Rajive Bhalla, J. - (1.) THE petitioner a private limited company, prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned notifications dated 26.12.1988 (Annexure P -1) and 22.12.1989 (Annexure P -2) issued by the respondent -State under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as well as the award dated 19.12.1991 (Annexure P -4).
(2.) THE petitioner alleges that it is owner in possession of 3 kanals 19 marlas of land comprised in Khasra No. 18 and 19/1, rectangle No. 29 situated in the revenue estate of Jharsantly, Hadbast No. 44, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad and is running a saw mill. Pursuant to a notification dated 26.12.1988, issued under Section 4 of the Act, the State of Haryana proposed to acquire land detailed in the notification, including the petitioner's land, for a public purpose of development and utilization of land as an industrial area in Sector 58 Faridabad. This was followed by a notification issued under Section 6 of the Act. The award was thereafter pronounced on 19.12.1991. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings for acquisition are arbitrary as they disclose an abject failure on the part of the respondents to apply their mind to the purpose for acquisition proceedings. The petitioner's land is to be used to carve out a greet belt. The site plan, Annexure P -5, however, discloses that the petitioner's land shown, in red, adjoins land shown in yellow, which has not been acquired. It is further submitted that the adjoining land belonging to one Phool Chand was also acquired under the impugned notifications but in his case acquisition proceedings were quashed by the Lok Adalat. The order passed by the Lok Adalat has not been challenged by the State. It is, therefore, argued that it belies comprehension as to how the respondents could propose to carve out a green belt. It is, thus, submitted that as proceedings for acquisition are arbitrary and have been initiated without application of mind, the writ petition be allowed and the proceedings for acquisition be quashed.
(3.) COUNSEL for the State of Haryana, on the other hand submits that proceedings for acquisition are legal and valid and have concluded as the award was pronounced, before the filing of the writ petition. The petitioner therefore has no right, to impugn the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. It is further submitted there was no saw mill in existence, over the land in dispute on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4. As regards the assertion, that the petitioner's land is to be used for carving a green belt, it is submitted that the right of the State to acquire land is absolute. The petitioner cannot dictate, to the State, the manner in which the land should be utilized. As regards Phool Chand's writ petition which was allowed by the Lok Adalat, it is submitted that the order passed by the Lok Adalat, is without jurisdiction and cannot form the basis for quashing acquisition proceedings.;