M.M.KUMAR,J - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 3787, 3808 and 3823 of 2008. However, facts are being referred from C.W.P. No. 3787 of 2008. In all the petitions subject matter of challenge are notification dated 20.1.2003, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act') and declaration dated 16.1.2004, issued under Section 6 of the Act (Annexures P-1 and P-2 respectively). A further prayer for issuance of direction to the respondents for grant of licence to the petitioners to set up residential plotted colony has also been made, for which an application in the prescribed Form LC-I has already been submitted and stated to be under consideration of the respondents.
(2.) IT has been conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioners right at the out set that award has been announced by the respondents in January 2006. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 11 have filed the petition (C.W.P. No. 3787 of 2008) through their General Power of Attorney Shri Sandeep Mangla son of Shri Shiv Darshan Mangla, whereas petitioner No. 12 is a Limited Company and Shri Sandeep Mangla has been authorised to file the instant petition on its behalf. The case of petitioner Nos. 1 to 11 is that they are owner in possession of land in question as they have entered into collaboration agreement with petitioner No. 12. They have applied for grant of licence for setting up a residential plotted colony. In Paras 2 and 3, petitioner No. 12 has given its background claiming that it is a reputed developer and has acquired expertise in the field of setting up residential and commercial colonies. In Para 6, vague averments have been made that the respondents have failed to publish notification under Section 4 of the Act in two daily newspapers and as a result thereof the petitioners could not file objections. Similar vague averments have been made in Paras 10 and 11. In fact, the grievance of the petitioners as per averments made in Para 12 is that they have applied for development of their land for the purposes of setting up extended residential plotted colony for which requisite application in the prescribed. Form LC-I has already been submitted with the competent authority. Even the requisite fee for licence and scrutiny for an area measuring 53 acres has been deposited (P-3 Colly). Petitioner No. 12 claims that it fulfils all the requirements and conditions to carry out and develop the land for the purposes for which land is sought to be acquired by the State Government. A reference has also been made to a policy framed and followed by the respondents for setting up residential/commercial complexes in the respondent State of Haryana. The policy is stated to have been framed under Section 3 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban areas Act, 1975. The petitioners have also claimed that the respondent State has been releasing land in similar circumstances. In that regard, reliance has been placed on the release of land in favour of M/s Siddharth Cooperative House Building Society in Sector-2, Sonepat, as is evident from order dated 15.2.2007 (P-8).
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel at some length and has perused the paper book.;