M.M.KUMAR,J - (1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing notifications dated 23.2.1994 and 20.7.1994 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') respectively. A further prayer has been made for quashing award dated 16.11.1994 (Annexure P.4) passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Sonepat, respondent No. 2. It has also been prayed that the allotment letter dated 14.3.2007 (Annexure P.6) allotting the land to M/s. K.R. Hotels Ltd. respondent No. 4 be quashed.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the land belonging to the petitioner measuring 310.05 Acres was acquired in the year 1994. A notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 23.2.1994 (Annexure P.1). The petitioner alongwith others was afforded an opportunity of hearing under Section 5A of the Act and thereafter declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 20.7.1994. The purpose of acquisition declared in the notification was the construction of Fruits and Vegetable Complex at Kundli in the year 1994. The award in respect of the land was announced on 16.11.1994. The petitioner has alleged that for a number of years no development has been made by the respondents on the land to advance the purpose for which the land was acquired. It has further been asserted that the petitioner felt aggrieved when the land was put to auction by the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) and allotment letter dated 14.3.2007 was issued to respondent No. 4. The case of the petitioner as revealed in the petition is that the purpose of acquisition of land has not been fulfilled at all and the respondents have used the land for profiteering which is impermissible in law. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 1, the stand taken is that during the year 2000 the State Government decided to develop an Integrated Marketing Complex and Food Park at Rai through HSIDC, respondent No. 3 on the land measuring 560 acres which included the acquired land belonging to the petitioner which is a small portion There is virtually no change in the purpose of the acquired land. Respondent-State has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Mahadeo Deoman Rai, 1990(2) RRR 224 : (1990)3 SCC 579 to support the view that the purpose of acquisition may change with the change of time. For the same proposition reliance has also been placed on another judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case S.S. Darshan v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1996 SC 671. In para 2 of the reply filed by respondent No. 1, the fact of filing of RFA No. 872 of 2001 by the petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation granted to the petitioner has also been revealed which is pending adjudication of this Court. It has also been urged that there is huge delay in approaching the Court.
(3.) IN its reply, respondent No. 3 has taken the stand that the State Government ordered transfer of 560 acres of land from the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board to HSIDC. Learned State Counsel has also placed on record a document dated 6.12.2001 (Mark "A") showing that vide order dated 21.12.2000 a decision by the State Government was taken in that regard which was with the object of setting up industrial estate of the units uprooted and shifted out of Delhi as per orders passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the land in question was taken over by HSIDC-respondent No. 3 on 1.1.2001 and development work of the industrial estate is in progress.;