to influential persons, inasmuch as, vide notification under Section 4 of the Act, land measuring 634 acres 5 kanals 19 marlas was sought to be acquired whereas while issuing declaration under Section 6 of the Act only land measuring 558 acres 4 kanals and 12 marlas has been acquired leaving from acquisition area measuring 76 acres 01 kanals and 07 marlas.
(3.) In the separate written statements filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 it has been pointed out that after issuance of notification dated 21.12.2005 (P-3) under Section 4 of the Act, the petitioners did not file any objection under Section 5-A of the Act and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was subsequently made on 29.12.2006 (P-6). Even the award was announced on 5.7.2007. The instant petition has been filed on 18.9.2007 subsequently to the passing of the award. In para 5 of the preliminary objections taken by respondent No. 2 in the written statement it has been asserted that the development of Industrial Estate, Kundli and Sersa for which the acquisition proceedings, subject matter of challenge in the instant petition, are to be regulated in accordance with the provisions of the National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985 (for brevity, 'the 1985 Act). "Regional Plan-2001" has been prepared which contains various development elements, factors and parameters. As per the provisions of Section 10 of the 1985 Act, Regional Plan-2001 has been notified vide notification dated 23.1.1989 in the Gazette of India and to carry out its objective further a functional plan for industries in terms of the provisions of Section 16 of the 1985 Act, have been prepared by the National Planning Board, wherein Kundli has been shown to be propriety town for development of the Haryana Sub Region of the National Capital Region. Moreover, loan to the tune of Rs. 4113 lacs by the National Capital Region Planning Board, as contemplated under Section 22(2)(C) of the 1985 Act has been sanctioned to Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSIIDC) for development of Industrial Estate, Sector 53, 54, 55 and 56 Kundli and Sersa. Thus, it has been asserted that the land belonging to the petitioners, which fall in the aforementioned area, cannot be released from acquisition as the same is required for integrated planning of the project on the recommendations of the HSIIDC. It has been specifically denied that any pick and choose policy has been adopted by the respondents in acquiring the land.;